Category: Regulators

  • TDSAT asks Canara Stars for guarantee with regard to arrears to Star India

    TDSAT asks Canara Stars for guarantee with regard to arrears to Star India

    New Delhi: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal has said it may take appropriate action if Canara Star fails to furnish the required guarantee as sought by Star India in their long-pending dispute.

    Meanwhile, Chairman Justice Aftab Alam and member Kuldip Singh listed the matter for 9 March. The Tribunal took note of the fact that Canara Star had given a payment schedule to Star India which was represented by Counsel Arjun Natarajan. Earlier last month, the Tribunal had given time in two different hearings to Canara Star to furnish the guarantee.   

    In the hearing in the  third week of December last year, the Tribunal had asked Canara Star to intimate Star India whether it admits the SMS reports submitted by the broadcaster for the period 2014 to January 2015.

    The common order by the Tribunal on three petitions including one by Star India against Canara Star claiming recovery dues of about Rs 3 crore pertaining to the MSO’s operations in DAS area of Bangalore said this was subject to the two parties failing to arrive at a final settlement.

    The directive had come after being informed by Canara Star counsel Tushar Singh that the parties had failed to resolve the dispute, though Star India counsel Kunal Tandon and Arjun Natarajan had told the Tribunal that no attempts had been made by Canara Star to resolve the dispute.

    The Tribunal had also asked Canara to produce its bank statements and materials to show payments made by it towards invoices raised by Star India based on Canara’s SMS reports.

    Canara, which has allegedly sold off its business to another MSO called All Digital, was to produce its deed of transfer of establishment to All Digital which was made a party in the petition filed by Star India.

    The other two petitions are by Canara Star challenging disconnection notices issues by Star India for analogue areas of Kumta and Bhatkal.

  • Total of 149 news and non-news pay channels violated adcap shows study

    Total of 149 news and non-news pay channels violated adcap shows study

    NEW DELHI: Even as the adcap case continues to drag with hearing slated for later this month, a study shows that a total of 149 pay channels including 28 news and current affairs continue to violate the regulations for telecasting a maximum of twelve minutes of advertisements and commercials.

    The report released by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India shows that the number of violators among news channels has come down but that non-news channels has risen sharply as on 27 December 2015.

    Average duration per hour of Advertisements (Commercial & Self promotional) during peak hours (7pm ?10 PM) in Pay News Channels for the period 28 September to 27 December shows that the highest of these is 22.66 minutes by NDTV 24X7 and the lowest is 12.42 minutes by CNBC TV 18 Prime HD..

    Among pay non-news channels for the same period, the highest is 23.99 minutes by B4U Movies and the lowest is 12.13 by Sun TV Network’s Adhitya.

    There are at least twelve news and 37 non-news channels clocking more than fifteen minutes per hour.

    TRAI has made it clear that “the information is based on the data submitted by the broadcasters and TRAI bears no responsibility for correctness of same. As per information available with TRAI, rest of the Pay News and non-news channels are carrying less than 12 minutes of average duration per hour of advertisements (Commercial & Self promotional) during peak hours (7PM – 10 pm)”.

    While asking the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India not to take any coercive action against any channel pending hearing of the case, the Delhi High Court had asked all channels and TRAI to keep a record of the advertising time consumed including commercials.

    The petition had been filed by the News Broadcasters Association and some channels challenging the TRAI decision to implement the directive of 12 minutes contained in the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act 1995. The Information and Broadcasting Ministry and TRAI are the respondents in the petition.

    After the Information and Broadcasting Ministry told the Court on 27 November that it was discussing the issue with broadcasters, the matter was put off to 11 February and then to 29 March. In the 11 February hearing, Discovery Communications moved for intervention while Home Cable sought early hearing.

    In its intervention MSO Home Cable Network (P) Ltd said it wanted to intervene as it was directly affected by the outcome of the present petition. It wanted the NBA petition to be dismissed and added: “The Pay channel broadcasters are profiteering at the expense of subscribers and the DPO’s. There is no justification for changing monthly subscription when commercial advertisements are inserted. The Standards of Quality of Service (Digital Addressable Cable TV Systems) Regulations 2012 (with Amendments thereafter) is justified to the extent they are applicable to Pay Channels. The pay channel broadcasters cannot charge the subscription fee while inserting commercials into the content or in the alternative, the subscribers have to be compensated for the revenue earned on the basis of their being subscribers of the channels.”

    Interestingly, I and B Minister Arun Jaitley had in January last year said that he was in favour of any ad cap in the print or electronic media.

    In the petition, the news channels have taken the plea that most of them are free to air and therefore do not get any subscription fee from the viewers as the GEC channels do.

  • Total of 149 news and non-news pay channels violated adcap shows study

    Total of 149 news and non-news pay channels violated adcap shows study

    NEW DELHI: Even as the adcap case continues to drag with hearing slated for later this month, a study shows that a total of 149 pay channels including 28 news and current affairs continue to violate the regulations for telecasting a maximum of twelve minutes of advertisements and commercials.

    The report released by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India shows that the number of violators among news channels has come down but that non-news channels has risen sharply as on 27 December 2015.

    Average duration per hour of Advertisements (Commercial & Self promotional) during peak hours (7pm ?10 PM) in Pay News Channels for the period 28 September to 27 December shows that the highest of these is 22.66 minutes by NDTV 24X7 and the lowest is 12.42 minutes by CNBC TV 18 Prime HD..

    Among pay non-news channels for the same period, the highest is 23.99 minutes by B4U Movies and the lowest is 12.13 by Sun TV Network’s Adhitya.

    There are at least twelve news and 37 non-news channels clocking more than fifteen minutes per hour.

    TRAI has made it clear that “the information is based on the data submitted by the broadcasters and TRAI bears no responsibility for correctness of same. As per information available with TRAI, rest of the Pay News and non-news channels are carrying less than 12 minutes of average duration per hour of advertisements (Commercial & Self promotional) during peak hours (7PM – 10 pm)”.

    While asking the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India not to take any coercive action against any channel pending hearing of the case, the Delhi High Court had asked all channels and TRAI to keep a record of the advertising time consumed including commercials.

    The petition had been filed by the News Broadcasters Association and some channels challenging the TRAI decision to implement the directive of 12 minutes contained in the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act 1995. The Information and Broadcasting Ministry and TRAI are the respondents in the petition.

    After the Information and Broadcasting Ministry told the Court on 27 November that it was discussing the issue with broadcasters, the matter was put off to 11 February and then to 29 March. In the 11 February hearing, Discovery Communications moved for intervention while Home Cable sought early hearing.

    In its intervention MSO Home Cable Network (P) Ltd said it wanted to intervene as it was directly affected by the outcome of the present petition. It wanted the NBA petition to be dismissed and added: “The Pay channel broadcasters are profiteering at the expense of subscribers and the DPO’s. There is no justification for changing monthly subscription when commercial advertisements are inserted. The Standards of Quality of Service (Digital Addressable Cable TV Systems) Regulations 2012 (with Amendments thereafter) is justified to the extent they are applicable to Pay Channels. The pay channel broadcasters cannot charge the subscription fee while inserting commercials into the content or in the alternative, the subscribers have to be compensated for the revenue earned on the basis of their being subscribers of the channels.”

    Interestingly, I and B Minister Arun Jaitley had in January last year said that he was in favour of any ad cap in the print or electronic media.

    In the petition, the news channels have taken the plea that most of them are free to air and therefore do not get any subscription fee from the viewers as the GEC channels do.

  • Total number of MSO provisional licence holders rises to 522, taking total to over 750

    Total number of MSO provisional licence holders rises to 522, taking total to over 750

    NEW DELHI: Even as the Government got a fillip with the Supreme Court saying that Bombay High Court order did not imply a pan-India stay of digital addressable systems, 26 more multi-system operators got registration in the third week last month and took the total number to 753 including 231 which have permanent (ten-year licences) by 26 February.

    The last list issued on 17 February had put the total at 727 including the 231 which have permanent (ten-year) licences. The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) had by 12 January cancelled the licences of 26 MSOs and closed their cases. According to the list issued today, the areas of operation of some of the MSOs have been revised or amended.

    The new licencees have all got state-wise licences and none has got a pan-India licence. These are from Gujarat, Assam, Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka, Rajasthan, Uttarakhand, Maharashtra, Utar Pradesh, Chhatisgarh, Telangana, Odisha, Andhra Pradesh, and West Bengal.

    With the Home Ministry directive about doing away with security clearances for MSOs not being communicated in writing to the MIB, the pace remains slow.

    The permanent licence issued to Kal Cable of Chennai had been cancelled on 20 August, 2014 but this cancellation was set aside by Madras High Court on 5 September the same year. However, Kal Cable’s name continues to be in the cancelled list – presumably because the cases are still pending.

    Sources said many MSOs holding provisional licences had not completed certain formalities relating to shareholders and so on.

     

  • Total number of MSO provisional licence holders rises to 522, taking total to over 750

    Total number of MSO provisional licence holders rises to 522, taking total to over 750

    NEW DELHI: Even as the Government got a fillip with the Supreme Court saying that Bombay High Court order did not imply a pan-India stay of digital addressable systems, 26 more multi-system operators got registration in the third week last month and took the total number to 753 including 231 which have permanent (ten-year licences) by 26 February.

    The last list issued on 17 February had put the total at 727 including the 231 which have permanent (ten-year) licences. The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) had by 12 January cancelled the licences of 26 MSOs and closed their cases. According to the list issued today, the areas of operation of some of the MSOs have been revised or amended.

    The new licencees have all got state-wise licences and none has got a pan-India licence. These are from Gujarat, Assam, Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka, Rajasthan, Uttarakhand, Maharashtra, Utar Pradesh, Chhatisgarh, Telangana, Odisha, Andhra Pradesh, and West Bengal.

    With the Home Ministry directive about doing away with security clearances for MSOs not being communicated in writing to the MIB, the pace remains slow.

    The permanent licence issued to Kal Cable of Chennai had been cancelled on 20 August, 2014 but this cancellation was set aside by Madras High Court on 5 September the same year. However, Kal Cable’s name continues to be in the cancelled list – presumably because the cases are still pending.

    Sources said many MSOs holding provisional licences had not completed certain formalities relating to shareholders and so on.

     

  • Petition against Den rejected as TDSAT notes petitioner is a joint venture of the MSO

    Petition against Den rejected as TDSAT notes petitioner is a joint venture of the MSO

    New Delhi: Dismissing it as not maintainable, the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal has noted that the petition that has been filed  by Fortune (Baroda) Network Pvt. Ltd., Gujarat, against Den Networks of which it is a joint venture.

    Chairman Justice Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava noted that Den Networks held the majority share of 51 per cent in the joint venture company.

    The petition had been filed by one Venus Patel who claimed to be the promoter director of the petitioner company.  There was no authorization by the Board of the petitioner company that has among its members also some nominee directors from Den. The petition was filed on the strength of an “authorization” signed by Venus Patel himself and one Kirti Bhai Patel who described themselves as promoter directors.

    The Tribunal noted that: “It is evident that there is a dispute in regard to the control of the petitioner company. Both the nature of the real dispute and the manner in which this petition is filed render it not maintainable before the Tribunal”.

    The Tribunal noted that earlier, one Jayesh Patel and some others filed a petition against Den and the present petitioner Fortune (Baroda) Network Pvt. Ltd and had been dismissed on 4 August last year. 

    The present petition was filed for directions to Den to enter into the fresh subscription agreement for the y ear 2014-15 on reasonable terms and conditions with the petitioner for the DAS phase; immediately re-connect the signals of the petitioner; charge the petitioner at the rate of Rs.46 per STB as an interim measure as directed by the Tribunal in order dated 31 October 2013 and some other reliefs.

  • Petition against Den rejected as TDSAT notes petitioner is a joint venture of the MSO

    Petition against Den rejected as TDSAT notes petitioner is a joint venture of the MSO

    New Delhi: Dismissing it as not maintainable, the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal has noted that the petition that has been filed  by Fortune (Baroda) Network Pvt. Ltd., Gujarat, against Den Networks of which it is a joint venture.

    Chairman Justice Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava noted that Den Networks held the majority share of 51 per cent in the joint venture company.

    The petition had been filed by one Venus Patel who claimed to be the promoter director of the petitioner company.  There was no authorization by the Board of the petitioner company that has among its members also some nominee directors from Den. The petition was filed on the strength of an “authorization” signed by Venus Patel himself and one Kirti Bhai Patel who described themselves as promoter directors.

    The Tribunal noted that: “It is evident that there is a dispute in regard to the control of the petitioner company. Both the nature of the real dispute and the manner in which this petition is filed render it not maintainable before the Tribunal”.

    The Tribunal noted that earlier, one Jayesh Patel and some others filed a petition against Den and the present petitioner Fortune (Baroda) Network Pvt. Ltd and had been dismissed on 4 August last year. 

    The present petition was filed for directions to Den to enter into the fresh subscription agreement for the y ear 2014-15 on reasonable terms and conditions with the petitioner for the DAS phase; immediately re-connect the signals of the petitioner; charge the petitioner at the rate of Rs.46 per STB as an interim measure as directed by the Tribunal in order dated 31 October 2013 and some other reliefs.

  • TDSAT dismisses LCO petition, asks TRAI why there is only one MSO in Malway in Punjab

    TDSAT dismisses LCO petition, asks TRAI why there is only one MSO in Malway in Punjab

    New Delhi: Even as it dismissed a petition by Malwa Cable Operators seeking cable TV signals, the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal asked the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India to ‘ponder over and address’ why there were no other multisystem operators in the area.

    It said the rejection of the petition by the Malwa Cable Operators Sangarsh Committee seeking signals from Fastway Transmission Pvt. Ltd was ‘not due to any lacuna in the law’.

    “It is because there is no one other than the respondent to whom these LCOs may go for supply of signals. How and why such a situation has arisen is a question for the regulator to ponder over and to address,” chairman Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said in their judgment yesterday.

    They said: “On a careful consideration of the submissions made before us, we come to the conclusion that no reliefs can be granted to the petitioner by the Tribunal”.

    Apart from relying on its own previous judgments, the Tribunal noted that the MSO had made clear that it was not supplying signals in analogue mode to any LCO in the State of Punjab and that it was willing to supply signals to the petitioner LCOs “as per its rate card on the basis of which alone it is supplying signals to other LCOs in the state.”

    The Tribunal also took note of an earlier allegation by the LCOs that Fastway had set up a dummy operator which was supplying signals in the area of operation of the petitioner LCOs in analogue mode and on much cheaper rates.

    Referring to arguments raised by lawyers from both sides on the must provide and non-discrimination clauses, the Tribunal said: “In our view, the two principles of ‘must provide’ and ‘on-discrimination’ as the basis of interconnection cannot operate separately but are inseparable. All that those principles mean is that a distributor cannot refuse to supply signals to a LCO and it must supply signals to the LCO seeking signals from it in the same mode and on the same terms and at the same rate at which it might be giving its signals to another LCO, comparable to the one seeking the signals. As long as the distributor does not supply signals to anyone except in DAS mode, the principle of “must provide” cannot be invoked to compel it to supply signals to anyone in analogue mode”.

    Counsel Abhishek Malhotra had during arguments referred to clause 3 of the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconnection Regulations 2004 and submitted that the scheme of interconnection envisaged by the regulations was based on the twin principles of ‘must provide’ and ‘non-discrimination’. He submitted that as one of the principles of interconnection was ‘must provide’ the respondent was obliged to supply signals to the petitioner LCOs and they would be free to retransmit the signals in their area of operation in analogue mode as that area was yet to come under the DAS regime.

    The Tribunal noted that it was on a consideration of the recommendations made by TRAI that the Central Government issued the notification dated 11 November 2011 (later amended on 11 September 2014) introducing digitisation of cable TV systems in four phases over a period of four and a half years. “As noted above, the language of the notification is such that it would be unlawful to make transmission in analogue mode in any part of the country that has come under the DAS regime as per the schedule given in the notification. But it is not unlawful to make transmission through digital addressable system in any part of the country that is yet to come under the DAS regime”, the Tribunal said.

    Referring to arguments by Fastway counsel Naveen Chawla, the Tribunal said there was nothing to show that Fastway had committed any breach of any regulations or tariff orders framed by TRAI in either making the packages of channels or in fixing the rates of those packages. Moreover, the language of the notification issued under Section 4A of the CTN(R) Act and the relevant provisions of TRAI regulation is quite plain and to give them any other meaning on the plea of hardship caused to the LCOs would be doing violence to the plain language of the notification and the regulations.

    LCO counsel Vineet Bhagat had submitted that the scheme of digitisation was a phased scheme and it would be unreasonable and unjust to thrust upon the poor LCOs the digital addressable system of transmission even before the date of its enforcement under the Government notification.

  • TDSAT dismisses LCO petition, asks TRAI why there is only one MSO in Malway in Punjab

    TDSAT dismisses LCO petition, asks TRAI why there is only one MSO in Malway in Punjab

    New Delhi: Even as it dismissed a petition by Malwa Cable Operators seeking cable TV signals, the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal asked the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India to ‘ponder over and address’ why there were no other multisystem operators in the area.

    It said the rejection of the petition by the Malwa Cable Operators Sangarsh Committee seeking signals from Fastway Transmission Pvt. Ltd was ‘not due to any lacuna in the law’.

    “It is because there is no one other than the respondent to whom these LCOs may go for supply of signals. How and why such a situation has arisen is a question for the regulator to ponder over and to address,” chairman Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said in their judgment yesterday.

    They said: “On a careful consideration of the submissions made before us, we come to the conclusion that no reliefs can be granted to the petitioner by the Tribunal”.

    Apart from relying on its own previous judgments, the Tribunal noted that the MSO had made clear that it was not supplying signals in analogue mode to any LCO in the State of Punjab and that it was willing to supply signals to the petitioner LCOs “as per its rate card on the basis of which alone it is supplying signals to other LCOs in the state.”

    The Tribunal also took note of an earlier allegation by the LCOs that Fastway had set up a dummy operator which was supplying signals in the area of operation of the petitioner LCOs in analogue mode and on much cheaper rates.

    Referring to arguments raised by lawyers from both sides on the must provide and non-discrimination clauses, the Tribunal said: “In our view, the two principles of ‘must provide’ and ‘on-discrimination’ as the basis of interconnection cannot operate separately but are inseparable. All that those principles mean is that a distributor cannot refuse to supply signals to a LCO and it must supply signals to the LCO seeking signals from it in the same mode and on the same terms and at the same rate at which it might be giving its signals to another LCO, comparable to the one seeking the signals. As long as the distributor does not supply signals to anyone except in DAS mode, the principle of “must provide” cannot be invoked to compel it to supply signals to anyone in analogue mode”.

    Counsel Abhishek Malhotra had during arguments referred to clause 3 of the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconnection Regulations 2004 and submitted that the scheme of interconnection envisaged by the regulations was based on the twin principles of ‘must provide’ and ‘non-discrimination’. He submitted that as one of the principles of interconnection was ‘must provide’ the respondent was obliged to supply signals to the petitioner LCOs and they would be free to retransmit the signals in their area of operation in analogue mode as that area was yet to come under the DAS regime.

    The Tribunal noted that it was on a consideration of the recommendations made by TRAI that the Central Government issued the notification dated 11 November 2011 (later amended on 11 September 2014) introducing digitisation of cable TV systems in four phases over a period of four and a half years. “As noted above, the language of the notification is such that it would be unlawful to make transmission in analogue mode in any part of the country that has come under the DAS regime as per the schedule given in the notification. But it is not unlawful to make transmission through digital addressable system in any part of the country that is yet to come under the DAS regime”, the Tribunal said.

    Referring to arguments by Fastway counsel Naveen Chawla, the Tribunal said there was nothing to show that Fastway had committed any breach of any regulations or tariff orders framed by TRAI in either making the packages of channels or in fixing the rates of those packages. Moreover, the language of the notification issued under Section 4A of the CTN(R) Act and the relevant provisions of TRAI regulation is quite plain and to give them any other meaning on the plea of hardship caused to the LCOs would be doing violence to the plain language of the notification and the regulations.

    LCO counsel Vineet Bhagat had submitted that the scheme of digitisation was a phased scheme and it would be unreasonable and unjust to thrust upon the poor LCOs the digital addressable system of transmission even before the date of its enforcement under the Government notification.

  • Prasar Bharati’s grants-in-aid gets substantial increase, first-time separate allocation for strengthening broadcast services

    Prasar Bharati’s grants-in-aid gets substantial increase, first-time separate allocation for strengthening broadcast services

    NEW DELHI: The grants-in-aid for Prasar Bharati have gone up again for the third time over the last few years from the revised estimates of Rs 2708.29 crore in 2015-16 to Rs 3056.86 for 2016-17.

    In addition, there is a grant-in-aid of Rs 52 crore to Doordarshan’s Kisan Channel, which is double that of aid last year.

    In addition, there is an investment of Rs 200 crore in the pubcaster, which is the same as last year. Though the previous government had stopped investments in the pubcaster, Finance Minister Arun Jaitley had re-introduced this in 2015-16 after a gap of two years. 

    An explanatory note says the grants-in-aid is being provided to cover the gap in resources of Prasar Bharati in meeting its revenue expenditure.

    The grant in aid for Prasar Bharati in 2015-16 was Rs 2824.55 crore for 2015-16, apart from the grant-in-aid of Rs 26.26 crore in the revised estimates (as against the budgetary allocation of Rs 45 crore) on Kisan Channel.

    Expenditure on salaries of Prasar Bharati has fallen on the shoulders of the Government since all Prasar Bharati employees who were in employment as on 5 October, 2007 have been given deemed deputation status.

    The total budget of the Information and Broadcasting Ministry has been raised to Rs 4083.63 crore, which is a small raise in comparison to Rs 3711.11 crore for 2015-16, though the revised estimates for the year show an expenditure of Rs 3588.58 crore. 

    A major effort this year was to reduce the number of heads under which allocations have been made over the years. For example, there are no separate allocation for film certification or Press Information Services as in previous years.

    Interestingly, there is a separate allocation of Rs 30.83 crore for strengthening of broadcasting services, which includes Rs 28.83 on information and publicity and the balance on building and machinery. This provides for Electronic Media Monitoring Centre, contribution to the Asian Institute of Broadcasting Development, Community Radio movement in India, Digitalisation, Building and Machinery and private FM Radio Stations.

    The allocation under ‘Secretariat – Social services’ has been cut down to Rs 70.32 crore as against the budgetary allocation of Rs 235.23 crore in 2015-16 as the revised estimates show an expenditure of just Rs 91.44 crore. The explanatory note says that from 2016-17, this covers the expenditure under Non-Plan activities only which includes provision for Main Secretariat and Principal Accounts office.

    The allocation for the film sector has been raised to Rs 268.53 crore and covers art and culture, information and publicity, which takes the maximum share of Rs 213.64 crore. Subjects under this head include the National Film Heritage Mission, anti-piracy measures, promotion of Indian cinema overseas, production of films and documentaries, and setting up a centre of excellence for animation, gaming and visual effects. The explanatory note adds that Secretariat – Social services also covers expenses on development of community radio, and development support to the north-east as well as Jammu and Kashmir and ‘other identified areas.’

    Thus, there is an allocation of Rs 33.31 crore for Mass Communications, which covers (a) Indian Institute of Mass Communication, an autonomous body, which imparts training in mass media and conducts courses in journalism, and (b) New Media Wing, which collects basic information on subjects of media interest for providing assistance to the Ministry and to its Media Units, Indian Missions abroad and newspapers and media agencies.

    There is another provision of Rs 491.78 crore, which includes expenditure (a) Directorate of Advertising and Visual Publicity – for planning and executing publicity campaigns through advertising and other printed materials, as well as through Radio and Televisions, exhibitions and other outdoor publicity media; (b) Press Information Bureau – which serves as a link between the Government and the Press and attends to the publicity and public relations requirements of various Ministries/Departments, including grants to Press Council of India, a statutory organisations seeking to preserve press; (c) Field Publicity – covering expenditure of Directorate of Field Publicity and its district level field units engaged in inter-personal developmental communications through films shows, live media programmes, photo displays and seminars; (d) Song and Drama Division – for creating awareness amongst the masses, particularly in rural areas, about various activities of national developments of units spread all over the country; (e) Publications – for publishing priced books, journals and other printed material in English, Hindi and regional languages on a wide variety of subjects and ‘Employment News/Rozgar Samachar;’ (f) Information Wing Plan Schemes – for training, international media programme, Policy related studies etc.; and (g) Photo Division.

    For the seventh year in a row, the government has not announced any investment in the National Film Development Corporation (NFDC).

    There is a marginal increase in the lump sum provision for projects/schemes for development of North-eastern areas including Sikkim to Rs 80 crore against Rs 75 crore last year.