Category: TDSAT

  • Star India asked by TDSAT to extend interconnect pact with Monalisa to Chapra town

    Star India asked by TDSAT to extend interconnect pact with Monalisa to Chapra town

    NEW DELHI: Star India has been asked by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal to extend the interconnect agreement existing between it and Monalisa Cable Network to include Chapra town.

    In the order, TDSAT chairman Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava asked Star India to add 18 more subscribers for raising its invoices to Monalisa.

    The tribunal noted that the report of the Advocate Commissioner had shown that Monalisa had a total of only 18 subscribers in the township of Chapra, district Nadia, West Bengal.

    The tribunal said the necessary formalities may be completed by 6 April and the petitioner may be allowed to re-transmit the signals to Chapra town by that day.

  • Star India asked by TDSAT to extend interconnect pact with Monalisa to Chapra town

    Star India asked by TDSAT to extend interconnect pact with Monalisa to Chapra town

    NEW DELHI: Star India has been asked by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal to extend the interconnect agreement existing between it and Monalisa Cable Network to include Chapra town.

    In the order, TDSAT chairman Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava asked Star India to add 18 more subscribers for raising its invoices to Monalisa.

    The tribunal noted that the report of the Advocate Commissioner had shown that Monalisa had a total of only 18 subscribers in the township of Chapra, district Nadia, West Bengal.

    The tribunal said the necessary formalities may be completed by 6 April and the petitioner may be allowed to re-transmit the signals to Chapra town by that day.

  • Sun-Balu dispute settled as broadcaster agrees to raise invoices based on SLRs of MSO before TDSAT

    Sun-Balu dispute settled as broadcaster agrees to raise invoices based on SLRs of MSO before TDSAT

    NEW DELH: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal has directed Sun Networks Ltd to accept the SLRs provided by multi system operator Balu Cable Network as the broadcaster failed to carry out a joint survey as directed by the tribunal on 10 March.

    Sun Counsl Abhishek Malhotra told the tribunal that the broadcaster is willing to accept the SLR submitted by Balu Cable Network and raise invoices on the basis of its SLR for the following channels:- 

    1. Bouquet no.2

    2. Bouquet no.5

    3 Kushi TV

    4. Jemini Life

    5. Gemini Comedy.   

    The tribunal accordingly disposed of the petition after accepting the statement of Counsel.

    Earlier in November last year, Sun Network had been directed by the tribunal to enter into a provisional interconnect agreement with the MSO and commence supply of signals.

    The tribunal had then said that it felt that the order was proper and appropriate considering much time has already lapsed.

    The tribunal had said: “We note that this petition was filed on 28 May 2015 and it is lingering on, on some pretext or the other. The request on behalf of the respondent for making physical verification of the petitioner’s SLR cannot be disallowed.”

  • Sun-Balu dispute settled as broadcaster agrees to raise invoices based on SLRs of MSO before TDSAT

    Sun-Balu dispute settled as broadcaster agrees to raise invoices based on SLRs of MSO before TDSAT

    NEW DELH: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal has directed Sun Networks Ltd to accept the SLRs provided by multi system operator Balu Cable Network as the broadcaster failed to carry out a joint survey as directed by the tribunal on 10 March.

    Sun Counsl Abhishek Malhotra told the tribunal that the broadcaster is willing to accept the SLR submitted by Balu Cable Network and raise invoices on the basis of its SLR for the following channels:- 

    1. Bouquet no.2

    2. Bouquet no.5

    3 Kushi TV

    4. Jemini Life

    5. Gemini Comedy.   

    The tribunal accordingly disposed of the petition after accepting the statement of Counsel.

    Earlier in November last year, Sun Network had been directed by the tribunal to enter into a provisional interconnect agreement with the MSO and commence supply of signals.

    The tribunal had then said that it felt that the order was proper and appropriate considering much time has already lapsed.

    The tribunal had said: “We note that this petition was filed on 28 May 2015 and it is lingering on, on some pretext or the other. The request on behalf of the respondent for making physical verification of the petitioner’s SLR cannot be disallowed.”

  • TDSAT rejects IBF plea for more time to sign RIOs with NSTPL saying HITS players get equal status with pan-India MSOs

    TDSAT rejects IBF plea for more time to sign RIOs with NSTPL saying HITS players get equal status with pan-India MSOs

    NEW DELHI: An application by the Indian Broadcasting Foundation seeking extension of time for its members to sign reference interconnect offers agreements with the Noida Software Technology Park Ltd (NSTPL)  has been turned down by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal.  

    In a landmark judgment expected to have far reaching consequences on the Indian broadcasting industry, TDSAT had on 7 December last said that headend-in-the-sky (HITS) players should be treated on the same level as pan-India multi-system operators (MSOs) for commercial purposes.

    In its judgment on a petition filed by the NSTPL against Media Pro and others, the tribunal said its judgment would come into effect from 31 March 2016 by which time it hoped that the relevant reference interconnect offers will be revised wherever necessary.

    Apart from the IBF, some television channels had also filed applications seeking an extension, and the tribunal had addressed certain questions to the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India in this connection.

    In its order, chairman Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said after hearing TRAI counsel Saket Singh on the questions addressed to the authority, “We take it to mean that TRAI does not wish any extension of the suspension of the judgment”.

    Answering the main of the four questions, Singh had told the Tribunal that the consultation paper dated 29 January 2016 under the caption ‘Tariff issues relating to TV services’ was part of an ongoing process which is undertaken by TRAI from time to time based on its assessment of the relevant issues in the sector. The exercise is undertaken independently though it may cover some of the issues highlighted in the tribunal’s judgment dated 7 December.

    The tribunal also noted that though the IBF had made the application for extension, it was ‘apparent’ from the hearings that took place on the previous dates that some of the major broadcasters ‘have divergent views not only inter-se but also at variance with the position taken the foundation in as much as none of the broadcasters has asked for any extension of the period of suspension of the judgment.’ The extension of the suspension of the judgment was primarily sought on the plea that following the judgment, TRAI had issued a consultation paper that intends to review the regulatory framework for the broadcasting sector.

    Naming the broadcasters – Star India, Taj TV, IndiaCast, and MSM who are all members of IBF, the tribunal said” “it appears that at least on the issue of enforcement or further suspension of the judgment, the foundation is not in a position to represent the collective views of all its members. We, therefore, see no reason to entertain the application on behalf of the foundation for any further suspension of the judgment.The application is turned down.” The tribunal directed the remaining cases in the batch to come up on 8 April.

    Expectedly, the judgment will also help the Hinduja Group’s HITS platform NXT Digital, which entered into the fray earlier this year.

    In the judgment of 7 December, the Tribunal had directed both Star and Taj, as well as the other broadcasters who have joined the proceedings as intervenors to issue fresh RIOs in compliance with the Interconnect Regulations, as explained in the judgment within one month from the date this order becomes operational and effective. It had said it would be then open to NSTPL to execute fresh interconnect agreements with Star and Taj, and with any other broadcasters on the basis of their respective RIOs or on negotiated terms within the limits.

    The tribunal said: “It is difficult to see a HITS operator as different from a pan-India MSO and in our considered view a HITS operator, in regard to the commercial terms for an interconnect arrangement has to be taken at par with a pan-India MSO and must, therefore, receive the same treatment.”

    The tribunal had noted that Star and Taj will have to execute fresh interconnect agreements with the petitioner within two weeks from the date of issuance of their fresh RIOs. The agreement with Star would relate back to 30 October 2015 and with Taj to 30 June 2015. The issuance of the fresh RIOs by the broadcasters will also give right to other distributors of channels with whom the broadcasters may be in interconnect agreement to have their agreements modified in terms of clause 13.2A.7.

    NSTPL had executed an RIO based agreement with Media Pro. At that time, it did not complain before the tribunal that it was being forced into the RIO based agreement even though it had ample opportunity to do so as the Media Pro application was pending before the tribunal. Later on, after Media Pro ceased to be an agent of the broadcasters, NSTPL, even after filing the present petition, signed RIO based agreements with both Star and Taj. The agreement with Star was for the period upto 30 July, 2015 and the two agreements with Taj were upto 31 March, 2015.

    The Tribunal had also said that NSTPL must therefore be held bound by those agreements till the periods of those agreements and further, three months beyond that in terms of clause 8 of the Interconnect agreement. After those dates (29 October in case of Star and 30 June in case of Taj) the arrangement will be governed by the fresh agreements.

  • TDSAT rejects IBF plea for more time to sign RIOs with NSTPL saying HITS players get equal status with pan-India MSOs

    TDSAT rejects IBF plea for more time to sign RIOs with NSTPL saying HITS players get equal status with pan-India MSOs

    NEW DELHI: An application by the Indian Broadcasting Foundation seeking extension of time for its members to sign reference interconnect offers agreements with the Noida Software Technology Park Ltd (NSTPL)  has been turned down by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal.  

    In a landmark judgment expected to have far reaching consequences on the Indian broadcasting industry, TDSAT had on 7 December last said that headend-in-the-sky (HITS) players should be treated on the same level as pan-India multi-system operators (MSOs) for commercial purposes.

    In its judgment on a petition filed by the NSTPL against Media Pro and others, the tribunal said its judgment would come into effect from 31 March 2016 by which time it hoped that the relevant reference interconnect offers will be revised wherever necessary.

    Apart from the IBF, some television channels had also filed applications seeking an extension, and the tribunal had addressed certain questions to the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India in this connection.

    In its order, chairman Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said after hearing TRAI counsel Saket Singh on the questions addressed to the authority, “We take it to mean that TRAI does not wish any extension of the suspension of the judgment”.

    Answering the main of the four questions, Singh had told the Tribunal that the consultation paper dated 29 January 2016 under the caption ‘Tariff issues relating to TV services’ was part of an ongoing process which is undertaken by TRAI from time to time based on its assessment of the relevant issues in the sector. The exercise is undertaken independently though it may cover some of the issues highlighted in the tribunal’s judgment dated 7 December.

    The tribunal also noted that though the IBF had made the application for extension, it was ‘apparent’ from the hearings that took place on the previous dates that some of the major broadcasters ‘have divergent views not only inter-se but also at variance with the position taken the foundation in as much as none of the broadcasters has asked for any extension of the period of suspension of the judgment.’ The extension of the suspension of the judgment was primarily sought on the plea that following the judgment, TRAI had issued a consultation paper that intends to review the regulatory framework for the broadcasting sector.

    Naming the broadcasters – Star India, Taj TV, IndiaCast, and MSM who are all members of IBF, the tribunal said” “it appears that at least on the issue of enforcement or further suspension of the judgment, the foundation is not in a position to represent the collective views of all its members. We, therefore, see no reason to entertain the application on behalf of the foundation for any further suspension of the judgment.The application is turned down.” The tribunal directed the remaining cases in the batch to come up on 8 April.

    Expectedly, the judgment will also help the Hinduja Group’s HITS platform NXT Digital, which entered into the fray earlier this year.

    In the judgment of 7 December, the Tribunal had directed both Star and Taj, as well as the other broadcasters who have joined the proceedings as intervenors to issue fresh RIOs in compliance with the Interconnect Regulations, as explained in the judgment within one month from the date this order becomes operational and effective. It had said it would be then open to NSTPL to execute fresh interconnect agreements with Star and Taj, and with any other broadcasters on the basis of their respective RIOs or on negotiated terms within the limits.

    The tribunal said: “It is difficult to see a HITS operator as different from a pan-India MSO and in our considered view a HITS operator, in regard to the commercial terms for an interconnect arrangement has to be taken at par with a pan-India MSO and must, therefore, receive the same treatment.”

    The tribunal had noted that Star and Taj will have to execute fresh interconnect agreements with the petitioner within two weeks from the date of issuance of their fresh RIOs. The agreement with Star would relate back to 30 October 2015 and with Taj to 30 June 2015. The issuance of the fresh RIOs by the broadcasters will also give right to other distributors of channels with whom the broadcasters may be in interconnect agreement to have their agreements modified in terms of clause 13.2A.7.

    NSTPL had executed an RIO based agreement with Media Pro. At that time, it did not complain before the tribunal that it was being forced into the RIO based agreement even though it had ample opportunity to do so as the Media Pro application was pending before the tribunal. Later on, after Media Pro ceased to be an agent of the broadcasters, NSTPL, even after filing the present petition, signed RIO based agreements with both Star and Taj. The agreement with Star was for the period upto 30 July, 2015 and the two agreements with Taj were upto 31 March, 2015.

    The Tribunal had also said that NSTPL must therefore be held bound by those agreements till the periods of those agreements and further, three months beyond that in terms of clause 8 of the Interconnect agreement. After those dates (29 October in case of Star and 30 June in case of Taj) the arrangement will be governed by the fresh agreements.

  • Digicable plea for placement fee from News Express allowed for analogue areas only: TDSAT

    Digicable plea for placement fee from News Express allowed for analogue areas only: TDSAT

    New Delhi: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal has partially allowed a petition by MSO Digicable Network (India) Pvt. Ltd claiming analogue placement charges from Sai Prasad Media Pvt. Ltd which own the News Express Channel for a sum of Rs 63,03,058.

    Chairman Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said the amount will carry interest at 18 per cent from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. The office was directed to make a decree accordingly. The Tribunal turned down the petition in so far as it related to the areas that came under digital addressable system   

    However, the Tribunal said, “We find it difficult to hold that the petitioner was able to fully discharge its obligations under the digital placement agreement dated 16 July 2012 for the areas of Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, and Maharashtra. The Tribunal said that it is not possible to divide the amount of the placement charges from the invoices and the statement of account under the digital placement agreement and to allow the petitioner’s claim for the rest of the areas. It is, therefore, not possible to allow the petitioner’s claim under the digital placement agreement and the claim in so far it relates to the agreement dated 16 July 2012 must fail.

    On the petitioner’s claim that the towns of UP were still to come under the digital addressable system regime and there could be no agreement for transmission of channel in those towns in digital mode, the Tribunal said” “There is no law that prevents digital transmission in areas where the digital regime is yet to be implemented in terms of the notification issued by the Central Government.”

    Digicable had filed the petition for recovery of Rs 2,73,39,000 as dues of channel placement charges from Sai Prasad Media Pvt. Ltd for carrying its channel News Express on its digital as well as analogue cable TV networks. The amount was claimed along with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from the date the payment was due up to the date of payment.

    The claim of the petitioner was based on two channel placement agreements. The first one was in respect of areas where Digicable had a digital cable network. This agreement was executed on 16 July 2012 for the period 16 July 2012 to 15 July 2013. The second agreement was for certain areas where Digicable was doing transmission in analogue mode and was executed on 09 August 2012 for the period 9 August 2012 to 8 August 2013.

  • Digicable plea for placement fee from News Express allowed for analogue areas only: TDSAT

    Digicable plea for placement fee from News Express allowed for analogue areas only: TDSAT

    New Delhi: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal has partially allowed a petition by MSO Digicable Network (India) Pvt. Ltd claiming analogue placement charges from Sai Prasad Media Pvt. Ltd which own the News Express Channel for a sum of Rs 63,03,058.

    Chairman Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said the amount will carry interest at 18 per cent from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. The office was directed to make a decree accordingly. The Tribunal turned down the petition in so far as it related to the areas that came under digital addressable system   

    However, the Tribunal said, “We find it difficult to hold that the petitioner was able to fully discharge its obligations under the digital placement agreement dated 16 July 2012 for the areas of Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, and Maharashtra. The Tribunal said that it is not possible to divide the amount of the placement charges from the invoices and the statement of account under the digital placement agreement and to allow the petitioner’s claim for the rest of the areas. It is, therefore, not possible to allow the petitioner’s claim under the digital placement agreement and the claim in so far it relates to the agreement dated 16 July 2012 must fail.

    On the petitioner’s claim that the towns of UP were still to come under the digital addressable system regime and there could be no agreement for transmission of channel in those towns in digital mode, the Tribunal said” “There is no law that prevents digital transmission in areas where the digital regime is yet to be implemented in terms of the notification issued by the Central Government.”

    Digicable had filed the petition for recovery of Rs 2,73,39,000 as dues of channel placement charges from Sai Prasad Media Pvt. Ltd for carrying its channel News Express on its digital as well as analogue cable TV networks. The amount was claimed along with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from the date the payment was due up to the date of payment.

    The claim of the petitioner was based on two channel placement agreements. The first one was in respect of areas where Digicable had a digital cable network. This agreement was executed on 16 July 2012 for the period 16 July 2012 to 15 July 2013. The second agreement was for certain areas where Digicable was doing transmission in analogue mode and was executed on 09 August 2012 for the period 9 August 2012 to 8 August 2013.

  • TDSAT directs Welcome Cable to restore signals to Skynet Digital on payment of Rs 20 lakh

    TDSAT directs Welcome Cable to restore signals to Skynet Digital on payment of Rs 20 lakh

    NEW DELHI: Welcome Cable Network Pvt. Ltd has been directed by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) to resume its signals to Skynet Digital Services Pvt. Ltd on payment of Rs 20 lakh.

    The Tribunal however made it clear that the payment “will be on account and without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties.”

    Chairman Justice Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava listed the matter for further hearing on 8 April.

    The Tribunal also directed Welcome Cable counsel U Thakur to file the reply within a week and said rejoinder, if any, may be filed within two weeks for the date of receipt of a copy of the reply.

  • TDSAT directs Welcome Cable to restore signals to Skynet Digital on payment of Rs 20 lakh

    TDSAT directs Welcome Cable to restore signals to Skynet Digital on payment of Rs 20 lakh

    NEW DELHI: Welcome Cable Network Pvt. Ltd has been directed by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) to resume its signals to Skynet Digital Services Pvt. Ltd on payment of Rs 20 lakh.

    The Tribunal however made it clear that the payment “will be on account and without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties.”

    Chairman Justice Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava listed the matter for further hearing on 8 April.

    The Tribunal also directed Welcome Cable counsel U Thakur to file the reply within a week and said rejoinder, if any, may be filed within two weeks for the date of receipt of a copy of the reply.