Latest update April 23rd, 2024 12:59 AM
Oct 15, 2017 Letters
Dear Editor,
As a legal challenge against the Broadcasting Amendment 2017 awaits a fixed date hearing on November 6 before the Chief Justice in Guyana’s High Court; the Guyana media landscape continues to be beset with rushed approaches to proposed changes. Not least of these changes is the impact on existing broadcasters forced to re-apply to continue broadcasting or face criminal charges if they do not re-apply, but continue to broadcast.
This is within a time period which must be the shortest in broadcasting history around the world. Against a background of significant erosions of press freedom in a country known for its troubled militarized dictatorship past, such incursions and claims of impact on press freedom meet with a very fragile setting, to raise ready alarm. This is to the point where a number of local and international media organisations have expressed more than disquiet over public service broadcasting requirements in the new law alongside the thorny issue of definition and easy slippage into government propaganda category.
The scrutiny brings out these concerns on public service broadcasting along with the likely destructive effect on broadcasting with regard to the fees’ situation, currently legislated to amounts which are punitive. In 2014, ruling on an action by several broadcasters to overturn a fee demand of $2.5M annually, Chief Justice Ian Chang decided this amount was far too high and disproportionate. In his ruling, he noted the ‘imposition was excessive, exorbitant, unreasonable and without economic and other lawful basis.’ The broadcasters in the court action had submitted the likelihood of facing financial ruin should they be forced to pay 1000% increase in license fees.
In 2017, the broadcasting industry has been legislated into a new arena of fees which goes far beyond 1000% increase and without any meaningful consultation with broadcasters, several of whom asked for a stay on the legislation pending an audience with the Prime Minister and were not granted this audience. How the legislation has served to astronomically raise fees further comes about through a new zoning 2 approach to restrict broadcasters to set zones, presented as payments for separate fees for each zone. This inadequately captures the situation of zoning when considered, crucially so, in conjunction with plans for digitalisation of the industry and recommendations by the ITU 2015 report.
The report was prepared by International Telecommunications Union (ITU) expert, Andres Navarro, jointly with the National Frequency Management Unit (NMFU). The report, Roadmap for the transition from analogue to digital terrestrial television in Guyana,’’ is currently published by NMFU online. The report noted the implications of ongoing spectrum rights and broadcasting rights to the point where it recommended a freeze date for licenses and for licenses not to be issued long-term to allow for the digital switch-over (Navarro 2015: 67).
The report notes: ‘Guyana is in the transition process to a new broadcast regulation and broadcasters were in the process of renewing (or updating) their licenses with the National Broadcasting Act 2011 (see Annex 1) (2015:11). It adds that ‘National Broadcasting Act of 2011 will be revised and possibly the Telecommunications Act of 2011 also be revised’ (p.12). The report (2015:1) notes two meetings, the first included ‘one short meeting with broadcasters’, the second included a meeting with a ‘representative group of broadcasters.’
A question remains as to the extent the Broadcasting Amendment 2017 incorporates or has the effect of incorporating recommendations in the ITU report as the likelihood that it serves to address the recommendations in the ITU report by default cannot be easily discounted. It is a sudden legislation which looks set to impact on broadcasters who have set up infrastructure on the basis of their existing rights, so far unfettered until this sudden imposition of the new law.
In a challenge to the zoning requirements and related issues, already one broadcaster, Freedom Radio Inc., in an action led by the former attorney general, Anil Nandlall, is before the court for relief and seeking to have various sections of the Broadcasting Amendment 2017 struck off.
The broadcaster on the new huge fee increase has noted these will skyrocket to over $7.5M annually in areas it is currently transmitting and which have been newly-zoned into separate fees under the new legislation. If the fees’ setting discussed at the time of Justice Chang’s ruling, is considered, this appears to be an increase of some 3000%. The broadcaster in its legal challenge is also claiming constitutional violations in relation to public service requirements and the requisition of airtime (on demand) at any time between 6 am and 10:00pm, as prime time, without any compensation. 3 However, the equally if not more troubling issue with regard to the new legislated zoning requirements and humongous fees for all zones returns to the ITU report. More in a forthcoming letter
Lalan Kumar
LISTEN HOW JAGDEO WILL MAKE ALL GUYANESE RICH!!!
Apr 23, 2024
Kaieteur Sports – Over the weekend, the prestigious Lusignan Golf Club played host to the highly anticipated AMCHAM Golf Tournament, drawing golf enthusiasts and professionals alike from across...Kaieteur News – Just recently, the PPC determined that it does not have the authority to vitiate a contract which was... more
By Sir Ronald Sanders Waterfalls Magazine – On April 10, the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]