Just scrap it

If the government does finally come out with an ordinance to scrap the Conditional Access System (CAS) for watching cable television, as reports suggest it is planning, it will be a welcome victory.

A victory not just for consumers who refused to be pressured into buying expensive set-top-boxes that would have seen monthly cable bills almost double for most of them, but also for a government that has finally seen the futility of trying to regulate technology choices in an industry that is evolving so fast.

For, as consumer groups have been arguing for several months, why should they be forced to buy the relatively less versatile set-top boxes when some media groups have been promising to come out with direct-to-home apparatus at more or less the same prices?

Indeed, even telecom companies that have wired up large parts of the country are firming up plans to offer a bouquet of services to customers, including a clutch of television channels, Internet access, and a lot more.

In such a situation, forcing one particular technology was a definite mistake. It didn't help that despite several months of so-called preparation, the implementation of CAS has been terrible, with customers complaining of their set-top boxes not functioning.

Issues like this, of course, have not only come up in other areas in the past, they will increasingly come up in the future.

Internet telephony, for instance, was a natural consumer response, once technology made it possible, to long-distance call rates that were exorbitant.

While the government declared it illegal, this is not what stopped its progress "" what stopped it was the fact that its quality was still not of adequate quality. And now that this has vastly improved, Internet telephony's usage is certain to increase for domestic long distance calls.

Already, Internet telephony for international calls has been allowed. The same is true for wi-fi connectivity.

While this is allowed only in closed spaces, like for instance in cafes and bars, there have been several successful examples of connecting larger open areas, like university campuses.

If the government continues to declare this illegal, and in a sense tries to dictate technology choices, all that will happen is that wi-fi will flourish in the grey market.

And why not, since consumer choice, and convenience, will increase with it. This, the government will argue, is precisely why it went in for 'unified licence' for telecom.

But the 'unified licence' issued was limited just to allowing WiLL-mobile firms into the cellular mobile market, nothing else ""Internet telephony, and long distance were, for instance, kept out of its ambit.

Besides, while a genuine unified licence (actually, why have a licence at all?) is desirable, licence holders still need to be compensated for their contracts being violated.

In real life, of course, it is not just technology that determines consumer choice, and this is another area the government needs to work on.

While CAS is being objected to by consumer groups today, one of the reasons why it was thought of was precisely because these consumer groups complained they were being fleeced by the cable operators.

So, when the government finally does decide to scrap CAS, it will still have to find a way to rein in the cable operators who, today, have successfully managed to prevent more than one operator from functioning in most areas. Otherwise, the consumer will continue to be held to ransom.