ITV

Category: TRAI

  • TRAI issues dos & don’ts for MSOs and LCOs

    TRAI issues dos & don’ts for MSOs and LCOs

    MUMBAI: With industry not yet bearing the full fruits of digital addressable systems (DAS) rollout in phase I and phase II areas, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) today issued a few dos and don’ts, which it believes will help give a broad operational framework to local cable operators (LCOs) and multisystem operators (MSO).

     

    The dos and don’ts have been issued on three levels: first, in respect of subscribers and customers of digital addressable cable TV; second, for LCOs providing cable TV services through DAS and thirdly for MSOs providing cable TV services through DAS.

     

    A brief overview of the same follows:

     

    (A) Dos & Don’ts for MSOs & LCOs in respect of Subscribers/Customers of DAS:

     

    DOs

     

    1. Representatives should carry a valid ID when visiting customers/subscribers premises.

     

    2. Ensure that the customer seeking cable TV connection through DAS is given a Customer Application Form (CAF)

     

    3. Handover a copy of the completed CAF along with the Manual of Practice (MOP) to the subscriber.

     

    4. Share a surrender application form with customer on request.

     

    5. Explain the T&C for providing STB to the customer along with tariff options.

    6. Ensure that all details are explained to the customers in detail.

     

    7. Provide with a bill and payment receipt to every subscriber.

     

    8. Send acknowledgement of receipt of payment electronically to the subscriber.

     

    9. Ensure that the subscriber is informed about his current status of his account.

     

    10. Reduce subscription charges if any channel is subscribed to be a subscriber becomes unavailable on the network of the MSO.

     

    11. Publish & prominently display the toll-free consumer care number and contact number of the Nodal Officer for redressal of consumer grievances.

     

    12. Set up a web-based complaint handling/monitoring system.

     

    13. Conduct periodic consumer awareness programmes about Quality of Service (QoS) Regulation provisions for subscribers.

     

    DON’Ts

     

    1. Activate STB before entering the details of customer and his choice of channels.

     

    2. Discontinue any channel to a subscriber, if the subscriber paid subscription amount for that channel in advance and that channel is available on your platform.

     

    (B) Dos & Don’ts for LCOs providing cable TV services through DAS

     

    DOs

     

    1. Register with Head Post Office before offering cable TV services.

     

    2. Renew registration with Head Post Office every year.

     

    3. Enter into an agreement with the MSO whose signal you will carry.

     

    4. Keep a copy of agreement with you.

     

    5. Give the completed CAF to the MSO for processing and retain one with yourself.

     

    6. Provide complete details of payment made by each subscriber to your MSO within the agreed time frame.

     

    7. Give the respected surrender application form to the MSO for processing.

     

    DON’Ts

     

    1. Transmit cable TV service without valid registration as this is illegal.

     

    2. Transmit cable TV signals to subscribers without proper written interconnection agreement with the MSO.

     

    3. Discontinue the transmission of cable signal without giving 21 days notice to the MSO, clearly specifying the reasons for the proposed discontinuation.

     

    4. Change the MSO of the subscriber, till the subscriber request so by filling a surrender application form for the existing MSO’s connection and a new CAF for the new MSO’s connection. The new STB should be activated only after entry of the details, as provided in new CAF, into the SMS of the new MSO.

     

     

    (C) Dos & Don’ts for MSOs providing cable TV services through DAS

     

    DOs

     

    1. Register with the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting (MIB) as an MSO.

     

    2. Enter into an agreement with LCO, if you are providing the cable TV service to subscribers through one or more LCOs.

     

    3. Ensure a copy of the agreement is handed to the LCO within 15 days from date of signing and receipt is duly acknowledged.

     

    4. Ensure that the T&C of the agreement conform to the TRAI regulations.

     

    5. Ensure that the agreement explicitly mentions the date of coming into force and the date of expiry.

     

    6. Ensure the agreement mentions the list of responsibilities of the MSO and the LCO, respectively, the revenue share agreed, and the procedure for uploading the consumer complaints, received by your linked LCOs, in the complaint handling/ monitoring system.

     

    7. Ensure that the interconnection agreement contains explicit provisions for settlement of disputes.

     

    8. Provide access to the relevant data in the Subscriber Management System (SMS) to all of your linked LCOs for the purposes of settlement of revenue shares in accordance with the agreement.

     

    9. Educate your linked LCOs about the various schemes you are offering for procuring a set-top-box (STB) by a subscriber and also the channel(s)/ bouquet(s) available on your network.

     

    10. Provide adequate number of spare STBs to all of your linked LCOs to meet the timelines set in the Quality of Service Regulations of TRAI, to avoid long disruptions in service to any subscriber due to malfunctioning STB.

     

    11. Ensure that prior notice of 15 days is provided through local newspapers and through scrolls on TV Screen to inform subscribers who are likely to be affected due to the disconnection. Such notice should be published in two leading local newspapers of the State in which affected LCOs are providing the services, out of which one notice should be published in a newspaper in the local language.

     

    12. Ensure that sufficient number of Customer Application Forms (CAFs) and Manual of Practice is available with your linked LCOs for distribution to the customers at the time of providing connection.

     

    DON’Ts

     

    1)Provide cable TV services without valid registration as MSO as this is illegal.

     

    2)Provide cable TV signals to LCOs without a written interconnection agreement as this is illegal.

     

    3)Give pre-activated STB to any LCO or to any customer.

     

    4)Disconnect the signals of TV channels of your linked LCO(s) without giving 21 days notice to such LCO(s) and clearly specifying the reasons for disconnection.

  • Star India roots for OTT services; says premature to work on regulatory regime

    Star India roots for OTT services; says premature to work on regulatory regime

    NEW DELHI: With the burgeoning of Over The Top (OTT) services in the Indian ecosystem, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) is looking at creating a regulatory framework to keep a check on them.

     

    However, media and entertainment major Star India is of the opinion that TRAI should not create ‘artificial distortions’ by creating regulatory frameworks for OTT services, as there is no any evidence of market failure, abuse of dominance, monopolistic practices, or anti-consumer and anti-competitive behavior.

     

    Responding to TRAI’s Consultation Paper on the subject, Star India said that no case has been made out in the Paper of anti-competitive practices. “No regulatory impact assessment has been done, there is no ‘consumer problem’ as such that has been defined, no cost benefit analysis has been conducted, no qualitative or quantitative aspects have been highlighted of the problem at hand, and so the Paper is actually deficient.”

     

    Star India also said that Internet based services are already covered by substantive legislative frameworks like the Copyright Act, the Information Technology Act 2008 combined with the Competition Act. These legislations not only set out the commercial and technical parameters for conducting business but also set the legal boundaries for conduct in a market based environment. “Hence, there appears to be no need for a separate regulatory framework or licensing regime, which seeks to erode or over ride the existing laws or create artificial regulatory constructs, which result in market distortions. In fact, this was the exact argument telecom operators had earlier made while stating their case for not regulating mobile value added services (MVAS), which in essence is quite similar to Internet-based services,” said News Corp’s Indian arm.

     

    Writing on behalf of the broadcaster, Star India vice chairman of legal and regulatory issues Pulak Bagchi said, “The very fact that OTT services have found technological solutions to increase efficiencies means that we should do everything in our ability to promote their growth, not curtail them. Licensing almost always tends to create a privileged club on the basis of restricting access, which is against the very ethos of this revolution.”

     

    Bagchi went on to add that lawful interception is a cost and technology issue. “The government only has to license these technologies from those who own or hold the IP for such technologies. Given that functions like lawful interception, ensuring privacy al are sovereign functions, costs towards the need to be shared by licensee telcos and the government. For this purpose, the AGR payments made by telcos should be deemed to include their contribution towards this end,” he said.

     

    The Indian government and law enforcement agencies access data stored by Internet platforms when deemed legally necessary. Any additional regulations carry grave risk of breaching user privacy and would also require constitutional review – especially since the Government is still working on a proposed Privacy Bill.

     

    Existing legal formulations can also be updated to incorporate necessary technology wherewithal for lawful interception and privacy. License conditions for telcos and ISPs can also be amended to provision for these issues.

     

    The government and courts also have the power to block access to websites on the grounds of national security and public order. It has taken similar steps in the past and has been widely reported by the media. The transparency reports periodically published by major Internet companies suggest that the Indian government routinely requests for user data and blocking of user accounts.Between July 2014 and December 2014, Indian authorities had 5,473 requests for data, covering 7,281 user accounts from Facebook and the company had a compliance rate of 44.69 per cent. Google had a compliance rate of 61 per cent with respect to the requests made by different government agencies across.

     

    The broadcaster further said there was multiple evidence to suggest that the so-called “communication OTT services” are capable of being lawfully intercepted with the right kind of technology being deployed for the purpose by law enforcement agencies.

     

    ThedramaticinnovationintheInternetspaceisprovidingenormousbenefitsto consumers through lower costs, multiple choices and universal access to information and this is sufficient evidence to put on hold any proposed regulatory intervention.

     

    Referring to a question about the growth of OTT impacting the traditional revenue stream of TSPs, Star India said, “There seems to be almost a suggestion that it is the duty of the regulator to guarantee the revenues of the TSPs. All that the OTTs have done is to remove inefficiencies in the value chain delivering better value to the consumers and instead of looking at it from the consumers’ point of view, there seems to be an inclination to try and protect incumbent and in many cases, outdated revenue streams of the TSPs. The only thing that OTTs have done is to create a level playing field for all and the incumbents are more than welcome to evolve their current business models to participate in this.However, we fail to recognize any obligation on the part of the regulator, society or the government to protect traditional revenue streams at the cost of burgeoning inefficiencies.”

     

    It further said that communicationOTT should be welcomed if it can serve the same purpose as that of traditional telecom services in a far less expensive and efficient manner, resulting in relative affordability, greater value and added ease to the consumers. If communication OTT services are less reliant on network capacity or capability because of their low data usage and higher tolerance for latency, it should be encouraged rather than be called in for questioning whether they are impacting traditional revenues of TSPs.

     

    The broadcaster said that TRAI should keep consumer interests in mind rather than being weighed down by perceived challenges to incumbent telcos or losses accruing to them because of so called decrease in messaging and voice services. Consumers have not been shown to be impacted so as to requiring OTTs to be licensed or registered.

     

    Furthermore, OTT services help in driving up data usage/consumption and resultant revenues for telcos/ISPs, and with greater broadband penetration there will be a rise in volumes and increased revenues from data usage shall more than set off any loss to telcos on account of traditional services like SMS and calls. Further, OTT services also pay at the back end for connectivity and hosting services to the ISP’s /TSP’s backbone.

     

    At the outset, Star India agrees that it was too early for a regulatory framework for OTT services. “It is correct that the Internet ecosystem is still in an embryonic stage of evolution with limited penetration in India (19.19 per cent of Indian population has access to Internet and India’s share of world Internet users is at an abysmal 8.33 per cent). High speed broadband continues to be a pipe dream. Consumer propositions and business models around the Internet in India are still in a state of flux.

     

    Summing up, Star India said that OTT services are at a nascent stage in India and any intervention is likely to throttle innovation or investments in this space with the biggest casualty being start-ups.OTT already has enough bottlenecks and barriers: In any event there are structural bottlenecks and barriers to OTT usage viz. poor networks, low penetration of plastic money, limited customisation etc. Intervention would result in creating further entry barriers thereby stifling competition, hence are best avoided; intervention shall skew level playing fields in negotiations between telcos/ISPs on one hand and OTT service providers on the other, telcos clearly have a higher hand in negotiations always.

     

    OTTservicesarenotinfrastructureproviders; OTT makes money from its content or service offering – owned or licensed (be it ads or subs) while telcos/ is monetize public property viz. spectrum licensed to it by the government.

     

    Star India said any intervention that adversely impacts OTT services could impinge on freedom of speech and expression and hence be deemed unconstitutional.

     

    OTT apps are not completely substitutable to communication services as they are not interoperable – i.e devices that communicate through such apps, require installations of the same, unlike communication services, which can talk across networks regardless of underpinning technologies (GSM, CDMA, 3G, 4G, etc), therefore TSPs cannot allege that they are losing out to OTT.

     

     

    Star India noted, “We have already seen how the VAS industry had an untimely demise owing to revenue sharing conflicts. Any regulatory intervention that mandates payments by OTTs to TSPs shall result in a similar destruction for the former.”

     

    In reply to one of the questions, Star India said that OTTs are paying for network usage, streaming and technology costs. Just the fact that they have found a more efficient way of utilizing the pipes does not mean that they should be penalized for the same.

     

    OTT players should not be asked to pay for use of the TSP’s network over and above data charges paid by consumers. “We are of the view that the real question that needs to be considered is whether the TSPs should pay the OTTs a share of data revenue for significantly driving data consumption, which is borne out by the manifold increase in telco data revenues. We believe that it is too early to have a regulatory framework around the relationship between TSPs and OTTs given the nascency of the ecosystem. Given the fact that numerous OTT services have created a strong consumer proposition for the Internet, thereby driving penetration, it is equally likely that TSPs incentivise / compensate OTT services that are responsible for driving u p data consumption by sharing a percentage of their data revenues. Given the rapidly evolving business practices, we believe overarching regulations would only stifle innovative partnership models and be detrimental to the consumer and the business community at this stage.”

     

    According to Star India, TSPs should not differentiate on the quality of service based on an economic arrangement with OTT players. However, it is too early to put constraints on any partnership arrangements between TSPs and OTT players that can result in tangible benefits to consumers.

     

    Internet-based services and apps do not pay for telecom operators for using the network, and it should remain the same going forward. Forcing Internet-based services to pay extra for using a particular network negatively impact consumers and harm the Indian digital ecosystem. As mentioned in the above answer, data revenues of Indian telecom operators is already on an upswing and is slated to increase rapidly over the next few years, hence the argument for creating a new revenue source is not justified.

     

    Charging users extra for specific apps or services will overburden them, which in turn will lead to them not using the services at all. It is also akin to breaking up the Internet into pieces, which is fundamentally against what Net Neutrality stands for. Also, the Internet depends on interconnectivity and the users being able to have seamless experience – differential pricing will destroy the very basic tenets of the Internet.

     

    In its covering note Star India said that it realised that the issue was of far reaching consequences and would have a huge impact in the industry going forward.

  • Ad Cap: 140 channels fail to follow TRAI directive in Feb 2015

    Ad Cap: 140 channels fail to follow TRAI directive in Feb 2015

    NEW DELHI: Failing to follow the 12-minute ad cap directive laid down by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), as many as 101 general entertainment television channels and 39 news channels aired more than 12 minutes of advertisements per hour between 23 February and 1 March this year. Of these, six news channels aired more than 20 minutes of ads per hour. 

     

    Apart from these 140 channels, the other channels followed the directive of 12 minutes of ad cap per hour, according to TRAI.

     

    The directive restricting the ad cap to 12 minutes an hour by TRAI is already under challenge in the Delhi High Court, where TRAI has given a commitment that it will not take any coercive action against the channels till the outcome of the case.

     

    However, the channels had, after consultations with TRAI and government officials, agreed to the ad cap of 12 minutes from October 2013.

     

    According to a chart placed on its website by TRAI, the average duration per hour of Advertisements (Commercial & Self promotional) in Pay Non-news channels during peak hours (7 – 10 pm) for the period 23 February to 1 March went up to more than 20 minutes per hour in as many as six cases.

     

    TRAI had on 22 March, 2013 passed a regulation mandating broadcasters to restrict the duration of advertisements on their channels to a maximum of 12 minutes in any given clock-hour as prescribed in the existing rules, alleging that most TV channels are in ‘brazen breach’ of the existing rules on advertising time.

     

    In order to monitor and ensure compliance of these regulations, broadcasters were also mandated to report the duration of advertisements carried on their channels to the TRAI on a quarterly basis in a prescribed proforma.

     

    TRAI issued the Standards of Quality of Service (Duration of Advertisements in Television Channels) (Amendment) Regulations 2013, and said this was being done as the regulations set out in the Cable Television Networks Rules 1994 were being violated.

     

    TRAI said it had studied the issue of duration of advertisements being carried in TV channels and the data obtained from the Information and Broadcasting Ministry and that collected from the broadcasters before coming to its decision.

     

    The duration of advertisements being carried in TV channels is closely related to the quality of viewing experience of the consumers, which is akin to the quality of service being offered by the service providers to the consumers, and the regulation has been issued to ensure the quality of service and protect the interests of the consumers.

     

    The amended regulation clearly defines TRAI’s power to intervene to protect the interests of the subscribers or for ensuring compliance of the provisions of these regulations. It says that through an order of 9 January, 2004, the Central Government under Section 11(1)(d) of TRAI Act entrusted some additional functions to TRAI including the function to recommend the parameters for regulating maximum time for advertisements in pay channels as well as other channels. TRAI says the advertisements carried on by the broadcaster in their programme are a quality of service issue as they interfere with the uninterrupted broadcast of a programme and intrusion of advertisements during the telecast of a programme adversely affects the viewing experience of the consumer.

     

    The principal regulations were issued on 14 May, 2012 but had met with severe criticism from the television channels and their representative bodies. The regulations were challenged by some of the broadcasters in the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) and thereafter TRAI issued an amended Regulation on 27 August on which responses were called for and open house consultations also held.

     

    TRAI has also said that ‘it is important to note that the provisions in these regulations do not attempt to disturb the time limit fixed by the government regarding duration of advertisement i.e. 12 minutes per hour. As discussed earlier, TRAI is responsible to ensure that quality of service to consumer is not compromised and hence these regulations.’

     

    Click here for the full list of channels, which telecast over 12 minutes per hour of self-promotional or other advertisements during prime time

  • Initial licence should be for 10 years as VNO is new concept: TRAI

    Initial licence should be for 10 years as VNO is new concept: TRAI

    NEW DELHI: Virtual Network Operators (VNO) in the telecom sector should be permitted for all segments of voice, data and video as well as for all services notified in the unified license (UL) for a period of ten years, extendable by ten years at a time. 

     

    The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) in its recommendations has said VNO should be introduced through proper “licensing framework” in the Indian telecom sector.

     

    For introduction of VNO in the sector, there should be a separate category of license namely UL (VNO). Like UL authorization, only pan-India or service area-wise authorizations may be granted under a UL (VNO) license.

     

    The recommendations were given after the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) through its reference of 7 July last year had sought recommendations of TRAI on the subject.

     

    TRAI said that VNOs are service delivery operators, who do not own the underlying core network but rely on the network and support of the infrastructure providers for providing telecom services to end users and customers. 

     

    VNOs can provide any or all telecom services, which are being provided by the existing telecom service providers.

     

    VNO should be introduced in the network based on the basis of mutually accepted  terms and conditions between NSO and the VNO. The terms and conditions of sharing the infrastructure between the NSO and VNO are left to the market to determine.

     

    VNOs should be permitted to set up their own   network equipment where there is no requirement of interconnection with other NSO.  However, they should not be allowed to own/install equipment where interconnection is required with another NSO.

     

    Local Cable Operators (LCOs) and Multi Service Operators (MSOs) can become VNO and are permitted to share infrastructure with VNOs.

     

    There should not be a restriction on the number of VNO licensees per service area and there should be no restriction on the number of VNOs parented by an NSO.

     

    Customer verification and number activation shall be the responsibility of a VNO for its own customers.

     

    VNOs that enter the network would do so based on arriving at a mutual agreement between an NSO and a VNO.

     

    The Authority recommended that VNOs should be permitted for all services notified in the UL.                                            

     

    TRAI recommended that the terms and conditions of sharing of infrastructure between the NSO and VNO should be left to the market i.e. on the basis of mutually accepted terms and conditions between the NSO and the VNO.       

     

    The Authority recommended VNOs be permitted to set up their own network equipment viz. BTS, BSC, MSC, RSU, DSLAMs, LAN switches, where there is no requirement of interconnection with other NSO(s). Therefore, they should not be allowed to own/install equipment viz. GMSCs, Soft-switches and TAX.

     

    Equipment permitted to be owned/installed by VNOs should conform to the technical standards prescribed by standardization bodies like TEC and ITU.

     

    VNOs may also be allowed to create their own service delivery platforms in respect of customer service, billing and VAS. MSOs and LCOs who want to provide broadband services through their cable network may do so by obtaining a VNO license. MSOs/LCOs may also share their cable infrastructure with VNOs, after the MSO/LCO register themselves as an IP-I service provider.

     

    There should be a separate category of license namely UL (VNO). This UL (VNO) will contain similar authorizations for services and service areas as provided in the existing UL.

     

    An operator who wishes to provide telecom services to its customers utilizing the underlying network and/or access spectrum of an existing NSO will have to obtain UL (VNO) license. 

     

    The Authority recommended that resale of IPLC presently under the UL shall be shifted from the existing UL to UL (VNO) licensing in order to make a clear distinction among the class of operators.

     

    A VNO should be a company registered under the Indian Companies Act 1956 (as amended). The entry fee for UL (VNO) with a given authorisation will be 50 per cent of the entry fee prescribed for the UL. Financial Bank Guarantee will be equal to the amount of two quarter license fee. Minimum equity and minimum networth may be kept at 40 per cent of the amount prescribed under UL. 

     

    The Authority recommended that under UL(VNO) the provision for restriction of 10 per cent or more equity cross holding to be applicable between (i) a VNO and another NSO (other than VNO’s parent NSO) and (ii) between a VNO and another VNO authorized to provide access services using the access  spectrum of different NSO in the same service area.                                                                         

    A VNO shall be liable to pay LF as a percentage of AGR at the same rate as that of the parent NSO.

     

    VNO shall also be liable to pay the SUC for the wireless service(s) it offers to the customers. The SUC rate will be same as that of the parent NSO.

     

    Since Quality of Service is in the exclusive domain of TRAI, the Authority will put in place comprehensive regulations on QoS parameters to be complied separately by NSOs and VNOs.

  • TRAI proposes more data pack usage for mobile users; Khullar non-committal on net neutrality

    TRAI proposes more data pack usage for mobile users; Khullar non-committal on net neutrality

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) wants telecom service providers to provide ample information about subscribed data pack usage.

     

    TRAI said in the draft ”Telecom Consumers Protection (Eighth Amendment) Regulations, 2015” that it proposes to mandate the service providers to provide information, through SMS or unstructured supplementary service data (USSD), to mobile users, who have subscribed to data connection other than through data packs about quantum of data used and the tariff thereof after every 5,000 kilobytes of data usage.

     

    The draft was released on 29 April and comments of stakeholders can be submitted till 12 May.

     

    TRAI has been receiving several complaints from consumers regarding non-availability of information relating to the amount of data used during a data session.

     

    The service providers offer concessional tariff for data, up to a certain limit, through special tariff vouchers or combo vouchers (data packs) and also through certain tariff plans. The tariff for any usage beyond the specified limit is substantially higher, and in case the customer does not know about reaching the limit for concessional tariff, it results in substantial charges levied, leading to sudden bill shock or unexpected deduction of balance amount.

     

    ”The consumers have also voiced their concern about activation of internet service on mobile phones without their consent and knowledge leading to sudden deduction of charges for data usage,” the statement said.

     

    TRAI has examined these complaints and has felt that measures need to be taken for addressing these genuine concerns of customers. In this regard, TRAI proposes to amend the Telecom Consumers Protection Regulations, 2012.

     

    The regulator also proposed to mandate the service providers to provide the mobile subscriber who has taken data connection through data packs or through tariff plan with discounted tariff up to certain limit, an alert through SMS or USSD, whenever the limit of data usage reaches 50 per cent, 90 per cent and 100 per cent of data limit.

     

    ”Also when the usage reaches 90 per cent of the limit, information about the applicable tariff beyond the data limit shall also to be communicated,” the statement added.

     

    It is proposed that data services should be activated or deactivated only with the explicit consent of the subscriber through toll free short code 1925, following the prescribed procedures for obtaining explicit consent of the consumer and for deactivation data.

     

    In fact, TRAI chairman Rahul Khullar recently said that TRAI is likely to announce new parameters for improvement of quality of service for telecom operators in a month’s time to tackle call dropping and other problems being faced by customers.

     

    He was speaking at the 2nd National Summit on ‘IT & Mobile Banking: Digital Transformation of Indian Banking. Enabling Financial Inclusion,’ organised by the Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India.

     

    Regarding the ongoing debate on net neutrality, Khullar said, ”The consultation process on network neutrality is still on till that consultation is complete, I will not make any statement.”

     

    Khullar also said that financial inclusion could be deeply achieved by harnessing new technology, which does not cater exclusively to those who are already banked or those living in urban areas.

     

    ”Do not delude yourself into believing that merely because technology exists, it will be suddenly harnessed for everybody’s good. The way it has worked so far at least, it has been harnessed for the good of a very few as it’s only those having devices and are electronically savvy who are in good shape,” he added.

  • TDSAT sets aside 27.5% inflation-linked hike for addressable & non-addressable systems

    TDSAT sets aside 27.5% inflation-linked hike for addressable & non-addressable systems

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) today set aside the amendments in two tariff orders, which had sought to put an inflation-linked hike of 27.5 per cent on addressable and non-addressable systems, opening the doors to a re-think on the entire policy of tariff orders.

     

    TDSAT chairman Aftab Alam and member Kuldip Singh said in their order today that the ‘The Telecommunication (Broadcasting & Cable) Services (Second) Tariff (Eleventh Amendment) Order, 2014’ and ‘The Telecommunication (Broadcasting & Cable) Services (Second) Tariff (Thirteenth Amendment) Order, 2014’] were ‘untenable.’

     

    The Tribunal also said it thought the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) “will be well advised to have a fresh look at the various tariff orders in a holistic manner and come out with a comprehensive tariff order in supersession of all the earlier tariff orders.”

     

    “While doing so, it may consider all the agreements and relevant data available with it. It may consider differentiating between content which is of a monopolistic nature as against that the like of which is shown by other channels also.”

     

    “It may also consider classifying the content into premium and basic tiers. It may identify the major cost components so that increase or decrease in such costs may be suitably factored while working out the inflationary hikes. Increase in costs of such components as may be available in indexes such as WPI, GDP deflator etc. can then be applied. While working out the tariffs, the effort should be to encourage a correct declaration of SLR. While carrying out the exercise, it may take the inputs from various stakeholders and give a reasoned order for accepting or rejecting the same. We want to be amply clear that the above are only some suggestions and TRAI being an expert body may arrive at suitable tariffs independently; it is up to it to consider the above and/or any other factors,” the Tribunal said.

     

    The tariff hike was challenged by Home Cable Network, the Centre for Transforming India, Lucknow 9 Cable Network, Good Media News India Pvt Ltd, Sikkim Digital Network and Cable Combine Communication Siliguri.

     

    Later, the Indian Broadcasting Federation (IBF) supported the order as intervener while the other interveners comprising Direct to Home (DTH) operators, Multi System Operators (MSOs) and Association of Cable Operators/Cable Operators opposed the order on the same grounds as the Appellants.

     

    TRAI had allowed a 15 per cent hike from 1 April, 2014. The second installment of 12.5 per cent tariff hike came into effect from 1 January, 2015.

     

    TRAI said the inflationary increases given by it are based on increase in the Wholesale Price Index (WPI). In the Explanatory Memorandum with the Second Amendment to the Principal Tariff Order, it was explained that for making adjustments for inflation Wholesale Price Index (WIP) had been used. It was explained that Consumer Price Index (CPI) was not used as latest information for this was not available and further this related to certain specific consumption baskets. As per the Explanatory Memorandum to the impugned Tariff Order, the WPI has increased by 43.69 per cent and giving a pass through of 63 per cent, an inflation linked increase of 27.5 per cent is allowed.

     

    Appearing for the appellants, advocate Vivek Sareen, who is a former employee of Tata Sky and is therefore from the industry, had argued the case on economic modules from all over the country, which in fact showed that the prices had actually come down according to the GDP Deflator, and therefore the hike was unjust.

     

    Senior counsel for the appellants Arun Kathpalia said the original exercise on which tariff fixation is predicated is not a tariff exercise and therefore all tariffs fixed on that basis are not tariff fixation exercises. He added that the entire increase is arbitrary as it is on an ad-hoc and interim fixation, as such itself arbitrary in the first place. The increase is otherwise also wholly arbitrary and suffers from non-application of mind. He also said the tariff order has been issued in complete violation of section 11(4) and there is no transparency whatsoever in the process adopted by the TRAI.

     

    It was also submitted that despite availability of all the relevant information for price fixation in Digital Addressable System (DAS), TRAI arbitrarily linked ceiling of rates in DAS with analog regime vide 4th Tariff Order dated 21 July, 2010. The upward revision by 27.5 per cent in wholesale price for Non-DAS area will automatically result in revision of the ceiling of corresponding prices in DAS regime. TRAI has created another ad-hoc regime for DAS by linking the ceiling of charges of DAS with analog, it was argued.

     

    TDSAT said, “It was argued that the tariff based on historical costs is one of internationally accepted methods. We find that even that is required to be based on a proper exercise conducted for the purpose. We may note that in the United States following the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, US Congress asked Federal Communications Commission to ensure that rates for basic services tier are reasonable. FCC decided to go for price caps and the first thing it did was to collect data on rates being charged by cable operators operating in competitive as well as non-competitive areas. We can understand the freezing of rates being charged on a particular date as an interim measure but we fail to understand why TRAI did not examine the rates being charged in the agreements at the time of giving inflationary hikes.”

     

    The Tribunal had in May last year asked broadcasters to maintain a separate account for the additional subscription amount that they have collected from distribution platforms as a result of the tariff hike as this would be subject to the outcome of the case.

    Sareen had argued that the impugned tariff order had adversely impacted the interest of the addressable platform because the wholesale pricing of the addressable system is based on the wholesale pricing of the non-addressable platform. He said the impugned tariff was heavily tilted towards broadcasters and seriously prejudiced the interest of the consumers, MSOs and stifles orderly growth of the cable and broadcasting sector.

     

    Sareen argued that TRAI ignored the fact that the wholesale pricing of non-addressable system and addressable system are inter related. The wholesale price for addressable platform is derived from the wholesale price of non-addressable system. By its order, TRAI indirectly and in substance increased the wholesale price for addressable platform / DAS notified area. The said increase in the wholesale price for addressable platform is affected in violation of section 11(4) of the Act.   

     

    TRAI completely disregarded the fact that by changing the content pricing and increasing the same by 27.5 per cent with reference to the price existed immediately prior to 31 March, 2014, this would immediately increase the price of content for addressable platform. The authority did not provide any hearing opportunity to the stakeholders including the Appellants to represent its view as a stakeholder in the consultation process.

     

    It was stated that TRAI, in utter disregard of the valuable rights of the stakeholders including the Appellant and the consumers provided under Section 11(4) of the Act, rushed to issue the impugned order thereby increasing the wholesale price for addressable platform by 15 per cent with effect from 1 April, 2014. Thus the impugned order failed to take into account the inputs from such stakeholders.

  • TRAI asks MSOs, b’casters to sign MoU on interconnect agreements in phase III

    TRAI asks MSOs, b’casters to sign MoU on interconnect agreements in phase III

    MUMBAI: The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) has given time till 30 April, 2015 to both broadcasters and multi system operators (MSOs) to enter into a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with regards to interconnect agreements in phase III of digital addressable system (DAS) areas.  

     

    During the seventh task force meeting for successful completion of phase III and IV of digitization, a representative from TRAI informed that in case the broadcasters and MSOs fail to reach any agreement, the Authority will intervene in the matter, as per regulations. “While broadcasters were asked to give report every fortnight, the same has not started coming,” said the TRAI representative.  

     

    The representative also mentioned that in the transition period both analogue as well as digital signals can be provided by the MSOs in phase III areas. “As per the regulations digital signal can be provided in areas undergoing transition without waiting for the cutoff date,” he added.

     

    The meeting was convened under the chairmanship of Information and Broadcasting Ministry additional secretary JS Mathur, who said, “While there has been some progress on the issue of interconnect agreements for phase III areas but there are still many areas which need to be addressed by broadcasters.”

     

    During the meeting, an IndusInd Media and Communication Limited (IMCL) representative said that while they had sent interconnect requests to all broadcasters, as per the TRAI directive, they had received response from only one broadcaster, while Siti Cable was still awaiting a response from all. A Siti Cable representative said, “Broadcasters are filing cases of piracy against MSOs if they start providing digital signal in the phase III areas.”

     

    MSOs pointed out that the situation is critical and TRAI must take immediate necessary action to resolve the issue. MSOs also want the entertainment tax, levied by State Governments, rationalised.

     

    Representatives of broadcasters said that they would approach TRAI for clarification on the interconnect agreements to be signed for the transition period. “No such issues of interconnect agreements were raised during phase I and phase II of digitisation and the set top boxes (STBs) were still seeded. Why are these issues being raised now?” questioned broadcasters.

     

    Broadcasters also raised concerns on the HITS (Headends In The Sky) platform of delivery with regard to addressability although it is mentioned that it is addressable from the day one. Broadcasters also opined that DAS regulations should apply from the date MSOs take digital signal.

     

    According to Mathur, consumers have the right to know what they have to pay for the digital signal and so, it is imperative that broadcasters and MSOs work out agreements between them without further loss of time. He added, “Channel package rates have to be in public domain. Broadcasters must now finalise all issues with MSOs so as to have a lead time of implementation.”

     

    While the universe for phase I and II was extremely limited, phase III has to cover all the urban areas of the country. This would thus require exhaustive planning along with suitable investments. “Both broadcasters and MSOs must now finalise their agreements and inform TRAI within the stipulated time period of 30 April,” said Mathur, while suggesting that TRAI should convene a meeting soon after the time period it has given for finalising the action plan for smooth and timely transition.

     

    Mathur also expressed dissatisfaction over the public awareness campaign for digitisation in phase III areas carried out by the stakeholders so far. He asked all stakeholders and particularly the broadcasters to start the publicity campaign forthwith.

     

    While the Ministry is still awaiting data on carriage fee and subscription revenue from both the Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF) and the News Broadcasters Association (NBA), an NBA representative assured that it will be sent before the next meeting.

     

    Mathur also enquired about the initiatives being taken by MSOs for using indigenously manufactured STBs. Responding to this, an MSO representatives said that the dialogue with indigenous STB manufacturers was on.

     

    Consumer Electronics and Appliances Manufacturers Association (CEAMA) representative informed that they had fruitful discussions with some MSOs in which they made some financing offers to MSOs for the supply of STBs.

     

    Representative of CEAMA further added that they were now facing a major competition from the suppliers of ASEAN countries since the government, as per the ASEAN agreement signed in 2009, has reduced the import duty on STBs imported from ASEAN countries to two per cent only against 10 per cent from other countries. He said, “MSOs may neglect local STB manufacturers and start importing from ASEAN countries, but this will be against ‘Make in India’ initiative of the Government.”

     

    Meanwhile a CEAMA representative requested the I&B Ministry to look into the issue, while informing that they were also in the process of writing to the Ministry of Commerce about this development. In order to know the use of indigenously manufactured STBs, Mathur directed that the information on utilisation of domestically manufactured STBs may also be sought from all MSOs along with the seeding plans.

  • TRAI sees role of local cable operators in helping broadband grow

    TRAI sees role of local cable operators in helping broadband grow

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) has called for an audit by an independent agency of all allocated spectrum, both commercial as well as spectrum allocated to various PSUs/Government organizations. Stressing the urgency, it has said this ought to be a national priority and must be undertaken within three months.

     

    In its recommendations on “Delivering Broadband Quickly: What do we need to do?” prepared after consultations with stakeholders, TRAI has noted that current availability of spectrum in local service areas (LSAs) is about 40 per cent of that available in comparable countries elsewhere. There is therefore ‘a crying need for assignment of additional spectrum for commercial telecom services.’ There is need to align spectrum bands with globally harmonized bands to achieve interference-free coexistence and economies of scale.

     

    There is a need to lay down a clear roadmap for spectrum management, which should state the requirement and availability of spectrum for each LSA as well as for the whole country. This roadmap should be made available publicly to ensure transparency.

     

    Wireless Planning Commission

     

    In a far reaching recommendation, it has said that Wireless Planning Commission (WPC) should be converted into an independent body by de-linking it from the present Department of Telecom ‘hierarchy and either converting it into a statutory body responsible to Parliament or transferring it to an existing statutory body.’ 

     

    ‘Even in a more limited role of assigning solely commercially available spectrum, there is a strong case for an institutional overhaul of WPC to realise goals of institutional efficiency, transparency in decision-making and full disclosure of decisions,’ it says.

     

    Right of Way

     

    There is a need for enunciating a National Right of Way Policy to ensure uniformity in costs and processes. 

     

    Role of Local Cable Operators (LCOs)

     

    In another major recommendation, it said cable television operators should be allowed to function as resellers of Internet Service Provider (ISP) license holders to enable them to take advantage of their cable network to provide broadband. Implementation of digitisation of cable services to Phase II and III cities should be done in a time-bound manner.

     

    Satellite Regulations

     

    There is need to separate Licensor, Regulator and Operator functions in the satellite space domain to conform to best international practices of free markets. The issue of coordination of additional spectrum in the 2500-2690 MHz band with the Department of Space needs to be addressed urgently, so that this band can be optimally utilised for commercial as well as strategic purposes.

     

    NOFN

     

    The ‘multi-layered structure for decision making’ for national project NOFN for laying optic fibre is ‘just not suitable for a project that needs to be executed in mission-mode’ and the structure needs immediate overhaul.

     

    There is need for Project implementation on Centre State Public-Private Partnership (CSPPP) mode by involving State Governments and the private sector. The award of EPC (turnkey) contracts by BBNL to private parties through international competitive bidding needs to be planned. Such contracts can be given region-wise with clear requirements for interconnection with other networks, as well as infrastructure sharing with other operators who would like to utilise this network. A commercial model around this will need to be suitably deployed.

     

    Telecom Towers

     

    Referring to towers, it said single-window, time-bound clearance should be encouraged for installation of towers to ensure the rapid development of national networks. Extensive consumer awareness and education programmes should be organised so that consumers fully understand the latest scientific information on EMF radiation and its potential impact on health.

     

    Referring to Right of Way, it said single-window clearance is an imperative for all Right of Way proposals at the level of the States and in the Central Government. All such clearances have to be time-bound so that Telecom Service Providers and infrastructure providers can move rapidly to project execution. Ideally, single-window clearance should be administered online with a defined turnaround time. The reasons for denial of RoW permission should be recorded in writing.

     

    To promote fixed line BB, the license fee on the revenues earned from fixed line broadband should be exempted for at least five years. The infrastructure of PSUs is lying unutilised and thus they should be mandated to unbundle their network and allow sharing of outside plant (OSP).

     

    The Government needs to encourage local and foreign companies to build ‘Data Centre Parks’ on the lines of industrial parks, SEZs etc. by providing them land, infrastructure and uninterrupted power supply at affordable rates.

     

    Both Central and State Governments will have to act as model users and anchor tenants through delivery of e-Government services including e-education, e-governance, m-health, m-banking and other such services. Schools are the ideal and convenient point for early initiation to broadband services. Government schools in the rural and remote areas can be provided subsidy from the USOF for broadband connectivity. The cost of CPE (desktop/laptop/tabs etc) is a major barrier to the adoption of broadband services. TSPs may be allowed to offer CPE bundled tariff schemes. Revenues from such offers ought to be exempted from the applicable license fee at least for a certain number of years (say for three years). 

     

    In addition, there are a large number of recommendations of the Authority on which decisions of the Government are still awaited. The Government needs to act quickly on these recommendations as we have already lost too much time. These include, inter alia, on Spectrum Trading, Spectrum Sharing, Open Sky Policy, Infrastructure Sharing, Microwave Access and Backbone Spectrum.

     

    The Authority had issued the Consultation Paper on “Delivering Broadband Quickly: What do we need to do?” on 24 September last year to discuss issues contributing to broadband penetration in India and to solicit stakeholders’ views on action required to be taken both by the Government and the private sector to accelerate the proliferation and use of broadband in the country. The comments and counter-comments received from the stakeholders were placed on the TRAI’s website. An Open House Discussion was held on 30 October 2014 in New Delhi with the stakeholders. 

     

    The Authority noted with serious concern the slow penetration and adoption of broadband in the country.  India ranks 125th in the world for fixed broadband penetration with only 1.2 per 100 inhabitants having access to fixed broadband; the global average is 9.4 per 100 inhabitants. In terms of household penetration within developing countries, India is ranked 75th with a penetration of 13 per cent. In the wireless broadband space too, India is ranked 113th with a penetration of 3.2 per 100 inhabitants. In terms of ‘ICT access, ICT use and ICT skills’, India ranks 129th out of total 166 countries. Indonesia (106), Sri Lanka (116), Sudan (122), Bhutan (123), Kenya (124) are ranked above India. India is categorised in the Least Connected Countries Group of 42 countries that fall within the low IDI group.

     

  • TRAI chairman wants debate to settle net neutrality not spars between companies

    TRAI chairman wants debate to settle net neutrality not spars between companies

    MUMBAI: The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) chairman Rahul Khullar has said that there is a need for a democratic debate on net neutrality, especially against the backdrop of a big corporate war between a media house and a telecom operator.

     

    “There are passionate voices on both sides of the debate. And if that was not enough, there’s a corporate war going on between a media house and a telecom operator, which is confounding already difficult matters,” Khullar told The Indian Express.

     

    The authority has received over 800,000 mails since it floated a consultation paper on regulatory framework for over-the-top (OTT) services and applications on 27 March. TRAI requested stakeholders to comment on its paper by 24 April and offer counter comments by 8 May. It is also likely to hold an open house discussion on the issue soon. Stand up comedy group All India Bakchod (AIB) and other net neutrality activists were the prime reason behind so many mails sent to the Authority. 

     

    According to Khullar, there are people who are passionately concerned about net neutrality. “They have a moral anchor… Equally, there are others on the opposite side. But there are many others in between that one should not ignore despite the passionate nature of the debate between the two extremes. We need a democratic debate on the issue, not shrill voices,” he said.

     

    The regulator has heard arguments on both sides. For instance, telecom service providers have pointed out the contradiction in the government’s digital inclusion agenda, which may not be achieved if they strictly adhere to the net neutrality principle, because they will be unable to raise any additional resources for rolling out networks and infrastructure. On the other hand, OTTs argue that if telecom operators are allowed to pick and chose, they might build alliances with the big OTTs at the cost of the nascent ones.

  • Broadband usage in India sees just over 5% growth between Jan-Feb

    Broadband usage in India sees just over 5% growth between Jan-Feb

    NEW DELHI: At a time when the government is stressing on Digital India and using social media over the Internet to the full, there was a growth of a mere 5.11 per cent in the number of broadband subscribers between January (94.49 million) and February (97.37 million).

     

    The number of subscribers using mobile devices (phones and dongles) went up from 78.66 million to 81.49 million, showing the largest growth of 3.59 per cent.

     

    In comparison, the growth of wired subscribers was 14.45 million in February as against 15.39 in January and the growth of fixed wireless subscribers (Wi-Fi, Wi-Max, Point-to- Point Radio & amp; VSAT) went up from 440,000 to just over that same figure, thus signifying an increase of just 0.63 per cent.

     

    The top five service providers constituted 83.53 per cent market share of total broadband subscribers at the end of February. These service providers were Bharti Airtel (20.88 million), BSNL (20.67 million), Vodafone (17.93 million), Idea Cellular Ltd (14.08 million) and Reliance Communications Group (7.78 million).

     

    The top five Wired Broadband Service providers were: BSNL (9.98 million), Bharti Airtel (1.43 million), MTNL (1.14 million), Atria Convergence Technologies (0.65 million) and YOU Broadband (0.44 million).

     

    The top five Wireless Broadband Service providers were Bharti Airtel (19.45 million), Vodafone (17.92 million), Idea Cellular (14.08 million), BSNL (10.69 million) and Reliance Communications Group (7.67 million).

     

    Wireless subscribers with less than 1MB and 5MB data usage in a month have not been considered as internet/broadband subscribers by Reliance Communication Group and Idea Cellular Ltd respectively.