Basically, my point of interest lies in this paragraph:
And you do not need to own a satellite dish to watch it, as, by government decree, any successful bidder for the TV rights to Indian cricket must allow Doordarshan, the state channel, a feed.
This requirement has been imposed on Nimbus, the production group that recently paid $867 million for a four-year deal with the Indian Cricket Board, and it has served Indian cricket well because it is playing its part in spreading the sports gospel to areas where, thanks to the growth of vibrant cities and improved transport, aspiring cricketers can be put in touch with good facilities and coaches.
So what we have hear is a clear case of restriction on the concept of free markets one which is very dear to Amit and Gaurav, both of whose blogs I am a keen reader of and whose views I respect immensely. Yet, as this article mentions and I think I agree it has been of great benefit to young Indian cricketers in rural areas and Indian cricket in general. About the only persons suffering from it are the guys at Nimbus.
Just to cite some examples of the benefits - the names Pathan, Dhoni, RP Singh, Munaf etc quickly come to mind. Plus the fact that Uttar Pradesh has won the Ranji Trophy for the first time !
So was wondering whether Amit and Gaurav will concede that this is an aberration to their staunch belief in the fact that free markets end up benefiting all or do they not consider this to be beneficial in the long term ??
Me, as I candidly admit am yet to make up my mind on this free market issue. This is just another interesting manifestation of my dilemma that I am pondering over.
4 comments:
An important point you miss is that the regulations in our country make terrestrial television (i.e tv channels which do not require cable connection), a government monopoly for some reason. So if tomorrow ESPN, ZEE, SONY, etc, want to start tv channels which can be seen by everyone even in rural India, they can't do so.
If there existed a true free market scenario, there would be private terrestrial operators as well, who would buy the terrestrial rights for the telecast and beam it to all homes.
What is happening right now is Doorarshan is making money at the expense of some private players. If the DD's main purpose is indeed to just show cricket to the people, why does it show ads, and sponsored analysis shows which help it earn money. If it earns money, then it should rightly be handed over to Nimbus.
Agree?
I knew there had to be a catch somewhere. That was a crucial miss by me, thanks for pointing that out.
Actually you are right on both counts. Given the monopoly DD enjoys it showing ads and earning money is tantamount to stealing from Nimbus.
The only question in my mind is if the monopoly of DD over terresterial TV was destroyed would the other channels be available for free too ?
I presume the monopoly of DD is simply because the Government wants to safeguard its income from that source ?
Also, all the small-town kids you name certainly got satellite TV where they came from, and the rhetoric about "spreading the sports gospel" etc ascribes causality wrongly, in my view. It's actually the satellite TV revolution that took world cricket into these small towns.
Thanks, both.
Amit, not sure of all the youngsters I named but certainly Munaf and I think most likely Irfan came from extremely poor backgrounds. I read somewhere that up until Munaf played the Mohali test he did not have a TV and a phone at home. Of course that in no way supports my original idea about DD carrying cricket helping him out.
I completely agree that satellite TV has revolutionised cricket by bringing world cricket into India. However I am confused as to how it has taken it into the small villages if indeed it does not reach there.
Post a Comment