THE EDITOR, Sir:
THE BROADCASTING Commission read with interest an article penned by Mr. Dennie Quill, which was published in The Gleaner of October 31, 2003, and is compelled to respond to the writer's three propositions about the cable industry in Jamaica.
Firstly, with regard to recent suspension of cable operators for breach of copyright obligations, Mr. Quill is inaccurate in naming the Broadcasting Commission as the agency that published the print notice with the names of the suspended subscriber television operators. The notice was in fact issued by the Minister of Information.
SANCTION
As the Commission's representative with whom Mr. Quill spoke sought to convey, the Broadcasting Commission does hold the view that the suspension of licences is not the most desirable form of sanction for cable operators who commit breaches, including copyright breaches. However, until work is completed in revamping broadcasting legislation to bring into effect a broader range of penalties, including fines, the regulator has little choice.
The Commission must continue to fulfil its statutory duty by recommending that the available forms of sanction be applied to licensees who fail over time to heed continued warnings.
At present, the Broadcasting and Radio Re-diffusion Act makes very limited provision for punishing licensees who do not address breaches. It provides for public apology, suspension and revocation of licences.
The first two public notices from the Minister warning of the intention to suspend licences for breach of copyright law was published four months before the sanction was applied. There was a high level of public awareness that the Minister's action came after a long period of facilitation, which explains why there was little negative public reaction to the suspensions.
In light of the foregoing, Mr. Quill's critique of the recent regulatory action against cable operators who refused to correct programming irregularities seem unduly harsh.
ECONOMIC REALITIES
With regard to Mr. Quill's expressed views on the present market structure and local programming development, two points must be noted.
Although there is merit in the argument that greater economies of scale should redound to enhanced capacity for service provision, we must consider that some cable operators are pursuing synergies with other licensees and local content producers to deliver service and create content. It would also be true to say that improvements are being made to the quality of local cable content, such that some programmes produced for cable are now being offered on free-to-air television. Clearly, more needs to be done, but as demonstrated time and time again, it is not an insurmountable challenge for Jamaicans to create content that is of international calibre and appeal.
In the face of these initiatives, the Broadcasting Commission would be unwise to hastily intervene in the market with the specific intent to limit the number of players. It should also be considered that the existing zonal configuration supports the development of community-based programming. In any event, it is an inaccurate impression that the provision of cable service is only on a zonal basis. In February 2002, an islandwide licence was granted for the provision of wireless subscription television service.
COARSENESS AND GYRATION
Lastly, Mr. Quill's assertion that 'coarseness and gyration' is the entire substance of local programming on cable is happily not true. While the Broadcasting Commission is yet to complete content reviews of the entire range of local channels, which currently number 54, it has determined that the range of programming is wide. Such programming includes environmental, religious, financial, sports, documentary, historical, current affairs and other extremely valuable programmes that might never have seen the light of day without the initiative of Jamaican cable operators and local content creators.
I am etc.,
CORDEL GREEN
Executive Director
Broadcasting Commission
