[harishankar]

One of the biggest issues in recent times, particularly after the implementation of CAS (Conditional Access System) in India is the question of whether cricket broadcasting in India (and indeed around the world) should remain free to air or not. The issue has several dimensions to it particularly when we consider that the producers, broadcasters, sponsors, cricket boards and the ICC frequently engage in heated courtroom battles to settle contract and telecast rights issues (especially in the sub-continent). We've been seeing this happen year after year with no end is sight. The issues are far from settled and every time there is a series played by India at home or abroad (and especially at home), the dust is kicked up all over again.

For several years now, Doordarshan has remained the savior of the masses. The National broadcaster has always got the telecast rights to events played within India (whether Test Cricket or ODI cricket) but they have had to be judicially warned quite a few times not to step over the line when it comes to sponsorship and advertising. Whenever the pay channels have tried to hold on to their exclusive rights, the Courts have stepped in and come to the rescue of the common man. The situation is, of course, different whenever India plays overseas, as ESPN-Star and ARY/Ten Sports have had a stranglehold in this area. The result of this arrangement is that if you want to watch India play overseas, you need access to ESPN, Star Sports and Ten Sports, all of which require subscription. Another classic example of an influential pay-channel which would strike an immediate chord with English fans, is Sky Sports. While Sky, no doubt, is a high quality network dedicated to the coverage of English cricket, how many people can afford to pay hefty rates (besides invest in digital set-top boxes and dish-antennae)? Where should the line between "paying for quality" and "keeping it free for the masses" be drawn?

While the increasing influence of pay-channels and their growing clout in digital live telecasting is a cause for concern in itself, what really adds to the noise and fury is the proliferation of new channels, producers and broadcasters who step into the arena to do a no-holds-barred battle for commercial rights. There is a real danger of television rights becoming extremely fragmented as telecasters try to maximize their immediate profits and lose sight of long-term production ethics and quality. The most opportunistic among these new channels not only decide to go the pay route one fine morning with absolutely no warning, but also end up taking on a huge number of sponsors. Of course, during the limited commercial breaks in live telecast, they try to squeeze in as many advertisements as possible. The viewer ends up with substandard quality of telecast with quite a chunk of the action being cut off in favour of commercial time (an example of this is missing the first ball of an over which is one of the most frustrating aspects of watching live cricket). Even Doordarshan, which is supposed to be public-minded and unmotivated by profits, has been guilty of such tactics in the past. Imagine the position when a lesser known channel suddenly gets the rights to a major event how much sponsorship it would squeeze out. Of course, the hapless viewer has no choice but to accept it as he has had no say in the whole matter.

The whole situation becomes worse for a viewer when Channel A has the rights to tournament X, Channel B has the rights to event Y, Channel C to series Z and yet another channel has the rights to P, Q and R events. And when each of these channels decide to restrict free access it ends up becoming very hard to digest. Such a circumstance not only confuses average cricket fans, but also forces them to pay for multiple channels when all they want is a few events from each. A small percentage of the population can afford to pay a premium for this privilege, but the majority are left in the lurch.

Competition is usually supposed to be good for the end consumer. Unfortunately as far as telecast rights are concerned, it appears that the more competition there is, the worse the position becomes for the viewer. And this is because money is put ahead of principles and cricket becomes yet another opportunity to make mountainous profits.

My personal formula is that Cricket should remain free-to-air for the most part, particularly when it comes to important tournaments like the ICC Champions Trophy and the World Cup. Again, events which are of major interest to a particular nation should be carried free-to-air on the National networks of those countries. Of course, cricket played by third nations can remain within the purview of Pay channels because the few people who really enjoy watching Cricket will be ready to pay in such instances.

It may never happen this way, of course, but public interest demands that we at least try and approach this ideal state of affairs by pressurizing our democratically elected governments to step in whenever there is a clear case of opportunistic abuse of telecast rights by private interests. Maybe it's time to express our displeasure by saying "no" to Cricket whenever we are forced to pay a King's ransom for it.

[sohum]

You have raised some interesting points here. I remember the times when I, sitting in Indonesia, could hoist out a satellite on my terrace and catch the coverage of ESPN/Star and the 1996 World Cup. Those days are now in history as cricket, becoming lucrative, has began to bear the ugly side of commercial battles.

However, I do not think it would be right to say that the current state of affairs is a free market. And I definitely do not think that the government stepping in to control things would be good, either. While Doordarshan stepping in to provide the telecast allows the game to be aired to the masses, the better-off cricket fan is robbed of a quality telecast. Every time there was a series in India, I would groan, because I would have to deal with the disturbing commentary of Kris Srikkanth and a bunch of unknowns, and of course, the odd switch into Hindi commentary.

I think the root of the problem is not actually the producers of cricket (the channels, et al), in India, but the actual system we have in place for television. Cable operators were making more moolah than they should have been by reporting low subscriber numbers, and the channels had to continually increase their rates to keep up with the cost of cricket. Even as cricket becomes more popular, channels' costs are rising due to inflation, and the need to rope in the best in the business. Everyone is playing their part in bringing the price up for the consumer--the commentators for demanding more money, the cable operators, even the team itself! India was recently sponsored by Nike for a ginormous amount--they themselves may have backdoor business affiliations with channels.

I just heard about the Conditional Access System being brought in India, and I was always in favour of it... until I heard about the ludicrous fees they are charging. If we free up the market for cable operator providers, we will see a lower cost. From what I understand, the cable operators are still at independence to charge whatever they want for CAS.

It's a difficult problem--especially in India where we will see channels cut off telecasts, cable operators stealing feeds from each other and the like. With the development of broadband internet and technology, however, I think in a decade and maybe less, we could feasibly eliminate the TV industry completely. That, in itself, however, would bring about a whole host of other problems.

[icyman]

Well,very good article ,i must say.
Here i am,a victim of the Neo sports blackout for the first Odi between the Windies and India.
These issues spruce up every now and then and continue for a long long time.I still remember the fight that took place between DD and Ten sports for the telecast of the India-Pakistan series of 2004.
As hari rightly points out,Channel A gets a particular serie rights whereas Channel B the other.It's no wonder that commercial channels like Zee and Sony have also stepped in this territory.
Agreed that all this will take a toll on the consumer,but the answer is not free-to-air cricket.Let cricket not be confined to a particular channel.Why not have a system wherein you can have a simulcast of the event ?
Lets say Espn and DD showing the same match.Ppl who do not have Espn will definately switch over to DD for the telecast.

[Skater]

Good article. Obviously as I'm living in the UK I wouldn't understand the situation in India, but here broadcasting rights are a huge issue. I think it would now be impossible to have cricket solely on the BBC or Channel 4, so we would have to compromise.

In football, the UK's national sport, the BBC, ITV, Channel 5 and Sky Sports share coverage. You will see selected FA Cup matches on the BBC, selected UEFA Champions League matches on ITV (whether that be ITV1, ITV2 or ITV4), selected UEFA Cup matches on Channel 5 and selected Barclays Premiership, Coca-Cola Football League, Nationwide Conference, Bank of Scotland Premier League, Tennants Scottish Cup, FA Cup and UEFA Champions League matches on Sky Sports.

I think one of the tests against Bangladesh in 2005 was on Channel 4 and the other on Sky Sports. Why can't they do the same every year? Share the coverage?

[Abhas]

Originally Posted by iceman_waugh

Well,very good article ,i must say.
Here i am,a victim of the Neo sports blackout for the first Odi between the Windies and India.
These issues spruce up every now and then and continue for a long long time.I still remember the fight that took place between DD and Ten sports for the telecast of the India-Pakistan series of 2004.
As hari rightly points out,Channel A gets a particular serie rights whereas Channel B the other.It's no wonder that commercial channels like Zee and Sony have also stepped in this territory.
Agreed that all this will take a toll on the consumer,but the answer is not free-to-air cricket.Let cricket not be confined to a particular channel.Why not have a system wherein you can have a simulcast of the event ?
Lets say Espn and DD showing the same match.Ppl who do not have Espn will definately switch over to DD for the telecast.

Ya agreed... even i am a victim of neo sports blackout... (even though i have tata sky, which used to telecast neo sports until a week ago, when i realized, there's no neo sports on my tv anymore).

The consumers need to buy *ALL* sports channels to watch cricket, because as it is generally seen, and rightly pointed out, each series goes to a different telecastor.
DD should get a feed for all matches ateast within india, (there is a DD Sports channel, which can be easily utilised, as it is a waste at the moment....)

though i would not recommend only cricket to be free to air, as it will be bias against other sports like football, hockey, etc... (even though a mass community in india follows only cricket) the solution could be regulation so as to have only one channel showing all the cricket matches of india.

eg: espn can show all the matches concerning india
rest of the channels can show the other matches, like aus vs NZ...

Excellent thread though, and a nice issue for discussion

[siddharth2002]

Here's an interesting discussion we had long time ago regarding this broadcast issue.
Say no to Doordarshan

[Abhas]

thats pretty interesting, but the thing is, with the introduction of DTH, like TATA Sky, the viewers have to buy a package, which consists of many channels, and we *cannot* buy channels other than what the company has to offer, so, that basically means, even if i'm ready to pay, i'm not getting the coverage of the matches (eg Neo sports, which was taken off-air, without any notice about a 10 days ago)... if we had telecast on doordarshan, then that would have been better than just checking out the scores on cricinfo...
so... in my opinion, DD is not that bad, it can be used as a parallel telecast, so that all viewers get to see the match. Exclusive rights to DD might not be a good option, since they have a really poor team of broadcastors...

[Kshitiz_Indian]

I think we have all channels in dish tv 270 something package, need to confirm.

[Abhas]

ya...but *NOT* Neo sports... which they have advertised, but has been discontinued...

[Skater]

The picture quality for today's ODI between India and the West Indies was significantly better than it was for England's tour there last year.

[langerrox]

Originally Posted by skateboarder

The picture quality for today's ODI between India and the West Indies was significantly better than it was for England's tour there last year.

upgrading ready for the world cup i think

[sohum]

What is this Neo Sports? A new channel?

[harishankar]

Neo Sports belongs to Nimbus, I think...

[siddharth2002]

Originally Posted by langerrox

upgrading ready for the world cup i think

yeah, I also heard about HD broadcast somewhere.

[WestIndian]

Yes Neo Sport belongs to Nimbus, was launched in October last year and it is a 24-hour cricket television.