ITV

Category: TDSAT

  • Broadcaster cannot direct service providers on minimum period of telecast: TDSAT

    Broadcaster cannot direct service providers on minimum period of telecast: TDSAT

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Arbitration Tribunal (TDSAT) has said that a broadcaster cannot insist that the service provider must prescribe a minimum subscription period of three months.

     

     In a judgment that may have far-reaching consequences, TDSAT however interpreted the Tariff Order of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) to mean that the service provider may prescribe a maximum of three months as the minimum period of subscription to its subscribers subscribing to a-la-carte channels.

     

    Allowing the petition by Dish TV against ESPN Software India, chairman justice Aftab Alab and member Kuldeep Singh said clause 5.2 of the Reference Interconnect Offer (RIO) offered by ESPN to Dish TV as well as clause 4.6 is not in conformity with the regulations. The bench also directed that a copy of the judgment be supplied to TRAI.

     

     Accordingly, the bench in the judgment written by Singh said clause 5.6 of RIO shall be modified accordingly. Similarly, clause 8.2 of the RIO shall be modified to make the reporting requirement in conformity with the RIO published by respondent on its website.

     

     Referring to charges by ESPN that Dish TV only beamed matches for any month or part thereof when ESPN’s channel is showing cricket matches in which Indian team is participating and the same is activated as part of the ‘India Cricket Package,’ the calculation of subscribers of such a channel shall be based on the total number of subscribers subscribing to all such bouquets that offer “ICP” for the whole month irrespective of the fact when the channel is activated or de-activated.

     

     The number of subscribers of the respondent’s such channel that is shown as part of ICP shall be calculated on a calendar month basis as all the subscribers subscribing to such bouquets which contain the ICP for all such months or part thereof during which the channel is activated.

     

     The Tribunal said the interest of justice will be served if it is directed that for any month or part thereof when ESPN’s channel is showing cricket matches in which Indian team is participating and the same is activated as part of the ICP, the calculation of subscribers of such a channel shall be based on the total number of subscribers subscribing to all such bouquets that offer “ICP” for the whole month irrespective of the fact when the channel is activated or de-activated. The calculation will be on the calendar month basis and if the matches being played on the channel, due to which the channel is activated as part of ICP, spill over to the next calendar month, the subscribers will be counted for both the months.

     

     The Tribunal directed the parties to enter into the agreement based on the modified RIO within a period of two weeks.

     

    In terms of the Tribunal’s order dated 10 April 2012 in Petition No.382(c) of 2011 filed by ESPN, the petitioner was entitled to the restitution of the amount which was paid to the respondent for the months of September 2011 onwards. The parties shall reconcile their accounts by taking the number of subscribers as calculated in accordance the directions of the Tribunal with regard to subscribers. The respondent, if it so desires, may carry out an audit of the petitioner’s SMS and the petitioner shall fully cooperate with the respondent for the same. The audit and reconciliation of accounts shall be completed within four weeks and the past accounts settled within four weeks thereafter.

     

    It said the Tariff Order was clear that the subscribers referred to in clause 6 are the end users and not the distributor of signals and the sub-clause (ii) applies to the distributor of the signals who can specify the minimum subscription period not exceeding three months to their subscribers for a-la-carte channels. Thus, the Tribunal said that this clause did not give ESPN the right to prescribe the minimum period of three months in their RIO.  

     

     According to the ESPN, Dish TV had formulated one ‘India Cricket Pack’ which is a hybrid pack. This pack has been provided in such a way that subscribers opting for that pack get sports channels for the period of special sports events and where India is playing on one side. It will be available for the period of 5 to 10 days and whenever the match is complete, the channel will get disconnected. According to the respondent such practice is causing huge loss to it as the subscribers getting such facility will not be recorded and reported to the respondent.

  • BECIL to conduct audit of status of IndiaCast channels on Dish TV

    BECIL to conduct audit of status of IndiaCast channels on Dish TV

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) today directed an independent audit by BECIL of the package of IndiaCast UTV Media Distribution, being carried by Dish TV to ascertain the number of channels being offered to consumers who opted for them.

     

    Meanwhile, chairman justice Aftab Alam and member Kuldeep Singh directed Dish TV to furnish a bank guarantee of Rs 15 crore to be submitted within 10 days. The case will now be heard on 15 July.

     

    The petitions by both sides came up today in the context of the earlier order of 19 December 2013, wherein Dish TV had committed that from January 2014, “it shall take all the 22 channels of the petitioner (with regard to which the fixed deal agreement comes to an end on 31.12.2013) out of its packages and put them on a-la-carte basis on its platform. In respect of the remaining 16 channels likewise, the respondent shall put them on a-la-carte basis on its platform, with effect from 1 April 2014 on expiry of the fixed deal agreement on 31 March 2014. No legal objection can be taken to the arrangement proposed to be made by the respondent.”

     

    Dish TV had then stated that “a scroll running on the TV screens will only say that after 31 December 2013 the 22 channels of the petitioner shall be available only on a-la-carte basis and invite anyone who want to subscribe to any of those channels on a-la-carte basis, to communicate on the SMS number mentioned in that scroll.”

     

    The dispute before the Tribunal related the number of people who had opted according to the scroll run by Dish TV and whether payment was made in that regard.

  • Six broadcasters, content aggregators directed to provide signals to AP MSO

    Six broadcasters, content aggregators directed to provide signals to AP MSO

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Arbitration Tribunal (TDSAT), on 22 April, directed six broadcasters and content aggregators to enter into agreements with the Andhra Pradesh based multi-system operator Wiretel Digital Networks.

     

    In the judgement pronounced on Tuesday, the TDSAT bench comprising chairman Aftab Alam and member Kuldeep Singh said the agreements will be based on reference interconnect offer.

     

     The broadcasters/aggregators are ESPN, MediaPro, MSM Discovery, Sun, Ma TV and ETV.

     

     The petitioner, who holds a digital addressable system licence, had approached TDSAT in February 2013 after the respondents delayed/refused to provide signals to it on DAS mode.

     

     The bench for the first time also interpreted the DAS Regulations with regard to mandatory provisioning of signals on DAS mode – ‘the must provide’ obligation.

  • TDSAT to hear all six DTH ops plea on licence fee on 6 May

    TDSAT to hear all six DTH ops plea on licence fee on 6 May

    NEW DELHI: The government has assured the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) that it will not pressurise the private direct-to-home (DTH) operators with regard to its demand for payment of licence fee until the next date of hearing, which is on 6 May.

     

    This assurance was given to the Tribunal, which had yesterday morning given directions to the government to respond to petitions by Tata Sky, Reliance Big TV and Sun Direct to respond within three weeks,

     

    However, the Tribunal decided to hear the matter again today when the other private DTH operators – Dish TV, Videocon d2h and Airtel Digital TV – mentioned the issue before the Tribunal yesterday afternoon and also pointed out that Clause 3.1.1 in Reliance’s licence was different from the corresponding clause in the licence granted to Tata Sky. 

     

    Following this, the Tribunal had recalled its order with regard to Reliance and said ‘we regret this material difference was not pointed out to us when the case was taken up for preliminary hearing.’

     

    But counsel for Reliance Big TV today assured the Tribunal that the relevant clause had been subsequently changed and that the DTH operator stood on the same footing as other operators.  

     

    Although the government opposed the petitions when they came up for hearing, the Tribunal stood by its earlier order of hearing the matter on 6 May and said the private operators could file rejoinders, if any, within one week of the government’s reply.

     

    Even as the petitioners have alleged that the demand by the Information and Broadcasting Ministry is contempt of court as a matter in this regard is pending in the Supreme Court, I and B Secretary Bimal Julka had told indiantelevision.com that the apex court had not issued any stay order.

     

    However, conscious that the TDSAT or the Supreme Court may be moved in the matter, a caveat had been filed by the Ministry in this regard.

     

    The Ministry had recently sent a notice to the six private DTH Operators with regard to licence fee dues amounting to Rs 2,066 crore. 

     

    According to the notice sent early last week, the six private operators have been asked to pay the amount within fifteen days. 

     

    However, most of the operators contacted by indiantelevision.com said they had cleared the dues of licence fee. 

     

    The operators say the licence fee as demanded under the rules is on gross revenue (GR) whereas they have been asked to pay the fee on the basis of Actual Gross Revenue (AGR). The operators have said the fee should be only on subscription revenue and not on allied earnings such as dividend and interest income. 

  • TDSAT to hear DTH ops plea on licence fee on 6 May

    TDSAT to hear DTH ops plea on licence fee on 6 May

    NEW DELHI: The petition by the three major direct-to-home (DTH) operators challenging the notice of the government for clearing arrears of licence fees will be heard on 6 May by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT).

     

    When counsel for the petitioners mentioned the petition before the Tribunal, counsel for the government said the DTH operators will not be pressurised in this regard till the case is taken up for hearing.

     

    The government has been asked to file a reply within three weeks and the three petitioners – Tata Sky, Sun Direct TV and Reliance Big TV – will file rejoinders, if any, within one week of that.

     

    Even as the petitioners have alleged that the demand by the Information and Broadcasting Ministry is contempt of court as the matter in this regard is pending in the Supreme Court, I and B Secretary Bimal Julka had earlier told indiantelevision.com that the apex court had not issued any stay order.

     

    However, conscious that the TDSAT or the Supreme Court may be moved in the matter, a caveat had been filed by the Ministry in this regard.

     

    The Ministry had recently sent a notice to the six private DTH operators with regard to licence fee dues amounting to Rs 2,066 crore.

     

     According to the notice sent early last week, the six private operators had been asked to pay the amount within fifteen days.

     

     However, most of the operators contacted by indiantelevision.com said they had cleared the dues of licence fee.

     

     The operators say the licence fee as demanded under the rules is on gross revenue (GR) whereas they have been asked to pay the fee on the basis of Actual Gross Revenue (AGR). The operators have said the fee should be only on subscription revenue and not on allied earnings such as dividend and interest income.

  • IndiaCast withdraws contempt application against Dish TV in TDSAT

    IndiaCast withdraws contempt application against Dish TV in TDSAT

    NEW DELHI: The deal between IndiaCast and Dish TV over the DTH operator’s ‘on request channels’ scheme has come into effect with the latter providing IndiaCast channels on an a la carte basis from 1 January 2014.

    However, even before the previous agreement could end, the aggregator once again had approached the Telecom Disputes Settement Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT), last year, claiming that Dish TV was in violation of the 19 December TDSAT order that had brought about a ceasefire between the two.

    The petitioner (IndiaCast) had filed an application about its apprehension regarding compliance of the TDSAT order by Dish TV and that its channels will be visible in its packs even after the deal terminates. However, during the hearing that came up on New Year’s eve, the aggregator’s counsel withdew the application after the TDSAT observed that there was no non-compliance on the part of Dish TV in following its previous order.

    The bench also stated that the application was premature as the agreement will only come into effect from 1 January when the deal ends for 22 IndiaCast channels which will now only be provided on an a la carte basis above the packages. It also mentioned that Dish TV had modified its scroll to say the same. The application was dismissed as withdrawn by the petitioner.

    The order passed on 19 December noted that no legal objection can be taken to the arrangement proposed to be made by Dish TV to take out IndiaCast channels out of its packs and provide them only on a la carte basis to subscribers who want to view the channels. One deal comes into effect from 1 January for 22 channels and the second comes into effect from 1 April 2014 for 16 channels after the fixed deal agreement expires. IndiaCast counsel Ramji Srinivasan had given an undertaking that the ads published by its client against the respondent shall stop forthwith.

  • IndiaCast vs DishTV: The final TDSAT order says it all

    IndiaCast vs DishTV: The final TDSAT order says it all

    MUMBAI: Last week, there was a lot of brouhaha about the IndiaCast vs DishTV round of fisticuffs on the DTH operator’s “on request channel service” and the former’s flurry of ads in newspapers and on TV. Both sides claimed victory, saying the Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) had ruled in their favour. But there was no order in sight.

     

    Today the TDSAT posted it on its web site, with he verdict pronounced by its chairman Aftab Alam. And here are the highlights: 

     

     

    * The tribunal says that a legal objection cannot be taken to Dish TV’s arrangement of ‘on request channels’ which its counsel said would imply that from1 January 2014, 22 IndiaCast channels will be available only as a-la-carte out of its package. The deal with the other 16 channels shall come to an end on 31 March and from 1 April, they would also be treated similarly.

     

    * The Dish TV counsel also clarified that the scroll running on IndiaCast channels shall from now on only say that those channels will be available on a-la-carte basis and people shall be asked to communicate through the SMS number mentioned on it in case they want to subscribe to any of them.

     

    * IndiaCast counsel was requested to give an undertaking to the court that the ads published by its client against Dish TV shall stop. 

     

    And with these statements, the TDSAT disposed off both the petitions. 

     

    Who really won? It looks like each got its way, in some way, and the tribunal told them to cease firing.  But is it the last that we have seen of them bashing each other? Will they come together on the table and negotiate a deal? 

     

    After all, the seven million subs of Dish TV are not to be sniffed away. And the absence of channels such as Colors on Dish TV pack can lead to customer attrition. History has shown that very few Indian customers go for a-la-carte channels. This will continue to be the case unless customers miraculously have a change in their consumption habits. Both IndiaCast and Dish TV might hold out for a while but we at indiantelevision.com  are betting on the duo reaching a settlement – sooner, than later. 

     

    Click here for the full order

  • TRAI ad cap: Broadcasters’ appeal dismissed by TDSAT

    TRAI ad cap: Broadcasters’ appeal dismissed by TDSAT

    MUMBAI: The highly awaited Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) ad cap appeal in the Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has been dismissed by the tribunal as not maintainable by it, as predicted by indiantelevision.com earlier.

    Apparently, what influenced the TDSAT decision was the recent Supreme Court verdict stating that TDSAT does not have the authority to hear cases challenging TRAI regulations.

     

    The next course of action for the News Broadcasters Association et al, likely lies in approaching the High Court for relief. 

  • TDSAT-Ad cap: Amicus curiae No 2 takes over

    TDSAT-Ad cap: Amicus curiae No 2 takes over

    MUMBAI: The TRAI ad cap hearing has entered its final stages at the TDSAT even as the second amicus curiae Aman Ahluwalia came up spoke forth, following the completion of first amicus curiae Madhavi Divan’s arguments.

    Divan had opined that the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) has authority because duration of TV commercials is not content and quality of service is not a technical point. So the TRAI had the right to mandate any ad regulation under section 11 of the TRAI Act.

    Ahluwalia put forth the point that there wasn’t a necessity to get into the larger aspects as to whether TRAI has the right to deal with content or not because duration is not content. A decision can be made as to whether duration can be taken as content and if it is not then TRAI has the powers under section 11 of the TRAI act to deal with quality of services.

    Articles 19 and 14 of the Constitution will not come into the picture if it is held that duration is not content.

    He also said that he had personally done an average of ad timings on English channels for a week in September, after the 12 minute ad cap regulation came into effect. His finding was that broadcasters were doing an average of 17 to 19 minutes of TV commercials and it was not as grave as TRAI was making it out to be.

    The TDSAT bench questioned Ahluwalia that if there already was a provision in the Cable TV Networks (CTN) Act then what was the need to consider enforcement of regulating advertising under the TRAI Act. The bench added that it was difficult to understand that the regulation is the same as section 7 (11) of the CTN Act because they don’t have the same wording. To this Ahluwalia said that if they have powers under two laws but they have just used one then the two should be harmoniously constructed.

    Ahluwalia will continue on the commercial aspects of the the enforcement of the ad cap case tomorrow after which broadcasters will get a chance to submit their rejoinders.

  • TDSAT-Ad cap: TRAI done; amicus curiae takes over

    TDSAT-Ad cap: TRAI done; amicus curiae takes over

    MUMBAI: The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) finally wound up its arguments on 25 November on broadcasting advertising cap regulations. Speaking for the third consecutive day, TRAI counsel Rakesh Dwivedi elaborated on Article 14 of the Constitution that talks about the fundamental right to equality.

    His point was that all channels are at a par. Although free-to-air (FTA) channels don’t get subscription revenues like others, they are benefited in some other way and thus they should also be treated as those that receive payments. Dwivedi also submitted data alleging that channels had grossly (highly) violated the ad regulation. 

    With that the TRAI concluded its side of arguments and the first Amicus Curiae took over. Madhavi Divan started with the history of television and brought up many points like how TV was licensed, a few judgements, the Cable TV Networks Act, the TRAI act, the convergence bill that never saw the light of day as well as the fact that there was a bill to establish an independent authority. She argued that broadcasting services fall under the TRAI Act because originally they were planning to bring it under an independent act, which never happened.

    She also stated that duration of advertisements does not come under content. She read out a few important points from a book that gave insight in to the setting up of TRAI, how cable operators came into existence and other details about the industry. The bench wanted to know from her who is the enforcer of violation of the duration of advertisements. Divan said she would be attending to that tomorrow.

    Once she concludes her arguments in a day or two, the second amicus – Aman Ahluwalia would speak on the subject.

    The ad cap issue hearing appears to be entering its last round. It is just a matter of time – some say within two to three weeks that TDSAT will be ready to announce its verdict.