Daily Times

In 2003, Pakistan was the first country to initiate bidding for Direct-to-Home (DTH) licensing regime in South Asia. It is unfortunate that India, Bangladesh and even a war-torn country like Afghanistan are leading ahead in DTH technology while the media regulatory body — PEMRA — in Pakistan remains indecisive on basic policy issues pertaining to DTH.

DTH should have been introduced in Pakistan on or around the turn of the millennium, but lack of understanding of this business, weak regulator, unclear policy, bad handling, and the non-corporation of two parties who were previously awarded DTH licences delayed the launch of DTH in Pakistan. Both parties who were previously awarded licences neither had allocated enough finances nor did they have the expertise to handle such a challenge, and PEMRA remained clueless with regard to the post-DTH licence award. The unnecessary legal battle that ensued between PEMRA and these parties delayed the matter, causing colossal damage to national media landscape.

This time around the woes of PEMRA with regard to DTH continue. PEMRA’s own board members and management suggest that NAB, FIA and representatives of intelligence agencies should be invited to oversee the DTH process of licensing. It would be startling to witness any of these agencies committing their services at this stage of bidding, and more importantly, embracing the entire process and procedure since this is an exercise that does not fall within their working parameters.

On the contrary, PEMRA should develop a transparent procedure vetted and observed by some renowned firm of auditors and legal experts as a watchdog. One would hope that PEMRA instills confidence in their own people to adopt and nurture a clean internal procedural system, which aims to address all grey areas within PEMRA itself. Inviting investigation and intelligence agencies at this stage indicates that PEMRA and/or the concerned ministry are fearful of a non-transparent and aligned procedural outcome.

If procedures are carried out independently, free from fear and favour, with the capacity to comprehend and manage the modalities of such complex transactions, then it would be safe to say that the organization can face any investigation, even that instructed by a court of law. It would be unfair to expect the existing team within the PEMRA to carry out a complex process such as the bidding of DTH and matters that will subsequently develop due to the bidding.

However, owing to its own shortcomings, PEMRA decided to appoint a foreign consultant to advise them on the complexities of DTH bidding. It would be premature to determine whether this step by PEMRA would have a positive outcome in launching a distribution medium i.e. the DTH system in Pakistan. It was expected that PEMRA would have done its homework to manage the ramifications of such a step, and learn from past mistakes of those wishing to make DTH a reality in Pakistan. Unfortunately, after the report of the legal committee appointed by PEMRA — again by choice and not on merit — headed by Justice (Retd) Ejaz and others apparently addressed serious questions with regard to the appointment of the international consultant. Sources claim that the mandate of PEMRA to carry the DTH regime and procedure was also declared illegal/ unlawful by this legal committee on multiple fronts.

It is no surprise then that PEMRA’s decision to hire a Swiss consultant entailed an outrageously handsome fee and yet produced no negligible results. The onus of this cost with no apparent benefit lies on the former acting chairman and/or management who must be held accountable for gross negligence.

If the role of the PEMRA wasn’t questionable enough in dealing with DTH, one would find even more ominous the reasons that led to the ‘selective’ selection of the legal team headed by Justice Ejaz. Source reveals that a transparent procedure was not followed in constituting a neutral legal team to oversee corrective measures, merely, an attempt at eyewash. Furthermore, it is learnt that the process of DTH regime adopted on the advice of the international consultant has been declared illegal/ unlawful by its own handpicked legal team who held responsible the previous management of PEMRA to complete the DTH process. Question that still remains unanswered is why there was an urgency to speed up the DTH process. And since then what action has been taken by the authority on the illegal/ unlawful act of the previous chairman and the PEMRA board?

Sources reveal that both acting chairmen of PEMRA (Pervez Rathore and Kamal-ud-din Tipu) were declared illegal appointments by the legal committee, which examined the legitimacy and the transparency of the DTH process. It still remains to be seen as to who will be held responsible for these illegal appointments. Furthermore, the cost incurred by PEMRA on these illegal appointees and the decisions made by them all stand invalid. Someone must be held accountable for this professional disarray.

The DTH case does not stand alone as a specimen of PEMRA’s inadequacies. Previously, PEMRA did not consider applying collective wisdom with regard to the case of BOL TV Network. Firstly, the licence of BOL was approved, and then subsequently cancelled due to pressure from government. Thousands of employees of BOL TV continue to suffer due to PEMRA’s sheer negligence.

PEMRA is silent and confused on whether to permit international channels to beam in Pakistan, particularly the Indian content. Without allowing some major Indian entertainment channels the success of DTH in Pakistan remains questionable. PEMRA not only has to decide on the matter of opening Landing Rights regime for Indian channels and deciding percentage of Indian and foreign content on thematic channels, but it must also ensure that the proportion of foreign content being permitted to DTH operators should not undermine the indigenous Pakistani TV channels.

PEMRA has also failed in taming the proliferation of illegal foreign (mostly Indian) DTH Boxes in Pakistan. According to an estimate, 3.5 million illegal DTH systems have penetrated in the country causing larceny of an estimated two billion rupees every month. Stopping this proliferation is crucial to confidence building of any potential investors in the DTH project.

There is also the question of Rule 13 of PEMRA Rules that prohibits any existing or future broadcasters to enter distribution services, which includes DTH. Similarly, Section 25 of PEMRA Act 2007 restricts majority foreign shareholding or management control by any foreign investors. If this clause is not amended, attracting mega investment and attracting qualified investors to DTH would remain an uphill task. On the contrary, if PEMRA initiates amendment in its Act & Rules, it would be a nerve-wrecking process and may cause an inordinately long delay. The credentials of some of the shortlisted companies for DTH remain debatable. The ownership of these companies needs to be very clear to avoid proxies for those wishing to bypass the restriction imposed by Section 25 of PEMRA act and Rule 13 of the PEMRA Law.

Moreover, PEMRA should also not dictate the business and various subscription fee models, or control formation of various bouquets, as this will create unnecessary unrest amongst cable operators and channels in Pakistan. PEMRA plans to issue three DTH licences when even two would be crowding the market. More so, it would be economically imprudent and implausible to issue three DTH licences, keeping in view the capacity and the fragility of the Pakistani market.

It is high time that DTH finds its way inside Pakistan. We are already behind by 16 years. It is a profitable venture with positive financials and economic outcomes and should not be done carelessly. For DTH to succeed — and there are ways and means for a solid and supportive start — PEMRA needs to build confidence of potential stakeholders or those wishing to invest in media broadcasting.

The writer is a media professional, and can be reached at ybmirza@gmail.com