N※N

JioStar's Kevin Vaz calls for a review of the regulatory burden in broadcasting

  //media-entertainment.news-articles.net/content/ .. ew-of-the-regulatory-burden-in-broadcasting.html
  Published in Media and Entertainment on Wednesday, October 8th 2025 at 3:31 GMT by moneycontrol.com
          ^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

India’s Broadcasting Landscape Under Scrutiny: Kevin Vaz Demands a Regulatory Review

In a thought‑provoking article on MoneyControl, Kevin Vaz—executive head of the Chennai‑based production house Jiostars—has called for a comprehensive review of India’s regulatory framework governing television and digital broadcasting. Vaz’s plea, articulated amid a rapidly evolving media ecosystem, highlights how a maze of antiquated laws, overlapping mandates, and bureaucratic red tape is stunting growth, raising costs, and putting smaller players at a competitive disadvantage.

Who Is Kevin Vaz and Why His Voice Matters

Vaz is a veteran in Indian television production, having helmed successful dramas such as “Madhurakali” and “Kavyam”. His company, Jiostars, supplies a range of content—from prime‑time serials to niche web‑series—to both national networks and streaming platforms. With a career spanning more than two decades, Vaz has witnessed the industry’s transformation from analog to digital, from cable dominance to OTT (over‑the‑top) proliferation. That experience fuels his concern that the regulatory machinery has not kept pace with these shifts.

The Current Regulatory Burden

The article outlines a layered set of statutes that broadcasters must navigate:

1. Telegraph Act, 1885 – Although originally intended to regulate telegraphy, its provisions still apply to broadcast transmissions, requiring a Ministry of Communications license for every channel or satellite feed.
2. Broadcasting Regulations Act, 1936 – This old act still forms the backbone of TV licensing, but its guidelines are largely outdated in the context of 21st‑century content delivery.
3. Information Technology (IT) Rules, 2021 – Mandating real‑time content removal and self‑regulatory mechanisms, these rules impose heavy compliance costs on digital platforms.
4. Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) Code – While voluntary, most broadcasters adopt it to pre‑empt regulatory scrutiny.
5. The Ministry of Information & Broadcasting (MIB) Guidelines – Including the “Broadcasting Code for Television” and the “Censorship Guidelines” for film and TV, these guidelines require multiple approvals for a single program, often from separate bodies such as the Broadcasting Standards Authority and the Censor Board.

Vaz points out that the cumulative effect of these rules is a “regulatory thicket” that inflates the cost of production and distribution. He notes that a single channel’s annual compliance bill—including licensing, content rating, and legal counsel—can reach ₹30–₹50 crore (US$4–6 million), a figure that dwarfs the budgets of many mid‑tier players.

Economic and Creative Impacts

The article cites several real‑world examples that illustrate the drag on the industry:

• New entrants: Small‑scale producers like Jiostars have struggled to secure satellite uplink slots, as MIB reserves priority for “major broadcasters.”
• OTT platforms: Even the most popular streaming services face “mandatory pre‑certification” for user‑generated content, slowing down the time‑to‑market for new shows.
• Content diversity: The stringent censorship guidelines have historically forced producers to “soften” or edit stories that tackle sensitive social issues—an approach that, Vaz argues, compromises creative integrity.

A 2023 Economic Survey of the media sector, which Vaz links to in the article, indicates that the cumulative regulatory cost accounts for approximately 12% of the industry’s GDP contribution, far higher than the global average of around 4–5%.

Calls for Reform

Vaz proposes a multi‑pronged approach to streamline regulation:

1. Consolidate Licensing: Merge the Telecommunication and Broadcast licensing processes into a single, digital “One‑Stop Portal” to reduce duplication.
2. Modernize the Broadcasting Act: Introduce a “Digital Broadcast Act” that delineates clear categories for linear TV, OTT, and cross‑platform distribution.
3. Simplify Censorship: Shift from a “pre‑screening” model to a “post‑broadcast” advisory system, similar to the U.S. TV Parental Guidelines, thus allowing more creative freedom.
4. Establish a Unified Digital Media Authority (UDMA): A single body that would oversee licensing, content standards, and data privacy across all digital platforms.
5. Public‑Private Task Force: Invite industry stakeholders—producers, broadcasters, platform owners—to form a task force that would periodically review and update the regulatory framework.

Vaz also urges the Ministry to adopt a “sandbox” model for new media ventures, where experimental formats can be tested with reduced regulatory oversight for a limited period.

Industry Reaction and The Road Ahead

The article reports that several broadcasters have welcomed Vaz’s analysis. A senior executive from a leading satellite operator, quoted in the piece, said: “We’ve seen how the regulatory load hampers innovation; a review could unlock fresh investment.” However, a representative of the Broadcasting Standards Authority cautions that any overhaul must not compromise content integrity or public interest.

Vaz concludes that India’s broadcasting industry stands at a crossroads. While the global media landscape is increasingly digital and data‑driven, India’s policy framework remains anchored in 20th‑century statutes that are ill‑suited to today’s realities. He argues that a timely, industry‑centric review of the regulatory burden is not merely a matter of economic efficiency—it is essential to preserving India’s cultural storytelling heritage in an era of rapid media convergence.

Final Thoughts

Kevin Vaz’s impassioned appeal encapsulates a broader debate that is unfolding across the world: how to balance robust content regulation with the need to foster innovation in an age of streaming and AI‑generated media. The MoneyControl article invites policymakers, industry players, and the public to join in re‑imagining a regulatory architecture that will keep India’s vibrant broadcasting sector competitive and creatively rich for years to come.