ITV

Category: Regulators

  • Four broadcasters to examine headend of MSO to ensure rectification of defect pointed out by BECIL

    Four broadcasters to examine headend of MSO to ensure rectification of defect pointed out by BECIL

    New Delhi: Multi Screen Media Pvt. Ltd, Star India, Taj Television, and Indiacast UTV Media Distribution Services Pvt. Ltd have been asked by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal to constitute a joint team or may agree upon one of them getting the inspection done by its technical team of the headend of M.C. Transmissions for any defects.

    The Tribunal said: “Normally, we should have asked BECIL to revisit the petitioner’s head end and to give a supplementary report but that would saddle the petitioner with heavy costs. Hence, we think it proper to ask the four respondent broadcasters to have a joint inspection of the petitioner’s head end by their technical people.”

    Chairman Justice Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava directed that the inspection should be completed within 15 days and listed the matter for 8 April.
     
    Earlier following the tribunal’s order of 24 February, the Broadcasting Consulting Engineers (India) Ltd had found one defect in the Digital Addressable System (CAS, SMS and STB) available and installed at M C Tansmissions’ headend as on 16 March which “does not fully meet” the TRAI minimum requirements.

    BECIL had found that “The system of MC Transmission has the provision for blacklisting the VC whereas the provision for blacklisting of STB is yet to be deployed.”

    However, MC Transmissions counsel Nittin Bhatia said the device for blacklisting STBs had also been installed and the lacuna pointed out in the report had been fully cured.

     

  • Adcap case put off to 27 April, court to hear plea challenging stay order

    Adcap case put off to 27 April, court to hear plea challenging stay order

    NEW DELHI, 29 March: In a day of swift developments, the Delhi High Court listed the adcap case for 27 April when it will hear an application by intervener Home Cable Network Pvt Ltd seeking vacation of the order staying action against violating television channels.

    Early in the morning, a plea was made in a mention before Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice Jayant Nath on behalf of the Information and Broadcasting Ministry that a proposal was being contemplated to amend the relevant provision relating to limiting ads to 12 minutes an hour. Thereupon, the Court adjourned the matter for 21 July.

    However when the matter came up in the list, counsel Vivek Sarin of Home Cable pressed his application for vacation of stay. Thereupon, counsel for Discovery Communications said it wanted to press its application to come in as intervener.

    After hearing counsel for both sides, the judges agreed on early hearing and pre-poned the matter to 27 April.

    The Court had on 11 February adjourned the hearing to today when it had agreed to take up the application by Discovery Communications to intervene on the matter.

    Earlier on 27 November last year, the Court chaired by the Chief Justice had said the matter had been pending for some time and therefore it will hear and conclude the case in the next hearing.

    On that day, the I and B Ministry had informed the Court that it was in talks with the News Broadcasters Association and other stakeholders on the issue of the advertising cap of 12 minutes per hour.

    This was the first time that the Ministry had put in an appearance in the petition filed by the News Broadcasters and others against the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India and others.

    Home Cable Network Pvt. Ltd had been permitted to intervene on 5 January and the Court had agreed to consider contentions on whether pay channels should be permitted to carry commercials in view of subscription fee charged by them. Home Cable Counsel Vivek Sarin had told the court that the petitioners had not disclosed that broadcasters had given their consent to observe the 10+2 ad cap rule under the Cable Television Network Regulation Rules 1994 and the Act that followed a year later and also under the Uplink and Downlink Guidelines. He also said pay TV broadcasters should not be allowed to take ads as they charged subscription fee.

    The case, filed by 9x Media, News Broadcasters Association and others against the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India and the Union Government, has so far been adjourned from time to time on the plea that the government and the broadcasters are in talks on this issue.

    (It is learnt by indiantelevision.com that this comes in the wake of a statement made by Minister Arun Jaitley in January last year that there should be no ad cap in the print or electronic media, However, no instructions have been issued in this regard by the Minister so far,).

    The Court has already directed that the order that TRAI will not take any action against any channel pending the petition will continue. In an earlier hearing, the Court had, at the regulator’s instance, directed that all channels keep a record of the advertisements run by them.

    The NBA had challenged the ad cap rule, contending that TRAI does not have jurisdiction to regulate commercial airtime on television channels. Apart from the NBA, the petitions have been filed by Sarthak Entertainment, Pioneer Channel Factory, E24 Glamoru, Sun TV Network, TV Vision, B4U Broadband, 9X Media, Kalaignar, Celebrities Management, Eanadu Television and Raj Television.

    Meanwhille, complaints against fifteen broadcasters by TRAI on the adcap issue are also pending with the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in Delhi.

     

  • Adcap case put off to 27 April, court to hear plea challenging stay order

    Adcap case put off to 27 April, court to hear plea challenging stay order

    NEW DELHI, 29 March: In a day of swift developments, the Delhi High Court listed the adcap case for 27 April when it will hear an application by intervener Home Cable Network Pvt Ltd seeking vacation of the order staying action against violating television channels.

    Early in the morning, a plea was made in a mention before Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice Jayant Nath on behalf of the Information and Broadcasting Ministry that a proposal was being contemplated to amend the relevant provision relating to limiting ads to 12 minutes an hour. Thereupon, the Court adjourned the matter for 21 July.

    However when the matter came up in the list, counsel Vivek Sarin of Home Cable pressed his application for vacation of stay. Thereupon, counsel for Discovery Communications said it wanted to press its application to come in as intervener.

    After hearing counsel for both sides, the judges agreed on early hearing and pre-poned the matter to 27 April.

    The Court had on 11 February adjourned the hearing to today when it had agreed to take up the application by Discovery Communications to intervene on the matter.

    Earlier on 27 November last year, the Court chaired by the Chief Justice had said the matter had been pending for some time and therefore it will hear and conclude the case in the next hearing.

    On that day, the I and B Ministry had informed the Court that it was in talks with the News Broadcasters Association and other stakeholders on the issue of the advertising cap of 12 minutes per hour.

    This was the first time that the Ministry had put in an appearance in the petition filed by the News Broadcasters and others against the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India and others.

    Home Cable Network Pvt. Ltd had been permitted to intervene on 5 January and the Court had agreed to consider contentions on whether pay channels should be permitted to carry commercials in view of subscription fee charged by them. Home Cable Counsel Vivek Sarin had told the court that the petitioners had not disclosed that broadcasters had given their consent to observe the 10+2 ad cap rule under the Cable Television Network Regulation Rules 1994 and the Act that followed a year later and also under the Uplink and Downlink Guidelines. He also said pay TV broadcasters should not be allowed to take ads as they charged subscription fee.

    The case, filed by 9x Media, News Broadcasters Association and others against the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India and the Union Government, has so far been adjourned from time to time on the plea that the government and the broadcasters are in talks on this issue.

    (It is learnt by indiantelevision.com that this comes in the wake of a statement made by Minister Arun Jaitley in January last year that there should be no ad cap in the print or electronic media, However, no instructions have been issued in this regard by the Minister so far,).

    The Court has already directed that the order that TRAI will not take any action against any channel pending the petition will continue. In an earlier hearing, the Court had, at the regulator’s instance, directed that all channels keep a record of the advertisements run by them.

    The NBA had challenged the ad cap rule, contending that TRAI does not have jurisdiction to regulate commercial airtime on television channels. Apart from the NBA, the petitions have been filed by Sarthak Entertainment, Pioneer Channel Factory, E24 Glamoru, Sun TV Network, TV Vision, B4U Broadband, 9X Media, Kalaignar, Celebrities Management, Eanadu Television and Raj Television.

    Meanwhille, complaints against fifteen broadcasters by TRAI on the adcap issue are also pending with the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in Delhi.

     

  • TDSAT rejects Neo Sports petition seeking interconnect agreement with Tata Sky on its own terms

    TDSAT rejects Neo Sports petition seeking interconnect agreement with Tata Sky on its own terms

    New Delhi: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal has dismissed a petition by Neo Sports Broadcast Private Ltd seeking an interconnect agreement on its own reference interconnect offer terms with DTH platform Tata Sky.

    Chairman Justice Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said the submissions by the broadcaster were ‘quite misconceived’.

    Referring to the two provisions relied upon by counsel for the broadcaster, the Tribunal said these were part of the broadcaster’s obligations to publish Reference Interconnect Offers for direct-to-home service and the provisions relied upon secure the interests of the direct-to-home distributor rather than the broadcaster.

    The Tribunal levied costs of Rs 25,000 which would be deposited with the TDSAT Employees Welfare Society within four weeks.

    The Tribunal termed the petition as an “unusual case in that the broadcaster had come to it seeking an interconnect agreement on its own Reference interconnect Offer (RIO) terms.

    According to Neo Sports, it had been in inter-connect relationship with Tata Sky and the latter hadbeen carrying on its platform Neo sports’ two channels: Neo Sports and Neo Prime (formerly NeoCricket) since 2006-07. The last agreement between the parties was executed on 17 September 20 10 for a period of three years commencing from 1October 20 1 0 and coming to end on 30September 2013.

    Under clause V of the agreement Tata Sky was obliged to pay to Neo Sports “the rather steep” subscription fee of Rs 124 crore (R s. 1 09 crore for channels  being distributed in the Standard Definition mode and Rs 15 crore for channels being distributed in the High Definition mode).

    It is to be noted that at the time the interconnect agreement was executed Neo Sports  enjoyed exclusive BCCI rights for live broadcast of international cricket matches which gave it the power tocommand very high subscription fees in the Indian broadcasting market.  It lost the right to the cricket broadcasts in December 2011 and “it is a measure of popularity of the game in the country that there after it was unable to hold onto the amount of subscription fees stipulated in the agreement which was still subsisting”. The two sides executed an Addendum on 16 May 2012  to the Distribution Agreement of 17 September  2010 reducing the subscription fee substantially and it was fixed at the rate of Rs one crore per month plus applicable service tax for the period from April 2012 to 30September 2013.

    The Tribunal noted that negotiations continued thereafter but Neo Sports did not have the marketing power it had at the time of execution of the earlier agreement and Tata Sky was no longer willing to meet its demands.

  • TDSAT rejects Neo Sports petition seeking interconnect agreement with Tata Sky on its own terms

    TDSAT rejects Neo Sports petition seeking interconnect agreement with Tata Sky on its own terms

    New Delhi: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal has dismissed a petition by Neo Sports Broadcast Private Ltd seeking an interconnect agreement on its own reference interconnect offer terms with DTH platform Tata Sky.

    Chairman Justice Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said the submissions by the broadcaster were ‘quite misconceived’.

    Referring to the two provisions relied upon by counsel for the broadcaster, the Tribunal said these were part of the broadcaster’s obligations to publish Reference Interconnect Offers for direct-to-home service and the provisions relied upon secure the interests of the direct-to-home distributor rather than the broadcaster.

    The Tribunal levied costs of Rs 25,000 which would be deposited with the TDSAT Employees Welfare Society within four weeks.

    The Tribunal termed the petition as an “unusual case in that the broadcaster had come to it seeking an interconnect agreement on its own Reference interconnect Offer (RIO) terms.

    According to Neo Sports, it had been in inter-connect relationship with Tata Sky and the latter hadbeen carrying on its platform Neo sports’ two channels: Neo Sports and Neo Prime (formerly NeoCricket) since 2006-07. The last agreement between the parties was executed on 17 September 20 10 for a period of three years commencing from 1October 20 1 0 and coming to end on 30September 2013.

    Under clause V of the agreement Tata Sky was obliged to pay to Neo Sports “the rather steep” subscription fee of Rs 124 crore (R s. 1 09 crore for channels  being distributed in the Standard Definition mode and Rs 15 crore for channels being distributed in the High Definition mode).

    It is to be noted that at the time the interconnect agreement was executed Neo Sports  enjoyed exclusive BCCI rights for live broadcast of international cricket matches which gave it the power tocommand very high subscription fees in the Indian broadcasting market.  It lost the right to the cricket broadcasts in December 2011 and “it is a measure of popularity of the game in the country that there after it was unable to hold onto the amount of subscription fees stipulated in the agreement which was still subsisting”. The two sides executed an Addendum on 16 May 2012  to the Distribution Agreement of 17 September  2010 reducing the subscription fee substantially and it was fixed at the rate of Rs one crore per month plus applicable service tax for the period from April 2012 to 30September 2013.

    The Tribunal noted that negotiations continued thereafter but Neo Sports did not have the marketing power it had at the time of execution of the earlier agreement and Tata Sky was no longer willing to meet its demands.

  • TDSAT upholds BECIL audit in case of Home Systems vs Star India case

    TDSAT upholds BECIL audit in case of Home Systems vs Star India case

    New Delhi, The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal has rejected an application by Home Systems Pvt Ltd.Mumbai challenging the methodology of Broadcasting Engineering Consultants (India) Ltd as it felt that procedure adopted adopted is  absolutely correct and there is no error in the report.

    Chairman Justice Aftab Alam and member Kuldip Singh listed the matter for further hearing on 6 April.

    At the outset, it said the application had been filed by Home Systems Pvt Ltd.Mumbai in its dispute with Star India seeking a review of the order of the Tribunal of 21 January.

    Home Systems said the SMS count given by BECIL for he period in dispute is the total number of subscribers on the network and not the total number of authorised subscribers, which the petitioner says is the relevant number for making payments to the broadcaster.
    Home Systems said the figure calculated by BECIL for active subscribers is based on command logs of SMS. He submitted that sometimes a command is given in the SMS with wrong STB number or VC Card Number and this leads to counting the same subscriber multiple times. Thus, Home Systems said BECIL has made an error in arriving at the figure of active subscribers. It submitted that there are three different numbers possible in SMS and that is why there is need to reconcile the SMS and CAS data.

    BECIL said it had taken active subscribers both from the SMS data base and CAS data base. Since the figures obtained from SMS data base were lower than the CAS data base, BECIL discussed this with the petitioner at the time of audit. It  is due to a stop  (suspension) command  which may  suspend a subscriber temporarily in the SMS  but the entitlement for the Subscriber still remains intact in CAS.  BECIL accordingly added  all such subscribers that were  in suspention to the active subscribers to arrive at the SMS figures.

    BECIL sadi a subscriber who is temporarily suspended cannot be considered as de-activated. If such a subscriber was to be counted as de-activated, this could lead to a situation where there is under-reporting of subscribers as the ervice provider may use this command to suspend the subscribers temporarily  for some time at the time  of  taking the SMS figures  and immediately thereafter, restore them to active status.

  • TDSAT upholds BECIL audit in case of Home Systems vs Star India case

    TDSAT upholds BECIL audit in case of Home Systems vs Star India case

    New Delhi, The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal has rejected an application by Home Systems Pvt Ltd.Mumbai challenging the methodology of Broadcasting Engineering Consultants (India) Ltd as it felt that procedure adopted adopted is  absolutely correct and there is no error in the report.

    Chairman Justice Aftab Alam and member Kuldip Singh listed the matter for further hearing on 6 April.

    At the outset, it said the application had been filed by Home Systems Pvt Ltd.Mumbai in its dispute with Star India seeking a review of the order of the Tribunal of 21 January.

    Home Systems said the SMS count given by BECIL for he period in dispute is the total number of subscribers on the network and not the total number of authorised subscribers, which the petitioner says is the relevant number for making payments to the broadcaster.
    Home Systems said the figure calculated by BECIL for active subscribers is based on command logs of SMS. He submitted that sometimes a command is given in the SMS with wrong STB number or VC Card Number and this leads to counting the same subscriber multiple times. Thus, Home Systems said BECIL has made an error in arriving at the figure of active subscribers. It submitted that there are three different numbers possible in SMS and that is why there is need to reconcile the SMS and CAS data.

    BECIL said it had taken active subscribers both from the SMS data base and CAS data base. Since the figures obtained from SMS data base were lower than the CAS data base, BECIL discussed this with the petitioner at the time of audit. It  is due to a stop  (suspension) command  which may  suspend a subscriber temporarily in the SMS  but the entitlement for the Subscriber still remains intact in CAS.  BECIL accordingly added  all such subscribers that were  in suspention to the active subscribers to arrive at the SMS figures.

    BECIL sadi a subscriber who is temporarily suspended cannot be considered as de-activated. If such a subscriber was to be counted as de-activated, this could lead to a situation where there is under-reporting of subscribers as the ervice provider may use this command to suspend the subscribers temporarily  for some time at the time  of  taking the SMS figures  and immediately thereafter, restore them to active status.

  • TDSAT accepts plea by MediaPro for attachment of bank accounts of Digicable, operative from next month

    TDSAT accepts plea by MediaPro for attachment of bank accounts of Digicable, operative from next month

    New Delhi, 25 March: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate has directed attachment of the bank accounts of Digicable Network (India) Ltd, accepting the plea in this regard by Media Pro Enterprise (I) Pvt. Ltd in the prayer clause in the execution application.

    However, the Tribunal said the order of attachment will become operative from 1 April, subject to the condition that Digicable Network “shall not make any withdrawal from the account, save and except for payment of salary to its staff”.

    Chairman Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said a copy of the order should be sent to the concerned banks without delay.

    At the outset, the Tribunal noted that the execution proceedings are at a stage where the only course left is to make a direction for attachment of the bank accounts, head-ends and other properties of Digicable Networks. 

    However, the Tribunal said that “we wish to give one more opportunity to the respondent to try to resolve the matter amicably” before making such a direction.  

    The matter has been listed for 6 April when the CEO of Digicable should remain personally present before the Tribunal to make proposal, if any, for settlement with the respondent, the Tribunal said.

     

     
  • TDSAT accepts plea by MediaPro for attachment of bank accounts of Digicable, operative from next month

    TDSAT accepts plea by MediaPro for attachment of bank accounts of Digicable, operative from next month

    New Delhi, 25 March: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate has directed attachment of the bank accounts of Digicable Network (India) Ltd, accepting the plea in this regard by Media Pro Enterprise (I) Pvt. Ltd in the prayer clause in the execution application.

    However, the Tribunal said the order of attachment will become operative from 1 April, subject to the condition that Digicable Network “shall not make any withdrawal from the account, save and except for payment of salary to its staff”.

    Chairman Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said a copy of the order should be sent to the concerned banks without delay.

    At the outset, the Tribunal noted that the execution proceedings are at a stage where the only course left is to make a direction for attachment of the bank accounts, head-ends and other properties of Digicable Networks. 

    However, the Tribunal said that “we wish to give one more opportunity to the respondent to try to resolve the matter amicably” before making such a direction.  

    The matter has been listed for 6 April when the CEO of Digicable should remain personally present before the Tribunal to make proposal, if any, for settlement with the respondent, the Tribunal said.

     

     
  • TRAI issues draft regulations on register of interconnect agreements, wants comments by 25 April

    TRAI issues draft regulations on register of interconnect agreements, wants comments by 25 April

    New Delhi: The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India today asked stakeholders to give their views on the periodicity and authenticity of the proposed register of interconnect agreements, apart from the format for such a register.

    Stakeholders have been asked to post their comments by 25 April with counter-comments, if any, by 5 May to a consultation paper and a draft of the Register of Interconnect Agreements (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Regulations 2016.

    The primary objective of register of interconnection regulations is to prescribe the contours of a reporting system to service providers to report interconnection agreement details to the Authority so as to enable it to maintain a register of interconnect agreements as per the provisions of TRAI Act. It is also useful for monitoring and analyzing market practices prevailing for interconnection agreements. Presently, the regulations mandate service providers to report the prescribed information annually.

    One clause of the draft register is for ‘Reporting of information, relating to interconnect agreements, by broadcaster of pay channel and the distributor of TV channel’. It says every broadcaster of pay channel and distributor of TV Channel shall report the information relating to all interconnect agreements entered into by them or modifications or amendments or addendums thereto which have been signed before and after coming into effect of the regulations that are valid as on the date of commencement of the regulations and shall be reported within one month for the previous ones and by tenth of the month for the new ones.

    A para on format of reports says: “Subject to the provisions contained in regulation 5 of the regulations, the broadcaster of pay channel and the distributor of TV Channel , as the case may be, shall furnish to the Authority, the information relating to the interconnect agreements in the formats specified in Schedule-I ( Format for broadcasters of pay channels), Schedule-II (Format for MSO and HITS Operator) or Schedule-III (Format DTH and IPTV Service provider) of the regulations as applicable.”

    Stakeholders have been asked to provide suggestions on this regulation of draft regulations and also the formats given in schedules and told that they can also suggest modified format for reporting to make it simple and easy to file.

    TRAI also wants comments on how it can be ensured that service providers report accurate details in compliance of regulations, and on digitally signed method of reporting the information.

    TRAI wants to know why all information including commercial portion of register should not be made accessible to any interested stakeholders, and if the commercial information is to be made accessible, in which way can this commercial information be made accessible to fulfill the objective of non-discrimination.

    If the commercial information is not made accessible to stakeholders, then in what form the provisions under clause (vii) and (viii) of Section 11 (1) (b) of TRAI Act be implemented in broadcasting and cable sector so that the objective of non-discrimination is also met simultaneously, the stakeholders have to state.