The amendments to the broadcast law reflect societal consensus

Aug 27, 2017 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
In my previous letter, I ended it by stating I will clarify on the issue of consultations. I am doing so now
1. I wish to state from the outset that I am not aware of any consultations held on the specific text of the BA 2017 after they were drafted. However, the fact that they were being developed has been it the media and public domain (ad nauseum) for well over a year and members of the public (including some prominent citizens) took the opportunity to offer suggestions during that period. One such person is Mr. Mark Benschop who offered suggestions for revised fees structure and small community based broadcasting stations. Mr. Dean and Mr. Kelly of Digicel Caribbean and Digicel Guyana voluntarily visited the Authority to offer suggestions with respect to content copyright protection for Broadcasters who purchase exclusive rights to certain programs.
2. I maintain that prior to the drafting of the Bill wide consultations were held with the majority of known stakeholders. Please allow me to provide a brief highlight of some pertinent contributions:
a. In a meeting with Ms. Bibi Shadick she gave strong opinions with respect to fees, it was her expressed opinion that the annual base fee of $2.5M is reasonable and she does not support a downward review and those who cannot afford it should seek to get out of the business.
b. At the meeting between myself and the pair of Shadick and Nandlall, Mr. Nandlall was very verbose about maintaining the annual licensing regime, he offered several convincing arguments for not handing out multi-year licenses.On the other hand, Ms. Beverly Harper and team from Ansa McAl/Guardian Media advocated for multi-year licenses.
c. Mr. Anand Persaud of NTN and Ms. Sheliza khan of Stabroek News Inc. pleaded for regulations to prevent other stations from showing content to which they held exclusive broadcasting rights. Mr. Rudy Grant of Ring Bang Radio offered many insights on legal regimes for music copyrights with respect to Broadcasting and the pay per play concept.
d. Mr. Bobby Ramroop of TVG/RGI didn’t like the idea of zoning, he espoused the view that multiple zones and multiple channels are unnecessary because the Guyanese population is too small for such regime. He also opined that the Authority can issue one frequency per a video/sound stream and that the holder of the frequency has to work out his technical salvation to get his sound to the greatest number of people.On the other hand, Mr. CN Sharma of CNS 6 and Mr. Alfro Alfonso of Pinacle Radio supported the idea of having zones, they remonstrated against been kept to a certain geographic range while others were freely allowed to penetrate their signals to far flung areas, it was their belief that zoning regulations would solve this issue.
e. Ms. Blackman of HBTV 9, Mr. Christe of LRTV 10, Mr. Rambarran of DTV 8 and several other Broadcasters advocated for fee reduction based on maximum captive audience. Mr. Max McKay of WRHM 7 asked that the laws requiring two separate licensing fees (one for spectrum at NFMU and one for rights to Broadcast at GNBA) be reviewed for numerous reasons, he offered.
f. Ms. Carolyn Walcott of UG, Dr. Paloma Mohamed Martin and Mr. Robert Forrester all made suggestions for regulating community broadcasting (to aid the resurrection of UG broadcasting service among other things), insights with regards to the implementation of media codes and aspects of self-regulation through a representative a body similar to GMPA.
g. The Inter Religious Organisation and non-affiliated religious bodies had formal sessions at the AC Convention Center. They made contributions that included issues concerning rating and filtering of contents to protect children and basic guidelines for content that is morally sound.
h. Mr. RrawleFergeson of HJ Radio/TV and Mrs. Molly Hassan of NCN advocated for rules governing local content to encourage greater access to the airwaves by home bred producers.
i. Cable operators were almost unanimous in their call for broadcasting zones and rules preventing one player from achieving near monopolistic dominance. They specifically argued that the BA 2011 prevents one entity from dominating any broadcasting sector and that cable broadcasting was a distinct broadcasting sector and rules should be put in place to manage this development. They further argued that they were deliberately hampered in their quest to grow while certain entities were given unbridled opportunities to grow; they made regulatory proposals to remedy and prevent this happening in the future.
3. There were many persons who wrote in the opinion columns of several dailies to offer suggestions on regulatory framework, these were meticulously cut out and bound by the GNBA. Numerous other persons offered their opinions through various other mediums including respected Charted Accountant Mr. Nizam Ali who offered comments on financial regulations, Mr. Michael Forde offered suggestions about transmission properties and their relation to defined zones. I regret that the Authority wasn’t able to meet with the principals of the National Commission on Disability to take on board suggestions to regulate broadcasting to facilitate better access to broadcasting services by persons with disabilities.
4. I wish to reiterate that all television Broadcasters were invited to a group consultation at the GNBA and held discussions with the entire Board; matters relating to regulatory reforms were discussed.
All of the consultative engagements outlined above combined to play a major role in shaping the 2017 Amendments. Some may wish to argue (and they have that right) that another round of consultations should have been held with the specific text of the amendments before going to parliament, this type of argument is purely one of personal preference and procedural semantics. It is however, a gross misrepresentation of the facts in a way that has caused public mischief and unnecessary international alarm to hold out that no consultations were held. This sort of behavior is highly suspect in light of the fact that Guyanese from all walks of life were able to make unrestrained comments about upgrades to the regulatory framework.
The PPP as a party represented by 32 MPs had its day in parliament, there is also a guaranteed seat on the GNBA Board where the party can ably consult with and make representations on behalf of its constituencies. The party failed to take up this seat for more than a year in a pledge of noncooperation perhaps as part of a larger plan to destabilize the entire national regulatory apparatus no doubt to stymie efforts at ushering good governance. Though not perfect, the Amendments are a fair reflection of the views of the majority of stakeholders.
Leonard Craig

---

---