What the West really means to say

“When I use a word,” says Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland, “it means just what I choose it to mean.” If he does not mince his words, this is how a Western lexicographer should define the real meanings of some common terms.

 Aid

The West can no longer afford to give away money. The days when wheat could be given free under US PL (Public Law) 80 are gone. Same is true about grants. So, aid now does not mean grants. It is simply a euphemism for loans. Not even on soft terms, like three per cent interest, no payment for 10 years under a grace period and total payable over 30 or 40 years. We get a good laugh when a poor country’s government proudly tells its people that it has managed to get so many millions of dollars in “aid.”

Arab-Israeli peace process

HAMAS was becoming a real threat and intifada could not be suppressed despite the use of all possible brute force. So, we persuaded Israel to make a deal with Arafat, who was in reality always our own man on the spot. Israel too realized that its young generation did not have the stomach to fight a war. So, we arranged a deal through PEACEFUL NEGOTIATIONS (q.v.) that will give autonomy to Palestinians (that too in a process spread over years, if not decades) in return for providing an arms-free buffer zone to deter any Arab adventurers, the recognition of borders and a huge next-door market for Israeli products.

Arms race

Peace is not good for our war factories (euphemistically called “defense industry”). So, we encourage frequent bushfires among the poor countries (or increase tensions that may cause them). It helps us sell weapons to both sides. If they don’t have the money, we gladly give them loans. (It also makes our hold on them stronger.) If, however, one side starts buying arms from our rivals, we call it “an arms race” and do our best to stop it. We don’t mind if the poor countries spend far more money on military hardware than on social welfare. Even making nuclear bombs, provided it is with our permission, is OK and we won’t call it NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION (q.v.). After all, spending on things like education will make them less dependent on us. And who will subsidize our war industry?

Child labor

The children of the poor everywhere in the world work to supplement family income. We don’t mind it in our own society. But when the children in poor countries make products that compete against ours, our manufacturers howl. So does our labor as the employers lose orders. Therefore, we condemn the poor countries for not looking after their children properly and denying them opportunities for getting education. Then we create hurdles in the import of low-cost products from poor countries. We may even impose a total ban. The poor children lose work and also don’t get education. So, what?

Cold War

The Pentagon and the CIA and their counterparts in the former Soviet Union, under a mutual agreement, had a good time for several decades after the Second World War. Deceiving their respective governments and people into believing the prospects of imminent doom, they got control over huge resources in the name of defense. They even fabricated estimates of the enemy’s strength to create panic. The good times are coming again. The cold war will soon be resumed not only against a nationalist Russia but also between the US and China. Now it will be a war between “democracy and authoritarianism.”

Democracy

There are as many variations of democracy as there are governments. In its best form, democracy prevailed in the ancient civilizations of Asia and Africa but we seldom even mention it. We in the West had to fight hard and long for it and succeeded only recently in our history. It is the best form of government for us but not for the countries whom we want to subjugate and exploit. But the poor of the world too clamor for democracy. So, we install a group of lackeys in the garb of democracy. They do our bidding willingly, even obsequiously. The paraphernalia and rituals, including periodic elections, are the same as we have. The difference is that the people really have no choice. If they are fed up with exploitation, corruption and criminal activities of one set of rulers, we arrange to bring in another group, with the same attitudes and behavior. If things get too hot, we ask the generals to march in for a cooling period. Since no ruler has his roots in the people, he is there only by our leave. If a popular leader emerges and tries to go against our interests, he meets some kind of fatal accident and goes below ground. True democracy comes with universal education and prosperity and we see to it that the poor countries never have them.

Developing countries

We used to call them “poor” when most of them were our colonies. After becoming independent (only legally and technically, that is), they developed sensibilities. On their objection, we coined the term of “developing” for them and “developed” for ourselves. For convenience in reference, some years ago we divided the world into three groups, viz., First (rich western countries), Second (all Communists) and Third (the rest). The third class nations were happy in the naive belief that we had given them status equal to ours! We had merely adopted a more important sounding euphemism in place of “developing countries.” After the Soviet Union broke up and most Communist regimes in Europe fell one after the other like cards (and the remaining started talking of market economy), the “Second World” ceased to exist. We hated the idea of calling the wretched poor countries as “the Second World,” (second to us, that is). So, we reverted to calling them “developing countries.” Developing as markets for us, that is.

Environmental pollution

The Western civilization believes in ruthless exploitation, whether of human beings or of natural resources. While industrializing, we never cared what we were doing to our environment. When we had gone too far, the realization dawned among our people that pollution must be stopped. Strict laws were passed by our legislatures. To obey the laws, our industries had to adopt expensive technologies that raised their production costs enormously. Now they find it still more difficult to compete with their counterparts in poor countries. So, to reduce the cost advantage, we are forcing the governments of poor countries to enforce strict anti-pollution laws. We do know that their pollution is only a fraction of ours but our real concern is not to help them make their environment cleaner but to reduce their advantage in production costs.

Human rights

The ordinary people elsewhere in the world have more or less the same human rights as in our countries but we make it an issue only in case of poor countries. If a small religious community gets into trouble with the majority while serving our objectives, we raise a noise on its behalf. Similarly, we talk of poor human rights in a country when it does not meet our demands. Since we control the world media, we severely damage a country’s image if it does not bow before us. However, we can ignore the issue in higher interests. For example, the requirement of an annual Presidential clearance for continuing the status of most-favored nation in trade with the US was immediately withdrawn after China agreed to persuade North Korea to sign an agreement on NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION (q.v.).

Intellectual property

Now that the poor have started becoming a little less poor and producing many consumer items on their own, we have devised another method to extract more money out of them in the name of protecting intellectual property. We have huge resources for R&D and make almost all inventions and discoveries. Our own markets are large enough to not only recover all our costs but also give good profits. We can easily afford to let the poor countries make their own life a little easier by using our patented and copyrighted material without charge. We must do it, at least as a token compensation for our exploitation of their resources for centuries. But our businessmen are so greedy that they do not want to lose even a penny, if they can help it. They know that their prices, say of books, disks and computer software, are way beyond the purchasing power of readers and users in poor countries. But they refuse to make any concessions. Under their pressure, we force poor countries to succumb to our demands for “protecting our intellectual properties.” We do not allow them even to replicate our agricultural seeds without paying us royalty.

Islamic fundamentalism

The trouble with the Muslims is that they refuse to change their religious beliefs to suit our objectives. (We turned ours out of shape long ago to meet our selfish desires.) We could live even with that if it did not hinder our political and economic aims. However, the Muslims consider their religion as the ultimate guide for human beings and superior to all others and are determined to follow it in all fields of life. We have made some headway in persuading the selfish among them to follow our ways in the name of liberalism and moderation. To put them in better light, we started calling the others as “Islamic fundamentalists.” We thought it was a subtle and yet apparently innocuous appellation but there has been a loud howling everywhere against it. Therefore, our experts of semantics have come up with a substitute: “Islamists.” Let us see how it fares.

Liberalization of trade

Our economies are stagnating, with little prospects for much growth in the near future. Therefore, we have used World Trade Organization (formerly General Agreement on Trade and Tariff) to open the previously protected markets of poor countries. We have forced them to not only open the gates but also reduce the import duties to minimum levels (which we can easily neutralize through under-invoicing and dumping). When a country complains of lack of foreign exchange, we promptly arrange loans through IMF or our own financial institutions to finance its bigger imports. On the other hand, we know how to restrict such imports from poor countries that affect our own people.

New information order

News media is the most effective weapon to win over the hearts and minds of the people. Therefore, we are paying great attention to its use. All popular satellite channels for news and entertainment are owned or controlled by us. So are the international news agencies, like Reuters, Associated Press of America and Agence France Presse. We are forcing poor countries to allow our hired hands to start private radio and television networks so that the state networks lose both their monopoly and their influence. At the same time, we persuade the state-run channels to relax or even abandon their values and standards and follow our agenda in the name of “competition” against the private channels for audience and advertising. Then there are our multinationals controlling multimedia, especially audio, video and computer games. Though foreign ownership of paper media is not allowed legally, we have no difficulty in controlling newspapers and magazines, even book publishing, through their obsequious owners and subservient employees. (We also get excellent intelligence through them on everything under the sun, as they have no difficulty in snooping around among their own people.) Whatever we want in whatever manner is splashed all over. We determine what news is and what should be entertainment. We even decide what the people in poor countries should think.

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs)

We need Trojan horses in poor countries to subvert their religion, culture and social values. Therefore, we get quite easily highly suitable lackeys, who work for us very diligently. In return, we throw them crumbs, which become huge sums for them due to very low exchange values of their currencies. We develop new concepts and introduce new slogans and the NGOs go out of their way to spread them. We also get very valuable intelligence through the research that we assign the NGOs from time to time. It helps in formulating our strategies and policies. The NGOs also keep the intellectuals from doing any work that may be genuinely useful for their society. Thus, the NGOs prepare the ground for our domination over all-important sections of their own countries and help us in our manipulations for our objectives.

Nuclear proliferation

Nuclear bombs gave us a huge advantage as we could cow down the rest of the world whenever we wished. The Big Four of the time (U.S., Russia, UK, France) got them in quick succession. Then we put a ban. (China too blasted its way into the club in 1964 very much against our wishes but we decided to live with it.) Later, we helped some of our henchmen (Israel, South Africa, India) to have the capability clandestinely as we wanted them to seek regional hegemony. But we just cannot tolerate any state getting nuclear capability if there is even a remote possibility of its being used to obstruct our world order. We will not hesitate in destroying a country (Iraq), putting sanctions against it (Libya, Iran) or bumping off its leaders (first Bhutto and then Zia ul Haq) for trying to become a nuclear power.

Peaceful negotiations

There are far too many disputes in the world and we have neither interest in solving all of them, nor have the stomach for it. If a dispute is between countries that have equal importance for us, we do intervene and impose a solution through the UN. If, however, one of them is more important for us and is also in the wrong, we suggest direct peaceful negotiations between them. In reality, it is a way to let the big bully have its way as far as practically possible. We used it successfully for the ARAB-ISRAEL PEACE PROCESS (q.v.) and for a truce between Bosnian Muslims and the Serbs. Now we are trying it between India and Pakistan on Kashmir. We fervently hope India gets what it wants and yet “settle” the dispute.

Population planning

Our population is stagnant or even falling while that of poor countries is increasing. It means trouble for us. If poor countries become better off, they will have much more productive labor, and at very low cost too, turning the migration of our manufacturers towards them into a stampede. (There is already chronic unemployment at a large scale in the West.) If the poor get worse off, they will create such instability all over that our entire world order, even our prosperity, will be in jeopardy. And if, in sheer desperation, the wretched masses start marching on us, all our armies will not be able to stop them from overrunning our lands. Therefore, it is in our vital interest that poor countries stop any increase in their population. We are giving them aid (genuine type) very generously and subverting their religious sensibilities (particularly of the Muslims and the Roman Catholics.) We are especially worried about a population increase in the Muslim World.

Privatization

We have adopted a clever way of getting control over basic infrastructure (like telecommunications) and other public sector industries of poor countries. We pressurize them into paving way for our take-over at dirt-cheap prices and, at the same time, befool their own people into believing that we have been kind enough to “invest” in their economies. We know how to push aside local competitors by giving bigger bribes to relevant bureaucrats (and that too untraceable through foreign accounts). We prefer to buy profitably units. Alternatively, we may play in the stock exchange, make huge profits through manipulations, take our money and run.

World Trade Organization

To improve our sluggish and stagnant economies, we need to enter new markets. The emerging economies can provide a good opportunity but they have been often heavily protected. Therefore, we have transformed General Agreement on Trade and Tariff (GATT) into a new organization and, at the same time, forced them to adopt an agreement under which they will be compelled to open their doors to our imports. While abolishing restrictions on imports, they will also have to reduce the duties to the minimum in the name of LIBERALIZATION OF TRADE (q.v.). As for their exports to us, well, we know enough tricks to restrict them if it hurts.

How to privatize electricity distribution companies and reduce cost of electricity

The privatization of electricity distribution companies (DISCOs) involves some basic questions. The answers to these questions will lead to an alternative proposal that will be quite innovative, will expedite the process of privatization and start bringing in proceeds immediately.

Some basic questions are:

a)     Why does the Government want to privatize DISCOs in the first place?

b)    Why should a foreign or local "strategic investor" be sought, and that too for not more than 26%? Some related questions are:

i)                   What will be the buyer’s interest and objective?

ii)                What will be the likely consequences of the take-over by him?

iii)              What will be its impact on the electricity users?)

Let us take up the questions one by one and try to find their answers.

The objectives of privatization There are two main reasons why the Government wants to privatize DISCOs. One objective is to make the DISCOs efficient companies so that they can not only meet the electricity needs of the country but also make the required investment on their own. Autonomy to the managers of DISCOs under the present system cannot solve the problems because a bureaucratic set-up cannot be turned into an efficient organization simply by giving it autonomy. Habits and culture of bureaucrats may not change even after they are told that they are now "autonomous" in their working, just as an elephant in the zoo will not walk away as a free animal even after its shackles are removed,.

The second objective of the Government is to get substantial funds through privatization. The Government expects to get tens of billions of rupees with the sale of the shares of DISCOs. Since such a huge amount may not be possible to get from our own businessmen or even through the domestic stock exchanges, the Government believes that it can do it only if some foreign investors offer to buy the DISCOs (even if only a portion). 

The consequences of hand-over to a foreigner buyer What will be the consequences if 26 percent shares are sold to foreign strategic buyers and, at the same time, management is handed over to them? Obviously, the strategic investors will be primarily interested in making as much money as they can and in as short a period as possible. It is as simple as that. The interests of the customers will not be their primary concern. As a case in point, the privatization of Karachi Electric Supply Company (KESCO) was a disaster that caused great hardship to customers and highlighted the harm that foreign investors may cause.

Savings not to be passed on to users Foreign buyers will make strenuous efforts to improve operational efficiency. They will not hesitate even in downsizing the present personnel as much as they can to get maximum output per employee. They will also reduce expenses to the barest minimum level.

The improvements, however, will be entirely in their own interest. They will be extremely reluctant to pass on the benefits of efficiency and savings to consumers. The Government will be hardly able to force them to reduce rates and charges in the interest of consumers.

Higher rates for electricity Foreign buyers will do their best to charge as much as possible in order to maximize profit. If a buyer is from a country, which is a big world power, he will not hesitate in using his government’s influence. (What the international investors in independent power projects have been doing indicates what may well happen.) Our Government will not be able to resist the pressures. The increases in electricity rates in recent years provide a good example of the shape of things to come.

No new assets Foreign buyers will not be interested in making any investment that is not recovered with maximum profit. (The present management of KESCO failed to honor its commitments regarding investment.) It takes years to expand infrastructure, such as construction of new transmission lines and replacement of present ones. It will not be in a foreign buyer’s interest to make long-term investments if returns are not to come soon. If he finds that he can no longer make as much money as he did in the beginning, he will look for more profitable opportunities elsewhere in the world. All that he will have to do will be to sell his shares to some interested party or unload them at the domestic stock exchanges. In other words, he will take his money and run.

Little interest The reasons are not hard to find why foreign strategic investors may not be coming forth soon.

a)     A proper and comprehensive evaluation of the assets and liabilities of DISCOSs is not available.

b)    There are huge liabilities in the form of outstanding dues that DISCOs have been unable to recover from influential defaulters.

c)     There are far too many employees to run the operations efficiently and economically.

d)    The prospects for profitability are not rosy at present due to high cost of electricity.

The needs of the people The consumers want basic improvements immediately:

a)     They expect better efficiency and service after the DISCOS are in private hands. And they want the savings in costs (most, if not all) to be passed on to them in the form of lower rates and charges.

b)    They want increase in electric supply to meet fully present and future needs.

c)     They want improvement and expansion in the network so that connections are available also in all villages, even if service in some areas has to be subsidized.

A foreign buyer will be hardly inclined to "waste" his money on doing any of these things, if he does not himself get the major benefit. Nor will he feel any compulsion to do so.

Local buyers as an alternative Local strategic buyers, if available, may have the same thinking as foreigners and try to make as much money as they can. However, they live in this country and cannot afford to annoy the people and the Government beyond a certain limit. They may also be expected to have some consideration of national interest. Therefore, they would be preferable to foreigners. However, the purchase of even the specified minimum ratio (26%) of shares of a DISCO, not to speak of all, will require a sum that a local investor may not have.

The local investors can, however, do it collectively if they agree to join hands in taking over DISCOs, hire professional management, and do not allow any one of them to dominate, if not oust, the others. This will be a tall order.

The third alternative When selling to foreign buyers is not in the national interest and local counterparts are not available, what should be the way out? Go to the people, as wise men say.

At present, the DISCOs have over 20 million customers in total. Why not offer the shares to all of them? Collectively, they may have enough purchasing power to buy all shares, in quarterly installments, if necessary. Of course, not all will get the same number of shares. Some of them may be able to buy just one share each, while others may be able to get big lots.

How to do it? The chief executive of every DISCO will issue a share to every connection holder in his area (for Rs 10 or 100) and include the amount in the next month’s electricity bill. There will be no need for a share certificate. The DISCO records will show that every consumer is a shareholder and a customer will have the electricity bill as proof.

To sell more shares, a DISCO will send a letter to all of its customers, offering its shares to them. The letter, in Urdu, may explain the benefits of buying DISCO shares and the procedure for purchase. It will bear the customer’s name, address and other identifying information as it appears on the monthly bill and will be attached with the bill. Thus, the offer letter will be delivered to every customer along with the bill.

At the bottom of the offer letter will be a form in which the subscriber will fill in the number of shares (in figures as well as words) that he wants to buy and enter the amount that he will pay. Then he will fold the self-addressed, postage paid letter and mail it. The DISCO will enter the payment in the next month’s bill. It may also confirm the sale of shares through a letter to the customer.

The DISCO will deposit the total amount collected through the sale of shares in the Government account with the State Bank towards the retirement of public debts because that is the primary objectives of the privatization.

Offer to be repeated The DISCOs will repeat the offer of shares to customers once every quarter or once every six months. This will facilitate purchases by small customers, who can buy shares from their savings only at intervals. A DISCO will also offer its shares to every new customer on approval of his new connection. As a result, the paid-up capital of every DISCO will continue to grow while simultaneously it will get additional interest-free funds to finance expansion and modernization.

No premium on shares The shares will be sold at face value and no premium will be charged. The reasoning is simple. The people own DISCOs, while the Government is only a representative of the people, or an attorney, so to speak, not the real owner. Therefore, the Government, being only a manager of DISCOs, cannot ask the people – the real owners – to pay any premium on shares.

Direct sale and purchase The sale and purchase of shares will be directly between a DISCO and its customers. If a customer wants to sell his shares, he will surrender his allotment letter against a receipt at the nearest DISCO revenue office or service center. The revenue office of the area, which issues monthly bills to the customers, will immediately give credit to the subscriber’s account for the value of the surrendered shares, while sending the allotment letter to the DISCO head office for cancellation of shares. The credit amount will then be adjusted in the monthly bill of the customer.

This arrangement will have a great benefit. The customer will get his payment for the shares while the DISCO will not have to strain its cash reserves.

Payment of dividends The payment of dividends will also be through credit in the monthly bill of the customer-shareholder. As soon as dividend is declared, whether interim or final, the amount will be credited directly to the bills of all customers-shareholders. The great advantage of this arrangement will be that the DISCO will not have to spend a huge amount on the preparation, issue and safe delivery of dividend vouchers to the customers. It will also save a similar amount on the payment of dividends through banks. The DISCO will have to neither deduct this extra expenditure from the total dividend amount nor add to the company’s normal expenses. In either case, the customers will be the beneficiaries.

Management The Chief Executive of a DISCO will be elected directly by the majority of total shareholders. Before election, every candidate will be required to submit to the shareholders his plan for improvement in operations and services. Every shareholder will have a single vote, irrespective of the number of shares held by him, to avoid dominance of the rich shareholders.

At the end of every quarter, the Chief Executive will submit his progress report, comparing achievements with his target, in a letter that will be attached with the next month’s bill of every customer. At the end of every 12 months, the Chief Executive will seek a vote of confidence from at least two-thirds of the shareholders. He may continue in office as long as he gets a vote of confidence. It will always keep him on his toes.

There will be no need for a Board of Directors as they turn out to be mostly parasites. (The Boards of Directors did little to stop the rot in PIA, Pakistan Steel and other public sector organizations.) However, the powers of the Chief Executive will be defined precisely. In all major matters, he will seek approval of customers through a referendum.

Benefits of being a customer as well as a shareholder A DISCO’s customers will benefit in several ways as its shareholders:

a) They will get the entire profit that accrues to their DISCO. After all, the profit will come from what they themselves pay to the DISCO through their monthly bills.

b) They will get the benefit in both ways: (i) higher dividends in case of profit due to efficiency in operations and reduction in expenditure and (ii) better services due to investment in infrastructure. 

c) The ordinary operations and services will improve tremendously as the Chief Executive will keep the employees on their toes in removing complaints and problems. (Poor service will not get him vote of confidence next year.)

Main benefits The implementation of this proposal will have the following main benefits:

a)     The process of privatization can be started immediately. There will be no need to spend time in making any preparations.

b)    The privatization will be done on "as is" basis, without any need for any detailed studies or restructure.

c)     In a unique situation, the shareholders will also be the customers of the DISCOs and will be the direct beneficiaries of both lower costs and higher profits.

d)    Every DISCO will have the widest possible ownership base. No individual or group will become the majority shareholder. (In case of KESCO, we know what may happen if it occurs.) As a result, there will be no pressures to increase profits at the cost of the customers.

e)     The capital base of the DISCO will continue to expand, allowing it to have interest-free funds to invest in the expansion of its infrastructure. In other words, the expansion and its financing will occur simultaneously.

f)      The middle class investors will get an opportunity for a very safe and profitable investment.

g)     Despite the huge volume of the DISCO shares, there will be no volatile effect on the stock exchanges because the shares will be sold and purchased directly by the DISCOs.

h)    With the entire management being Pakistani, the security and protection of national interests will be ensured.

Reducing cost of electricity

The DISCOs, as buyers, will decide how much to pay for electricity, not the producers determining its price. In other words, DISCOs will decide what price to pay for electricity and to get supplies from which producers.

On the purchase side will be DISCOs: (Hyderabad, Quetta, Multan, Lahore, Gujranwala, Faisalabad, Islamabad, and Peshawar.) Add to them Karachi Electricity Supply Company, which may be asked to sell all its shares to its customers.

On the supply side will be: hydel power producer (WAPDA), thermal power producers, independent power producers, rental power plants, nuclear power plants, others. New power producers will emerge, with their own financial resources. The government will no longer have to allocate its limited resources for power generation, including large dams.

PEPCO will be disbanded because central control of purchase and distribution of electricity will no longer be required. (It is already on its way to abolition.) As a result, its agreements with power producers will be cancelled. (It will not be legally possible to impose present agreements on privatized DISCOs, which will now be public limited companies, owned by its customers.) NEPRA will also be abolished because it will no longer be able to impose its prices on DISCOs.

Consequently, power producers, both public and private, will have to negotiate directly with DISCOs and offer lowest possible prices. DISCOs will not sign long-term agreements because they will always switch to new producers that offer lower prices. Thus, the present producers will have to decrease their costs all the time so that they remain competitive. As lower prices become available, the expensive power producers will go out of business. National Transmission Dispatch Company will continue to get power from producers and transmit to DISCOs, in accordance with the agreements between the sellers and buyers.

Not subject to NEPRA decisions, new power producers will offer lowest prices to DISCOs. Hydel, wind, solar, coal and other alternative energy sources will flourish. The power plants running on very expensive furnace oil and scarce natural gas will seek cheaper energy or will have to be shut down. Chief executives of DISCOs, being answerable to customers-shareholders, will dare not accept higher prices from any supplier at the cost of lower prices available from others.

The suppliers will offer electricity to buyers at their lowest prices. The buyers will select suppliers and place orders with them, depending on price, convenience and other factors. A DISCO may persuade power producers to set up generation plants in its areas on mutually agreed terms.

Line losses A major cause of financial difficulties of DISCOs is line losses. The Chief Executive, under our plan, will formulate targets for reducing line losses to the absolute minimum. He will ensure that his field staff meets the quarterly targets, as he will face a vote of confidence after 12 months.

Power theft through various means will become impossible. If it occurs, the field staff will face the wrath of the bosses as well as the customers. Default in payments of bills, even by the powerful and government departments will also not be tolerated. A DISCO will not have any reason not to recover payments, as it will not be under political pressure. It will be answerable to its customers, not any government authority.

Conclusion The privatization in the past has been more beneficial to investors than the people, who are the real owners. The proposed method will give all benefits to the people, who will be consumers as well as shareholders. The same method may be adopted of Pakistan Telecom Company (PTC), whose customers can be made also shareholders for the shares still owned by the Government. The method of privatization will be a new model for other industries as well as for other countries. 

Press, police and politicians of Britain are “reeking”

During the colonial rule, most people believed that the press, politicians and police of England were ideal. Many still believe it because they do not know that Britain is now a third, if not fourth, class power, unable to take care of its affairs. The Economist, London, gives a reality check in a recent article.

Excerpts of the article:

Press “The biggest newspaper of Britain ignores morals and violates the law to get screaming headlines. It may turn out that the paper was merely the most enthusiastic, ruthless lawbreaker among several.”

“Given the uselessness of the Press Complaints Commission throughout, this affair will only encourage demands for regulatory oversight of the press.”

Police “… the police tend to be hand-in-glove with popular newspapers. An implicit deal applies: we give you stories, you raise the alarm about criminals on the loose. And, occasionally, put your hand in your pocket too.”

Politicians “The politicians who have fulminated against the press over the past few days are tainted, too. Far from urging the police to conduct a full investigation, they have long cosied up to the tabloids.”

“As new allegations of lawbreaking surface, journalism itself is reeking. So are Britain’s politicians and especially its police.”

The Economist, July 7th 2011

Britain's phone-hacking scandal

Street of shame

A full judicial inquiry is needed immediately to clean up British journalism

http://www.economist.com/node/18928406

NOT for nothing is it known as the gutter press. The allegations that the News of the World, Britain’s biggest Sunday newspaper, broke into the voicemail of a murdered teenage girl, is a stain on the newspaper and on News International, its owner. But the stench is much more widespread. As new allegations of lawbreaking surface, journalism itself is reeking. So are Britain’s politicians and especially its police. 

Britain has long had a scrappy press. A brutally competitive newspaper market encourages screaming headlines and intrusive tittle-tattle. In France a politician’s peccadillos may be kept quiet for years. In Britain they are splashed across the front pages. Britons know their newspapers are rude, excessive and unreliable. But they want them to draw blood from politicians and misbehaving celebrities.

Thanks largely to some splendid muckraking by the Guardian, it is now clear how one tabloid obtained some of its headlines. The News of the World seems routinely to have asked a private investigator to hack into mobile-phone mailboxes, which is a crime. Until this week the victims seemed to be celebrities, publicists, politicians and other journalists—the sort of people who, in the British mind, probably deserve what they get. But a lawyer representing the family of the murdered girl claims that police said her phone was hacked in a way that raised hopes that she was alive. The families of terrorism victims, dead soldiers and two other murdered girls are also said to have been targeted. If true, that is callousness heaped on criminality.

Far beyond the printing presses Four deeply worrying questions emerge from this. The first is how a newsroom could run so far out of control. And almost certainly not just one newsroom. In 2006 the Information Commissioner explained that the use of private investigators was widespread. It is notable that Britain’s other tabloid newspapers, which love to kick a rival when it is down, have been disturbingly quiet about the allegations of phone hacking at the News of the World. It may turn out that the paper was merely the most enthusiastic, ruthless lawbreaker among several.

The second question concerns News International, the British newspaper arm of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation. It has consistently ducked and twisted. For as long as they could get away with it, executives claimed the phone hacking was the doing of a rogue reporter. When that argument was demolished, they claimed few knew of wrongdoing. Rebekah Brooks, News International’s chief executive, told staff this week that it was inconceivable she knew of the alleged phone hacking when she was editor of the News of the World. Yet if the allegations are true, many journalists at the newspaper would have known about such practices, and failed to report them. That can only happen in an outfit that has lost any sense of right and wrong. The notion that its rivals were perhaps doing the same thing is no excuse.

Then there are the police. The initial investigation by the Metropolitan Police into phone hacking was pitiful. For years the cops sat on a huge sheaf of seized documents and did nothing. Sloppiness is one thing. But the police tend to be hand-in-glove with popular newspapers. An implicit deal applies: we give you stories, you raise the alarm about criminals on the loose. And, occasionally, put your hand in your pocket too. Files handed over last month suggest that police received some payments from the News of the World.

The politicians who have fulminated against the press over the past few days are tainted, too. Far from urging the police to conduct a full investigation, they have long cosied up to the tabloids. Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair’s powerful director of communications, came from the Daily Mirror. Andy Coulson, who resigned as editor of the News of the World in 2007, went on to run David Cameron’s communications machine. Fear seems to play a role. One member of the parliamentary culture committee alleged last year that members had been warned they could be targeted by newspapers if they insisted on summoning Mrs Brooks to give evidence against her will.

Black, white and red all over It is a depressing mess—and one with wide consequences. As the Times, another Murdoch paper, has correctly pointed out, British journalism is in its equivalent of the MPs expenses scandal. Given the uselessness of the Press Complaints Commission throughout, this affair will only encourage demands for regulatory oversight of the press. This would probably do more harm than good. Britain already has the toughest libel laws in the world, which have been misused repeatedly to protect the rich and the powerful; and giving the state power to regulate the press is a dangerous temptation to governments.

So what should be done? Within News International anyone implicated directly in any aspect of this saga—not just the apparent phone hacking at the News of the World but the obfuscations since—should immediately stand down, pending a proper police investigation. Then there needs to be a judicial inquiry, with the power to call witnesses, including police officers, under oath. That should cover all newspapers, not just Mr Murdoch’s, and ferret out other dodgy activities, such as obtaining private medical records and credit-card transactions. If the result of such an inquiry is a bloodbath in Fleet Street and Scotland Yard, so be it. Mr Cameron’s refusal to push ahead with this forcefully is incredibly cowardly and shortsighted.

Some MPs have called for News Corporation’s purchase of the 61% of BSkyB it does not already own to be delayed, while Britain’s media regulator investigates whether the firm is a “fit and proper” owner of the satellite-TV company. That is a stretch. The acquisition, which this newspaper thought was fair, is a matter of competition law. The regulator can find a broadcaster to be unfit, and yank its licence, at any time.

It also misses the point. Mr Murdoch is a ferocious businessman who has helped steer media through a treacherous digital transition. But if it is proven that News Corporation’s managers condoned lawbreaking, they should not be running any newspaper or television firm. They should be in prison.

Urdu book, offering a plan for eradication of poverty

WORLD AFFAIRS: What we really mean to say

“When I use a word,” says Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland, “it means just what I choose it to mean.”

If he does not mince his words, this is how a Western lexicographer should define the real meanings of some common terms.

Aid
The West can no longer afford to give away money. The days when wheat could be given absolutely free under US PL (Public Law) 80 are gone. Same is true about grants. So, aid now does not mean grants. It is sim­ply a euphemism for loans. Not even on soft terms, like three per cent interest, no payment for 10 years under a grace period and total payable over 30 or 40 years. We get a good laugh when a poor country’s government proudly tells its people that it has managed to get so many millions of dollars in “aid.”

Arab-Israeli peace process
Hamas was becoming a real threat and intifada could not be sup­pressed despite the use of all possible brute force. So, we persuaded Israel to make a deal with Arafat, who was in reality always our own man on the spot. Israel too realized that its young generation did not have the stomach to fight a war. So, we arranged a deal through PEACEFUL NEGOTIATIONS (q.v.) that will give autonomy to Palestinians (that too in a process spread over years, if not decades) in return for providing an arms-free buffer zone to deter any Arab adventurers, the recognition of borders and a huge next-door market for Israeli products. A great beneficiary of the deal will be the US, which will then be able to save billions of dollars that it has to give as aid to Israel every year.

Arms race
Peace is not good for our war factories (euphemistically called “defense in­dustry”). So, we encourage frequent bushfires among the poor countries (or increase ten­sions that may cause them). It helps us sell weap­ons to both sides. If they don’t have the money, we gladly give them loans. (It also makes our hold on them stronger.) If, however, one side starts buy­ing arms from our rivals, we call it “an arms race” and do our best to stop it. We don’t mind if the poor countries spend far more money on military hardware than on social welfare. Even making nuclear bombs, provided it is with our permission, is OK and we won’t call it NUCLEAR PROLIF­ERATION (q.v.). After all, spending on things like education will make them less dependent on us. And who will subsidize our war industry?

Child labor
The children of the poor everywhere in the world work to supplement family income. We don’t mind it in our own society. But when the children in poor countries make products that compete against ours, our manufactur­ers howl. So does our labor as the employers lose orders. So, we condemn the poor countries for not looking after their children properly and denying them opportunities for getting education. Then we create hurdles in the im­port of low-cost products from poor countries, even impose total ban. The poor children lose work but also don’t get education. So, what?

Cold War
The Pentagon and the CIA and their counterparts in the former Soviet Union, under a mutual agreement, had a good time for several decades after the Second World War. Deceiving their respective govern­ments and people into believing the prospects of imminent doom, they got control over huge resources in the name of defense. They even fabricated es­timates of the en­emy’s strength to create panic.
The good times are coming again. The cold war will soon be resumed not only against a nationalist Russia but also between the US and China. Now it will be a war between “democracy” and “authoritarianism.”

Democracy
There are as many variations of democracy as there are governments. In its best form, democracy prevailed in the ancient civilizations of Asia and Africa but we seldom even mention it. We in the West had to fight hard and long for it and succeeded only recently in our history. It is the best form of government for us but not for the countries whom we want to subjugate and exploit. But the poor of the world too clamor for democracy. So, we install a group of lackeys in the garb of democracy. They do our bidding willingly, even obsequiously. The paraphernalia and rituals, including periodic elec­tions, are the same as we have. The difference is that the people really have no choice. If they are fed up with the exploitation, corruption and criminal activities of one set of rulers, we arrange to bring in another group, with the same attitudes and behavior. If things get too hot, we ask the generals to march in for a cooling period. Since no ruler has his roots in the people, he is there only by our leave. If a really popular leader emerges and tries to go against our interests, he meets some kind of fatal accident and goes below ground. True democracy comes with universal education and prosperity and we see to it that the poor countries never have them.

Developing countries
We used to call them “poor” when most of them were our colonies. After becoming independent (only legally and technically, that is), they de­veloped sensibilities. On their objection, we coined the term of “developing” for them and “developed” for ourselves.
For convenience in reference, some years ago we divided the world into three groups, viz., First (rich western countries), Second (all Commu­nists) and Third (the rest). The third class nations were happy in the naive belief that we had given them status equal to ours! We had merely adopted a more important sounding euphemism in place of “developing countries.” After the Soviet Union broke up and most Communist regimes in Europe fell one after the other like cards (and the remaining started talking of market econ­omy), the “Second World” ceased to exist. We hated the idea of calling the wretched poor countries as “the Second World,” (or second to us). So, we reverted to calling them “developing countries.” Developing as markets for us, that is.

Environmental pollution
The Western civilization believes in ruthless exploitation, whether of human beings or of the natural resources. While industrializing, we never cared what we were doing to our environment. When we had gone too far, the realization dawned among our people that pollution must be stopped and strict laws were passed by our legislatures. To obey the laws, our industries had to adopt very expensive methods that raised their production costs enormously. Now they find it still more difficult to compete with their coun­terparts in the poor countries. So, to reduce the cost advantage, we are forc­ing the governments of poor countries to enforce strict anti-pollution laws. We do know that their pollution is only a fraction of ours but our real con­cern is not to help them make their environment cleaner but to reduce their advantage in production costs.

Human rights
The ordinary people elsewhere in the world have more or less the same human rights as in our countries but we make it an issue only in case of the poor countries. If a small community, such as Ahmadis, Baha’is, even Christians, gets into trouble with the majority while serving our objectives, we raise a noise on its behalf. Similarly, we talk of poor human rights in a country (e.g., China) when it does not meet our demands. Since we control the world media, we severely damage a country’s image if it doesn’t bow be­fore us. However, we can ignore the issue in higher interests. For example, the requirement of an annual Presidential clearance for continuing the status of most-favored nation in trade with the US was immediately withdrawn af­ter China agreed to persuade North Korea to sign an agreement on NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION (q.v.).

Intellectual property
Now that the poor have started becoming a little less poor and produc­ing many consumer items on their own, we have devised another method to extract more money out of them in the name of protecting intellectual prop­erty. We have huge resources for R&D and make all the inventions and dis­coveries. Our own markets are large enough not only to recover all our costs but also give good profits. We can easily afford to let the poor countries make their own life a little easier by using our patented and copyrighted material without charge. We must, at least as a token compensation for our exploitation of their resources for centuries. But our businessmen are so greedy that they don’t want to lose even a single penny, if they can help it. They know that their prices, say of books, cassettes and computer software, are way beyond the purchasing power of readers and users in the poor countries. But they refuse to make any con­cessions. And under their pres­sure, we force the poor countries to succumb to our demands for “protecting our intellectual properties.” We do not allow them even to replicate our agri­cultural seeds without paying us royalty.

Islamic fundamentalism
The trouble with the Muslims is that they refuse to change their relig­ious beliefs to suit our objectives. (We turned ours out of shape long ago to meet our selfish desires.) We could live even with that if it did not hinder our political and economic aims. But the Muslims consider their religion as the ultimate guide for human beings and superior to all others and are deter­mined to follow it in all fields of life. We have made some headway in per­suading the selfish among them to follow our ways in the name of liberalism and moderation. To put them in better light, we started calling the others as “Islamic fundamentalists.” We thought it was a subtle and yet apparently innocuous appellation but there has been a loud howling everywhere against it. So, our experts of semantics have come up with a substitute: “Islamists.” Let us see how it fares.

Liberalization of trade
Our economies are stagnating, with little prospects for much growth in the near future. So, we have used World Trade Organization (formerly Gen­eral Agreement on Trade and Tariff) to open the previously protected mar­kets of poor countries. We have forced them not only to open the gates but also reduce the import duties to absolutely minimum levels (which we can easily neutralize through under-invoicing and dumping). When a country complains of lack of foreign exchange, we promptly arrange loans through IMF or our own financial institutions to finance its bigger imports. On the other hand, we know how to restrict such imports from the poor countries that affect our own people.

New information order
News media is the most effective weapon to win over the hearts and minds of the people. So, we are paying great attention to its use. All popu­lar satellite channels for news (BBC, CNN) and entertainment (STAR, ZEE) are owned or controlled by us. So are the international news agencies like Reuters, Associated Press of America and Agence France Presse. We are forcing the poor countries to allow our hired hands to start private radio and television networks so that the state networks lose both their monopoly and their influence. At the same time, we persuade the state-run channels to relax or even abandon their values and standards and follow our agenda in the name of “competition” against the private channels for audience and adver­tising. Then there are our multinationals controlling multimedia, especially audio, video and computer games.
Though foreign ownership of print media is not legally allowed, we have no difficulty in controlling the newspapers and magazines, even book publishers, through their obsequious owners and subservient employees. (We also get excellent intelligence through them on everything under the sun as they have no difficulty in snooping around among their own people.) Whatever we want and in whatever manner gets splashed all over. We de­termine what is news and what should be entertainment. We even decide what the people in poor countries should think.

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
We need Trojan horses in the poor countries to subvert their religion, culture and society. So, we get (very easily) highly suitable lackeys, who work for us very diligently. In return, we throw them crumbs, which become huge sums for them due to very low exchange values of their currencies. We develop new concepts and introduce new slogans and the NGOs go out of their way to spread them. We also get very valuable intelligence through the research that we assign the NGOs to do from time to time. It helps in formu­lating our strategies and policies. The NGOs also keep the intellectuals from doing any work that may be genuinely useful for their society. Thus the NGOs prepare the ground for our domination over all important sections of their own countries and help us in our manipulations for our objec­tives.

Nuclear proliferation
Nuclear bombs gave us a huge advantage as we could cow down rest of the world whenever we wished. The Big Four of 1940s (U.S., U.K., France, Soviet Union) got them in quick succes­sion and then we put a ban. (China too blasted its way into the club very much against our wishes but we decided to live with it.) Later, we helped some of our henchmen (Israel, South Africa, India) to have the capability clandestinely as we wanted them to seek regional hegemony. But we just cannot tolerate any state getting nuclear capability if there is even a remote possibility of its being used to obstruct our world order. We will not hesitate in destroying a country (Iraq), putting sanctions against it (Libya, Iran) or bumping off its leaders (first Bhutto and then Zia ul Haq) for trying to be­come a nuclear power.

Peaceful negotiations
There are far too many disputes in the world and we have neither in­terest in solving all of them, nor have the stomach for it. If a dispute is be­tween countries that have equal importance for us, we do intervene and im­pose a solution through the UN. If, however, one of them is more important for us and is also in the wrong, we suggest direct peaceful negotiations be­tween them. In reality, it is a way to let the big bully have its way as far as practically possible. We used it successfully for the ARAB-ISRAEL PEACE PROCESS (q.v.) and for a truce between Bosnian Muslims and the Serbs. Now we are trying it between India and Pakistan on Kashmir. We fervently hope India gets what it wants and yet “settle” the dispute.

Population planning
Our population is stagnant or even falling while that of the poor countries is increasing. It means trouble for us. If the poor countries become better off, they will have much more productive labor, and at very low cost too, turning the migration of our manufacturers towards them into a stam­pede. (There is already chronic unemployment at a large scale in the West.) If the poor get worse off, they will create such instability all over that our entire world order, even our prosperity, will be shattered. And if, in sheer desperation, the wretched masses start marching on us, all our armies will not be able to stop them from overrunning our lands. So, it is in our vital in­terest that the poor countries stop any increase in their population. We are giving them aid (genuine type) very generously and subverting their religious sensibilities (particularly of the Muslims and the Roman Catholics). We are especially worried about a population increase in the Muslim World.

Privatization
We have adopted a clever way of getting control over the basic in­fra­structure (like telecommunications) and other public sector industries indus­tries of the poor countries. We pressurize them into paving way for our take-over at dirt cheap prices and, at the same time, be­fool their own people into believing that we have been kind enough to “invest” in their economies. We know how to push aside the local competi­tors by giving bigger bribes to relevant bureaucrats (and that too untraceable through foreign accounts). We prefer to buy profitably units. Or we may play in the stock exchange, make huge profits through manipulations, take our money and run.

World Trade Organization
To improve our sluggish and stagnant economies, we need to enter new markets. The emerging economies can provide a good opportunity but they have been often heavily protected. So, we have transformed General Agreement on Trade and Tariff (GATT) into a new organization and, at the same time, forced them to adopt an agreement under which they will be compelled to open their doors to our imports. While abolishing restrictions on imports, they will also have to reduce the duties to the minimum in the name of LIBERALIZATION OF TRADE (q.v.). As for their exports to us, well, we know enough tricks to restrict them if it hurts our interests.
Originally written in 1996. Slightly revised in January 2006.

DTH TV: A pie in the sky?

Why DTH television may not take off with the conventional business plan. Only a whole new approach will ensure success

This article was published, in edited form, in the September 2005 issue of the Karachi-based "Spider," (www.spider.tm) the leading Internet magazine of the country.

The Government issued recently licenses for satellite-based Direct-to-Home (DTH) television service to two private companies and the Pakistan Television. None of them may be able to get its service off the ground. Deep pockets will not ensure success. A large market share at present may not be much of an advantage. Aggressive marketing will only make matters worse for all. However, there is a way out, a viable solution that will create a level playing field for all.
DTH will be a better alternative for the unhappy customers of cable networks. Even the largest cable operators do not always provide satisfactory service. The channels may not have uniform sound and picture quality. The sequence of channels may be altered arbitrarily. Some channels may go off for days or even weeks, leaving (literally) black holes. The choice of channels is not wide if you have no liking for pirated films and puerile con-tent. There are disruptions due to power as well as network failures. Then there is the devil called “loop-holder,” the link between the cable operator and its customers, a sort of local dealer. He may feed into the system what-ever he fancies, from pirated films to local ads, even blue films late at night, if he can get away with it. He may run commercials that are some times as long as half an hour.
DTH can eliminate the problems that cable networks face. It will make the location of the user irrelevant, cutting the umbilical cord, so to speak, of the cable system. You will get the same service whether in a posh urban locality or a village in a remote area. All channels will be digital, giv-ing high broadcast quality. The choice of channels will be extremely wide. Internet will be a great attraction as it can provided as a part of the package. (Cable operators offer Internet as a separate connection.)
DTH will be a distinct improvement over present cable television but may not necessarily be a completely satisfactory alternative on its own. The receiving equipment, consisting of a small dish and a receiver, will require a substantial initial investment for the customer. The cable operators often waive the connection charges.
A DTH operator will have to add a set-top box to the receiver to create different categories of service if many customers want more than the free-to-air package. He can then offer not only paid channels to those who ask for them but also pay-per-view channels to those who want first-run films and live coverage of sports. The set-top box will mean additional cost for the customers or an increase in the monthly payment if it is on lease.
The three DTH services will find it difficult to meet a major requirement of their licenses. Every one is required to provide at least 50 channels in the beginning and increase the number to 300 within three years. That many satellite television channels may not be available over our horizon, at least for the time being, after excluding the undesirable ones. Even if they do become available in the near future, every DTH service cannot offer all of them exclusively. (It will be a logical impossibility.) And if all of them are going to have more or less the same channels, why have three services in the first place?
Three players in the field will make life difficult for the customer also. Everyone will provide its own receiving equipment. If a customer is not happy with one operator, it will be difficult to switch to another service as it will involve payment for new equipment on the one hand while, on the other hand, the present equipment will become useless. The double whammy will prohibit switch-over, putting the unhappy customer in a bind. (The mobile phone users, by contrast, can change the company any time. Next year, they will be able even to retain their phone numbers when they go to another service provider.)
The payment of monthly subscription will be difficult both for the operator and the customer. The use of prepaid cards, like those of mobile phone companies, will require an expensive dealer network all over of the country. Credit cards are increasing in popularity but most customers will not have them for quite some time. By contrast, the cable operators can afford to make door to door collection because their customers are concentrated in small areas.)
It may not even come to collecting subscriptions at all, even if the operator can manage it. To offer the ultimate in piracy, better than even the illegal DVDs, satellite receivers are available in the market that can decode any encryption that the paid channel may have. With two 8-ft dishes, you can get 300-400 channels free of any monthly payment. The cost of the package comes to about Rs 10,000. With an option like that, who will be willing to pay the DTH service several hundred rupees month after month? The feasibility and the business plan may turn into just a sheaf of papers.
Is it possible to overcome this devastating handicap? Yes. Facing the same problem, Doordarshan, the state-owned Indian television, neither sells receiving equipment, nor collects any payments from its DTH customers. That is simplicity itself. The equipment is supplied by dealers of manufacturers. The cost of the system (a receiver and a dish of less than 50cms) is less than Indian Rs 3000, depending on the brand and model. The customer buys the equipment, the dealer installs it on the roof or even a window sill and that’s all. All channels are free.
But then the problem of choice starts. Doordarshan provides 19 channels of its own and a dozen audio channels of state-owned All India Radio. There are only 14 private television channels, all Indian, except BBC World. If a customer does not find much attraction in the state-owned television and radio channels, he will not have much choice.
A free DTH service on the lines of Doordarshan can survive only if it provides virtually unlimited choice of channels. Is it possible? It certainly is but will require thinking out of the box, treading a virgin path off the beaten track.
Look at an example first that will help in understanding the concept. The Civil Aviation Authority builds an airport, provides all required services and maintains all its facilities. Then it opens it to all airlines for their flights. Every airline pays for the airport services according to its number of flights. (The bus stands in cities operate on similar lines, providing common services at a single place to all transporters.)
DTH needs a similar level playing field. The three DTH licensees should abandon their plans to go it alone because they will be only burning their money into smoke. (According to Frost & Sullivan, a respected research organization, no service provider in the Asia Pacific DTH markets has yet attained profitability, despite continued subscriber growth.) Instead, they should join all other licensees of television channels, private as well as public, to form a cooperative, to be called “National DTH Service.” It will provide a common platform, not only giving equal access to all of them but also the maximum possible number of channels (up to 500, possibly even 1000). The cooperative will set up and run the DTH service, with all members sharing the expenses equally.
The members of the cooperative will soon increase far beyond the present about dozen or so satellite channels. Many more are already in the pipeline. Virtual University and Allama Iqbal Open University may have more channels to increase the number of their courses. So may major public sector universities, with a grant from Higher Education Commission to promote distance education. Their students will find it easier and cheaper to study for their degrees through television. (Broadband for Internet is not available to most students even in cities while DTH will reach the remotest places.)
The federal and provincial governments may lease channels to broadcast all their official events live, including the proceedings of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies. They may devote some channels to the Local Gov-ernments also to promote development activities. Ministries, such as those for travel, culture, health, foreign affairs, may like to have their own promotional channels. The sports organizations, especially for cricket, hockey and football, may have their own channels to keep the entire advertising revenue and also broadcast live many more matches.
The lower cost of joining the DTH bouquet will open the door for many more new channels, both public and private. It will be cheaper and much more convenient to provide a terrestrial link (such as optic fiber) to the DTH station than to lease a satellite transponder and use its uplinking facilities. It will be a good bargain for the channels that want to target only the audience in the country and the neighborhood. Every new member will mean reduction in the share of every present member in the expenses of the cooperative.
That will not be all. There are many free-to-air channels already beaming to our area. These are mostly state-owned and will be happy to join to get their message to a much larger audience.
The foreign paid channels will also pay to join the DTH bouquet. The logic is obvious. If the domestic channels will pay to join the cooperative to offer more viewers to their advertisers, there is no reason why the foreign channels should not do the same. The cable operators charge subscription and hence pay the foreign channels. DTH channels will not charge the customers anything and will, thus, pay them nothing. If some foreign paid channels are unwilling, PEMRA may ban their present operations in the country, depriving them of all subscription and advertisement revenue that they get through the cable networks.
In addition to membership dues, the DTH service may get substantial revenue from an unusual source. Every one will be keen to have as high a position as possible in the sequence of channels. The positions may be auctioned, with the channel paying the highest amount will be accessible by pressing just 1 on the remote control, the second by pressing 2, and so on. Some channels may like to have, through the auction process, favorite positions such as 22 or 222 that are easier to dial. A similar plan already gets millions of rupees for the Punjab Excise and Registration Department through the auction of registration numbers for cars in every new series. Besides lower digits, there are other favorites such as 786 (the numerical value of the letters in Bismillah.) Gauhar Ayub Khan, a former National Assembly Speaker, is said to have pulled strings to get GAK1 for his car in the K series of Gujranwala (GA) district.
The proposed DTH service will solve the censor problem. Some foreign channels broadcast content that is objectionable for us. PEMRA has been so far unable to enforce its code, especially in case of small cable operators. In case of DTH bouquet, PEMRA will allow only those channels that are not against our religious, moral and cultural values. That will be an effective defense against foreign cultural invasion. In addition, it may require installation of equipment that delays the broadcast signal for, say 5-15 seconds, so that scenes with sex, violence and other objectionable content may be easily censored in the approved foreign channels.
With hundreds of channels, no monthly subscription and receiving equipment costing no more than an ordinary mobile phone, the DTH service will attract millions of customers. It may even dry up the market for cable networks, which cannot survive without charging monthly subscription. And we shall have a national DTH service that will be a model for other countries.