ITV

Category: TDSAT

  • Hathway being asked to pay more by broadcasters as against other MSOs: Kathpalia

    Hathway being asked to pay more by broadcasters as against other MSOs: Kathpalia

    NEW DELHI: Even as it said that an agreement under the Reference Interconnect Order (RIO) should be for both ala carte and bouquets, Hathway today questioned why multisystem operators like Den and Siticable were being given greater discounts by Taj TV for distribution of their channels.

     

    Hathway counsel Arun Kathpalia said that the DAS Regulations of 2012 also provided for negotiations that were non-discriminatory, transparent and on reasonable terms and did not merely insist on an RIO.   

     

    In the ongoing hearing before the Tribunal in the cases linked to Taj TV signals for Turner and Zee TV, Kathpalia said the Regulation says that the broadcaster or distributor ‘may’ seek inter-connection but also provides for mutual agreement within 60 days of request.

     

    In any case, RIO is not confined to ala carte or bouquets but refers only to commercial terms, whereas Taj TV was offering Hathway RIO only on ala carte. He said under the RIO regime, both ala carte and bouquets can be offered and these have to be mentioned.

     

    He also said that the Regulations are clear that RIO can come into play only when there is no first agreement, while the issue here was about renewal.  

     

    He regretted that despite being the largest MSO, it was being offered the smallest discounts by Taj TV and the broadcasters. While Den and Siticable were being charged Rs 30.50 per subscriber, Hathway was being charged Rs 35.

     

    He alleged that at one stage, Star had wanted the sports channel to be on RIO but the general entertainment channels to be on negotiable terms. “There should be a level playing field,” he said. There was no consistency of relevant factors, he claimed.

     

    Hathway had wanted that the starting point for negotiations should be the old agreement, whereas Taj TV insisted that the old agreement was only a promotional offer but this was not true, Kathpalia said.

     

    At one stage, he said that every carrier including DTH was at a loss with the exception of Den.

  • RIO is a non-discriminatory agreement between parties under DAS: Taj

    RIO is a non-discriminatory agreement between parties under DAS: Taj

    NEW DELHI: On the third day of the Hathway Cable & Datacom and Taj Television hearing in the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT), Taj Television described agreements under the Reference Interconnect Offer (RIO) as ‘a uniform, non-discriminatory mechanism which ensures an agreement between parties.’

     

    Taj Counsel Pratibha Singh also told the TDSAT that RIO was a kind of wholesale rate in the scheme of digital addressable system (DAS). According to her, if no agreement was reached during negotiations, then the payment for TV channels in DAS areas would be fixed as specified in the RIO.

     

    “It is a default programme on a computer – if there is nothing by way of agreement, then there is RIO,” she said.

     

    In the ongoing hearing before the Tribunal in the cases linked to Taj TV, she said that it was also clear that the rates under DAS were 35 per cent of those under analogue, which was later raised to 42 per cent.

     

    Referring to an earlier case in TDSAT, Singh said that though the Quality of Service regulations under DAS tended to curtail freedom, they had protected the consumer until there was adequate competition.

     

    The Telecom (Broadcasting and cable Services) Interconnect (Digital Addressable Systems) Regulations 2012 was clear in section 5(16) that negotiations have to be held.

     

    She reiterated that Hathway had been told on 26 June through a letter that since the negotiations had failed, Taj TV was forwarding a signed RIO. Hathway had also been told that they would be according to RIO if they sent a subscriber report.

     

    She alleged that the multi system operator (MSO) had not reduced the prices of the packages even after receiving the RIO.

     

    She also said that Hathway had failed to respond to the letter sent on 26 June until Taj TV stopped the signals from 1 August. “After failed negotiations, Hathway as late as 18 August claimed that Taj TV was not negotiating despite having admitted earlier that negotiations had been held,” she clarified.

       

    She said it was unfortunate that MSOs and local cable operators felt that they did most of the work and their share should be larger. “They overlook the fact that the broadcaster pays for content, spectrum, government taxes, journalists and producers and so on,” she concluded.

  • Hathway delayed agreement on signals of Zee and Turner: Taj Television

    Hathway delayed agreement on signals of Zee and Turner: Taj Television

    NEW DELHI: In today’s hearing in the Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT), Taj Television counsel contended today and blamed Hathway Cable & Datacom for the delay in an agreement to Zee and Turner channels. She also claimed that Hathway had falsely written in its letter to Taj TV on 23 July that no negotiations were held and presented to TDSAT the dates on which meetings were held between the parties with regard to Zee TV signals.

     

    Counsel Pratibha Singh told the TDSAT today that Hathway had admitted that it had not paid for the Zee TV channels distributed between 1 April and 23 July.

     

    In the ongoing hearing before the Tribunal in the cases linked to Taj TV signals for Turner and Zee, Singh said three meetings had been held to sort out the issue, the last being on 16 June after which Taj TV had sent a copy of the agreement under the reference interconnection offer (RIO) to Hathway. A letter was also sent to Hathway in this connection on 26 June.

     

    Earlier, the Tribunal had fixed for final disposal from 25 August the ‘deep-rooted’ dispute between Hathway and Taj TV, noting that this would require interpretation of certain clauses of some of the statutory regulations.

     

    TDSAT chairman Aftab Alam and member Kuldip Singh had said: ‘unfortunately, the dispute between the two sides is playing out in highly aggressive way and one may add in a rather unpleasant manner. It seems to be affecting a large number of people in viewing their favourite TV channels. The disputants themselves are approaching the Tribunal on a weekly basis complaining against the actions of each other and seeking some interim directions of the Tribunal consuming a lot of time on arguments on miscellaneous applications.  It is, therefore, in the larger interest to finally dispose of these cases after hearing all sides at an early date.’

     

    The Tribunal noted that the dispute had arisen at a stage when the earlier fixed fee agreement between the parties has come to end and they are unable to come to agreed terms for a fresh agreement and under the circumstances the MSO has no option but to take the broadcasters’ channels on their RIO terms.

     

    When talks between the two parties failed, he said the RIO was forwarded on 25 January and was to be effective from February.

     

    Further arguments will continue tomorrow with counsel for Zee expected to conclude her arguments and Hathway responding to them.

  • RIO forms basis for final deal, agree Taj and Hathway

    RIO forms basis for final deal, agree Taj and Hathway

    NEW DELHI: Taj Television contended before the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal today that though initial signals can be given by the broadcaster or distributor to the multi system operator initially on the basis of mutual negotiation, but this ultimately has to translate into an agreement under the Reference Interconnection Offer (RIO).

     

    Responding to an argument by Taj Television that the RIO had to be signed within 30 days, counsel for Hathway said that the date limit applies to modifications in existing RIO agreements, but the deal between Taj and Hathway had to be a new one since MediaPro had stopped distribution of Zee TV and Turner channels.

     

    Earlier, the Tribunal had fixed for final disposal from 25 August the ‘deep-rooted’ dispute between Hathway and Taj, noting that this would require interpretation of certain clauses of some of the statutory regulations.

     

    TDSAT chairman Aftab Alam and member Kuldip Singh had said: ‘Unfortunately, the dispute between the two sides is playing out in highly aggressive way and one may add in a rather unpleasant manner. It seems to be affecting a large number of people in viewing their favourite TV channels. The disputants themselves are approaching the Tribunal on a weekly basis complaining against the actions of each other and seeking some interim directions of the Tribunal consuming a lot of time on arguments on miscellaneous applications.  It is, therefore, in the larger interest to finally dispose of these cases after hearing all sides at an early date.”

     

    The Tribunal noted that the dispute has arisen at a stage when the earlier fixed fee agreement between the parties has come to end and they are unable to come to agreed terms for a fresh agreement and under the circumstances the MSO has no option but to take the broadcasters’ channels on their RIO terms.

     

    Hathway counsel Arun Kathpalia who concluded his initial arguments today said Hathway has only 10 per cent of the total collections that Taj Television makes from different MSOs. Hathway was paying Rs 85 crore for all channels including Turner (while the figure excluding Turner was Rs 62 crore).

     

    He also said that Hathway had been wrongly accused of making changes in the composition of the packages. In any case, the MSO was not offering the channels on a standalone basis and so the provision under the Quality of Services regulations did not apply to them.

     

    When talks between the two parties failed, he said the RIO was forwarded on 25 January and was to be effective from February.

     

    However,Star Sports Counsel Rakesh Dwivedi said the RIO had been accepted by Hathway in November last year which was revised by Hathway in January this year. Dwivedi wanted to know why the RIO should be made effective from February 2014 when the Subscriber Register had been supplied by Hathway in December last year.  Furthermore, no facts had been shown by Hathway to show the end of pleadings.

    Further arguments will continue tomorrow with counsel for Star expected to conclude his arguments and Hathway responding to them.

  • TDSAT to hear IBF case on tariff in November

    TDSAT to hear IBF case on tariff in November

    MUMBAI: It has been a busy week for the courts. While on one hand, the Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) on 21 August heard a case from the Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF), Viacom 18 and MSM India challenging the tariff order amendment of 16 July that was passed by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI). On the other, Star India’s case challenging the TRAI order dated 18 July was heard in the Delhi High Court.

     

    Taking into account the Delhi HC order for the Star India case which came out on 19 August, the TDSAT today postponed the next hearing date for 18 November.

     

    The Federation of Hotel and Restaurants Association of India (FHRAI) had asked for refund from broadcasters for deals signed before the order came into existence that will be applicable for the current duration. However the IBF counsel stated that the order only talks of deals taking place in the new regime and the deals for which the FHRAI is asking for refunds have been done in advance.

     

    Considering the Delhi HC order and also IBF’s proposition that in a 2012 judgment, the TDSAT had itself said that when an arrangement is ongoing between parties and a tariff order is issued, it is not applicable with retrospective effect unless mentioned in the order.

     

    Therefore, the current deals signed will be dormant but not terminated till the end of the case. It has asked both parties to ensure all their pleadings are in place by 28 October so that a final verdict can be given on 18 November.

     

    Star India’s case is set for its next hearing on 26 September where it has challenged the regulation itself to which Zee is also a party.

     

    Click here to read order

  • BECIL asked to audit Den Networks’ systems following dispute with Sun Distribution Services

    BECIL asked to audit Den Networks’ systems following dispute with Sun Distribution Services

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) today directed the Broadcasting Engineering Consultants India Ltd (BECIL) to undertake an audit of the systems of Den Networks following a dispute with Sun Distribution Services.

     

    TDSAT chairman Aftab Alam and member Kuldip Singh said that KPMG engaged by Sun had undertaken an audit of Den’s head-end in Delhi following an earlier order of the Tribunal, but the report of the auditing agency cast some doubts with regard to the working of Den’s system. 

     

    The Tribunal therefore said: ‘Without going into the details of that report, we think it would be fit and proper to have an audit of the petitioner’s system made by BECIL as provided under the provison to clause 3.4 of the Telecommunication (Broadcasting & Cable Services) Interconnection (Digital Addressable Cable Television Systems) Regulations 2012. ‘

     

    The Tribunal also noted that Den ‘undeniably failed to submit any subscribers’ reports whatsoever’ to Sun, with regard to its various channels for the period November 2012 to July 2013. It also noted that Sun’s counsel had said Den was supplying all its channels without any restriction to all the set top boxes seeded by it to its subscribers, the number of which would run into several lakhs.

     

    After July 2013, the petitioner has been submitting on a monthly basis certain figures relating to the subscribers’ base of the respondent’s different channels, but those too do not conform to the statutory requirements concerning the monthly subscriber management system (SMS) reports, counsel said.

     

    Listing the matter for 29 August, TDSAT listed the issues that BECIL may examine during its audit:

    – Whether or not the CAS and the SMS systems at the petitioner’s head-end are properly integrated and whether or not, it is possible to verify the SMS figures with reference to the data generated from the CAS system.

    – Whether it is technologically possible to find out the true subscriber base for the different channels of the respondent for the period November 2012 to July 2013 by retrieving the relevant data from the petitioner’s CAS system or by any other means.

    – In case it is not possible to find out the true subscriber base for the different channels of the respondent for the period November 2012 to July 2013 with reference to the data retrievable from CAS, what process BECIL might suggest for arriving at a reasonable estimate of the subscriber base for the respondent’s different channels for the period November 2012 to July 2013?

    – Whether or not it is possible to verify the correctness of the subscribers’ figures supplied by the petitioner to the respondent for the period August 2013 to June 2014 with reference to the data retrievable from the petitioner’s CAS system or by any other means. 

    – In case those figures are not verifiable with reference to the data retrievable from the petitioner’s CAS system, what should be the approach for verifying their correctness?

     

    Having regard to nature of the controversy, the BECIL is requested to complete the audit and submit its report within two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.  Needless to say that Den shall accord full cooperation to BECIL in conduct of the audit and shall also bear the entire cost of the audit. 

     

  • TDSAT to hear Hathway and Taj TV on their ‘aggressive’ dispute later this month

    TDSAT to hear Hathway and Taj TV on their ‘aggressive’ dispute later this month

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) today fixed for final disposal on 25 August the ‘deep-rooted’ dispute between Hathway and Taj TV in public interest, noting that this would require interpretation of certain clauses of some of the statutory regulations.

     

    TDSAT chairman Aftab Alam and member Kuldip Singh said: ‘Unfortunately, the dispute between the two sides is playing out in a highly aggressive way and one may add in a rather unpleasant manner. It seems to be affecting a large number of people in viewing their favourite TV channels. The disputants themselves are approaching the Tribunal on a weekly basis complaining against the actions of each other and seeking some interim directions of the Tribunal consuming a lot of time on arguments on miscellaneous applications.”

     

    The Tribunal noted that both sides have assured the Tribunal that they would avoid issuing the offensive advertisements against each other.

     

    In the order today, the Tribunal directed Taj TV to file their respective replies in petitions nos 319(C) of 2014 and 47(C) of 2014 by 20 August 2014. In case Hathway wishes to file any rejoinder, it should serve a copy of the rejoinder on the other side by 23 August subject to which it may file the rejoinder on 25 August.

     

    The Tribunal noted that the dispute has arisen at a stage when the earlier fixed fee agreement between the parties has come to end and they were unable to come to agreed terms for a fresh agreement and under the circumstances the MSO has no option but to take the broadcasters’ channels on their RIO terms.

     

    Earlier this month, TDSAT had directed Taj Television to restore with immediate effect the signals of Zee TV channels to Hathway Cable and Datacom pending the final hearing a petition by the latter. The broadcaster had switched off signals to the MSO stating that the two hadn’t reached a solution to their problems.

     

    It had also directed Hathway, as an interim measure to make payment of the monthly subscription fees from 1 April 2014 (in case of in case of Kolkata and Digital Addressable System – II areas) and from 1 May 2014 (in case of Delhi and Mumbai) up to 31 July at the of Rs.21.60 cost per subscriber basis.

     

    Zee channels were earlier being distributed to Hathway by Media Pro but the latter was not in a position to renew the agreements. In view of the Regulations issued by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India around the same time the earlier agreements came to end.

               

    Thus, the Zee group of channels came to be handled by Taj Television. But when discussions between Hathway and Taj Television for Zee TV channels failed to yield any results, Taj TV on 26 June sent the RIO based agreement executed from its side. There was delay on the part of Hathway in executing the RIO based agreement and in the meanwhile Taj Television issued the disconnection notice under regulation 6.1 on 8 July 2014 and the public notice under regulation 6.5 on 11 July 2014. However, Hathway later counter-signed the RIO based agreement and sent it back to Taj Television which refused to accept a cheque sent by Hathway. This led to the petition by Hathway. 

  • Dispute deepens between Star India and Hathway

    Dispute deepens between Star India and Hathway

    MUMBAI: The case is up for a long hearing, with no resolution coming out soon. Star India and Hathway Cable & Datacom have emerged from another round of the Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) hearing with just another date in their hand.

     

    While the earlier interim order still applies, the broadcaster feels that there is an issue of under declaration of subscriber numbers. Earlier last week, Hathway had submitted to Star, its subscriber management system (SMS) report for April to July which according to sources is an average of 4.4 million.

     

    However, a Star India executive informs that it wasn’t satisfied with the declaration and had filed a clarification application regarding number of active subscribers. To this, Hathway responded today in TDSAT that the declared numbers were indeed active subscribers. The MSO had also responded to the application that it had already furnished the required SMS report, post which the broadcaster withdrew it.

     

    Hathway had paid Rs 26.5 crore for DAS I areas of Mumbai and Delhi, DAS areas of Kolkata and DAS II areas. However, the Star executive feels that the MSO has omitted the subscribers of its sports packs and the amount paid should be higher.

     

    “We have now given the details to our auditor to evaluate and then we will be raising invoices on the same,” says the executive.

     

    The case has now been postponed to another date.

     

  • TDSAT expresses displeasure over Hathway-Taj TV squabble, agrees to hear matter next week

    TDSAT expresses displeasure over Hathway-Taj TV squabble, agrees to hear matter next week

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Arbitration Tribunal (TDSAT), which earlier this month gave a lengthy order settling a dispute between Hathway Cable & Datacom and Taj Television, has expressed its ‘deep displeasure over the manner in which both sides are sniping and chipping at each other giving rise to completely futile litigations.’

     

    The comment by TDSAT chairman Aftab Alam and member Kuldip Singh came following a new miscellaneous application on the issue by Hathway on 8 August and the announcement by Taj Television that it was also filing a miscellaneous application. The Tribunal listed the matter for further hearing on 13 August.

     

    Earlier this month, TDSAT had directed Taj Television to restore with immediate effect the signals of Zee TV channels to Hathway pending the final hearing of the petition by the latter.

     

    It had also directed Hathway as an interim measure to make payment of the monthly subscription fees from 1 April 2014 (in case of Kolkata and Digital Addressable System – II areas) and from 1 May 2014 (in case of Delhi and Mumbai) up to 31 July at the rate of Rs 21.60 cost per subscriber basis.

     

    The Tribunal asked Taj to reply to the petition filed by Hathway in three weeks and asked the MSO to file a rejoinder if any two weeks thereafter.

     

    However, following a new miscellaneous application by Hathway objecting to certain advertisements and scrolls being carried on Zee channels, TDSAT said, “Having regard to the amounts of revenue that is generated by the broadcasting industry, the vast social space occupied by it and the social role it claims to play, one should have expected the two sides, each of them major players in the industry, to act responsibly and show a modicum of restraint in their dealings with each other but they seem to be freely indulging in unseemly squabbles. What is more, they seem to show no regard much less any respect for the proprieties of judicial proceedings.”

     

    While TDSAT noted that Taj Television counsel Pratibha Singh was prepared to withdraw the advertisements and even invited Hathway counsel Arun Kathpalia to have a discussion with her on the issue, she said that distribution arm for Zee was preparing a miscellaneous application for recall or modification of the Tribunal’s order of 1 August.

     

    The Tribunal said: “It is surprising that an application is proposed to be filed for recall/modification of the order even before our signatures on the order are yet not fully dried. The reason stated for filing the application is even more surprising; it is stated that on that date, the local people at Taj Television and the counsel representing it were not fully posted with the facts, especially in regard to the placement agreements between the two sides.”

     

    Noting that “no party can be stopped from filing an application,” the Tribunal insisted that both parties must be present at the next hearing in person. 

     

    Zee Channels were earlier being distributed to Hathway by Media Pro but the latter was not in a position to renew the agreements in view of the regulations issued by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India around the same time the earlier agreements came to end.

     

    Thus, the Zee group of channels came to be handled by Taj Television. But when discussions between Hathway and Taj Television for Zee TV channels failed to yield any results, Taj Television on 26 June sent the RIO based agreement executed from its side. There was delay on the part of Hathway in executing the RIO based agreement and in the meanwhile Taj Television issued the disconnection notice under regulation 6.1 on 8 July 2014 and the public notice under regulation 6.5 on 11 July 2014. However, Hathway later counter-signed the RIO based agreement and sent it back to Taj Television which refused to accept a cheque sent by Hathway. This led to the petition by the MSO. 

  • TDSAT directs Taj TV to restore Zee signals to Hathway; to hear MSOs plea late next month

    TDSAT directs Taj TV to restore Zee signals to Hathway; to hear MSOs plea late next month

    NEW DELHI: Taj Television has been directed by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) to restore with immediate effect the signals of Zee TV channels to Hathway Cable and Datacom, pending final hearing of the petition by the latter.

     

    TDSAT Chairman Justice Aftab Alam and member Kuldip Singh also directed Hathway as an interim measure to make payment of the monthly subscription fees from 1 April 2014 (in case of Kolkata and Digital Addressable System – II areas) and from 1 May 2014 (in case of Delhi and Mumbai) up to 31 July at the rate of Rs 21.60 cost per subscriber basis.

     

    The Tribunal has asked Taj to reply to the petition filed by Hathway in three weeks and asked Hathway to file a rejoinder if any, two weeks thereafter.

     

    Zee channels were earlier being distributed to Hathway by Media Pro but the latter was not in a position to renew the agreements in view of the regulations issued by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India around the same time the earlier agreements came to end.

     

    Thus, the Zee group of channels came to be handled by Taj Television. But when discussions between Hathway and Taj Television for Zee TV channels failed to yield any results, Taj TV on 26 June sent the RIO based agreement executed from its side. There was delay on the part of Hathway in executing the RIO based agreement and in the meanwhile, Taj Television issued the disconnection notice under regulation 6.1 on 8 July 2014 and the public notice under regulation 6.5 on 11 July 2014.

     

    On 28 July 2014, Hathway counter-signed the RIO based agreement and sent it back to Taj Television.  On the same day, Hathway also sent a cheque dated 31 July for Rs 16.8 crore.  

     

    According to it, this amount was in full payment of the arrears of the monthly subscription fees for the period 1 April to 31 July 2014, calculated at the rate specified under the fixed fee agreements with Media Pro that had expired on 30 March and 30 April.

     

    However, Taj did not accept the cheque and sent it back and deactivated the signals on 31 July.

     

    This led to the present petition by Hathway. During arguments, Hathway maintained that the RIO agreement can only come into effect prospectively and for the past period it can only be asked to make payment on the basis of the fixed fee agreement with Media Pro and at the rates as specified under the earlier agreements.

     

    The Tribunal has identified three main issues for decision:

     

    (i) Whether the RIO based agreement and the rates prescribed under the RIO would apply retrospectively from the date immediately following the expiry of the earlier agreement or prospectively from the date it was executed by both sides?

     

    (ii) Whether in the facts of this case, Hathway’s liability to make payment on RIO rates would arise from 26 June 2014 when the agreement was signed by Taj Television and it was sent to it for its counter signature?

     

    (iii) What would be Hathway’s liability towards payment of monthly subscription fee for the period immediately following the expiry of the earlier agreement and the date on which the RIO agreement between the two sides came into effect?