ITV

Tag: Ad cap

  • The year of the great tossing

    The year of the great tossing

    The year Indian news television channels got a sneak peek at what Pi Patel must have experienced while battling the raging storm in mid-seas in Ang Lee’s Life award winning Life Of Pi. Like Pi, news channels were tossed around, heaved up and down, had spear sharp rain and high waves buffeting them, got scalded by the hot sun, went through bouts of starvation and dying thirst – and they lived – at least most of them did – to tell the tale. It was a tough, tough year for them no doubt.

    Rising inflation, a tough economic environment which saw advertising spends being slashed, rising costs for carriage on cable TV and DTH, further fragmentation and evaporation of viewership – all led to their top lines and even bottomlines being beaten black and blue. Net result: layoffs, restructuring, reorganisation, was the name of the game. To top it all, the regulators – the Information & Broadcast (I&B) ministry and Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) – too got into the act. The I&B pushed ahead with its digitisation drive even as it cracked down on them for paid content, and the TRAI ordered a reduction in advertising time permitted on air on channels.

    The news television industry has always had problems of plenty. More than 100 TV channels battle for a piffling Rs 2000 crore in ad spends. And more jumped onto the bandwagon during 2013 -an estimate is that around 25 new news channels made their debut. As though there wasn’t enough competition for the small morsels of advertising available in the various states and languages all over the country. But what kept the whole industry gloomy was the heartbeat aka advertising revenue which stayed flat for the whole year; and for some it even dipped. The big players were the ones who got to taste a little blood while the others struggled to make money out of inventory.

    The alarm bells started ringing out earlier in the year when TAM Media the viewership ratings agency did a rejig with its panels and started reporting on LC1 towns and also a new set of data reflecting the digitisation that was spreading across phase 1 towns. As an outcome, some of the channels ended up showing near zero viewership. TAM said this was because real viewership patterns were cropping up with deeper penetration of people meters.

    NDTV India, one of the older news broadcast networks, tried in vain to prosecute TAM’s parent AC Nielsen in the US on charges of fraud, but the NY court shooed it away, saying it should fight the legal battle on Indian turf. Allegations of TAM being rigged started rising to a cacophony and unanimously several channels decided to unsubscribe from TAM including NDTV, Times, CNN and Zee. A fierce battle issued between channels, advertisers and TAM that also saw support grow for the Broadcast Audience Research Council (BARC).Angry advertisers threatened to pull out advertisements from channels that had unsubscribed from TAM- including the seven big networks. After weeks of an impasse, resolution finally came about with rolling ratings of four weeks and silver, gold and platinum packs for clients. The major change coming about was the conversion of TRPs to TVTs. Satisfied channels finally went back to TAM but are still clinging on to the new lifeline-BARC.

    It was in the second quarter of the year that a bunch of channels in Kolkata under the Saradha group went belly up with the financial and real estate group going bust. Questions were raised about the MIB’s laxity in issuing broadcasting licences. In a bid to tighten its procedures, it wrote to all channels, asking them to provide them with details about their operations and to see if they were still complying with the licence terms. Some 67 channels did not; and had their licences revoked. The MIB also became stricter about norms relating to directorial appointments on news channels’ boards.

    But the big big fight of the year was the one that blew up when the TRAI introduced a quality of service regulation that restricted advertising air time to just 12 minutes per hour. Broadcasters who were accustomed to showing 20 to 25 minutes of ads experienced a jolt when this came out. They all collectively revolted, specially the news channels claiming that their revenue would be affected in an industry that is already suffering much losses. The News Broadcasters Association (NBA) also met the I&B ministry to ask TRAI to go easy on this regulation.The industry seems to have pacified the ministry on the content front at least, with the NBA, the Broadcast Editors Association, and the Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF)’s Broadcast Complaints Content Council (BCCC) in place. This despite, 2013 saw paid news being discussed very aggressively. Suggestions to set up a body to monitor broadcast – just like how the Press Council of India (PCI) does for the print media – were made. But the NBA opposed this strongly, saying that the self-regulatory mechanisms that are in place are enough to ensure that the news channels stay in line.

    The news channels yelped that they feared a shut down if the ad cap were to be implemented right away. They suggested that the ad cap, if necessary to be implemented, should be concurrent with the completion of digitisation in the country as then there would be more revenue flowing in. I&B minister Manish Tewari seemed to concur and even came out in their support on this approach.

    The interim order got smiles on some of their phases. The year 2013 was choppy to say the least for most of the news industry. High carriage fees, a slowdown in advertising growth, and extremely thin subscription revenues had forced even the older and long established news networks to look for solutions to keep their businesses viable. Almost all of them reorganized, consolidated their news operations which led to lopping off of bloated employee payrolls. The big buzzword during the year was the integrated newsroom – wherein a centralized bureau of journos and news crew helps service web, TV, and other online properties for a news network having several news channels.Finally the regulator decided to give the news channels some more time. A new advertising limit per hour was set. 20 minutes of ad time for news channels and 16 minutes for GECs till 30 September and after that everyone would have to together switch to 12 minutes and would have to submit compliance reports. But this formula did not go down well with the NBA even as the TRAI announced that it would rap violators on their knuckles. Some NBA members– along with some other niche channels – decided to take steps to protect themselves. They challenged TRAI’s mandate in the Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) which heard arguments from all the affected parties for nearly 20 days. The NBA’s appeal to the tribunal got them an interim order preventing the regulator from taking any action against erring channels, allowing them to heave a collective sigh of relief. Even as the TDSAT was about to deliver its judgment, a coincidental verdict was given by the Supreme Court which stated that the tribunal had no power to hear or adjudicate on challenges to TRAI regulations. Swiftly, the TDSAT dismissed the case and the NBA immediately moved the Delhi Court to hear its plea. The Delhi High Court after listening to the initial appeal decided to get into its details later, giving the next hearing date as 13 March 2014. It however gave an interim order disallowing the TRAI from taking any coercive actions against channels not following the 12 minute ad cap.

    At the time of writing, Zee Media Corp was slated to take the same route following the announcement of the merger of DMCL – the company that produces the Times of India-challenger newspaper DNA – with it. It had prepared for the merger by donning a new moniker, dropping Zee News and naming itself as Zee Media Corp. The year saw it running a skeleton Telugu news channel, even as it launched Zee Rajasthan Plus.Network18, NDTV, UTV Bloomberg, BAG Network, among many others shed staff. Network 18 bid adieu to nearly 350 people, NDTV shut down its Mumbai bureau itself and Bloomberg handed over the much dreaded pink slip to 30 staffers. Roles of those retained were redefined and they were given additional responsibilities.

    Several other new offerings are lined up for 2014 including an English news channel, English business channel and two regional channels for Odisha and Bihar-Jharkhand . The company also repackaged itself and came up with a new positioning which seeks to attract India’s youth to watch its news channels.

    The year 2014 looks set to be an exciting one with national elections on the anvil. Even international channels have taken note of this with Al Jazeera, France 24 and BBC World News sprucing up their presence in the country. But there are challenges that the broadcast news sector will have to face: the ad cap situation needs resolution, carriage fees need further reduction, and the struggle to make money continues. But what’s keeping the sector hopeful is the scheduled completion of digitisation by end 2014. The hope is that the dark clouds will part to reveal a silver lining. And then clear skies.With controversy surrounding the Sahara group and its consistent clashes with the Securities Exchange Board of India, it decided to drop the Sahara name from all the channels, retaining the Samay as a brand. India TV too changed its complete look while it has also brought on board several news professionals including veteran Q W Naqvi. Bag Films hired former Star group president Ravina Raj Kohli on its advisory board while IBN7 CEO Dilip Venkatraman left the organisation after giving it a new look. The ABP group announced that it would launch new services but was stalled on account of the MIB’s tough stance on licensing norms and procedures. Even then a rumour that persisted through the year was the rumour that its former partner Star India would re-enter the news channel business.

    The year 2014 looks set to be an exciting one with national elections on the anvil. Even international channels have taken note of this with Al Jazeera, France 24 and BBC World News sprucing up their presence in the country. But there are challenges that the broadcast news sector will have to face: the ad cap situation needs resolution, carriage fees need further reduction, and the struggle to make money continues. But what’s keeping the sector hopeful is the scheduled completion of digitisation by end 2014. The hope is that the dark clouds will part to reveal a silver lining. And then clear skies.

  • 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. 

  • The SC court judgement & TDSAT’s powers

    The SC court judgement & TDSAT’s powers

    MUMBAI: The broadcasting industry that has been fiercely fighting the ad cap regulation by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) got a jolt last Friday when the news emerged  that the Supreme Court, in a separate case, had declared that the Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) does not have power to deal with appeals over regulations framed by the authority.

    The judgment in BSNL vs TRAI and others case came out on the Supreme Court web site today. It had some crucial points regarding what can be termed as ‘regulations’ and whether TDSAT has the authority to hear appeals against them. 

    According to the judgment, the powers under Section 36 of the TRAI act are legislative and not administrative and by virtue of Section 37 of the Act, they are at par with rules framed by the Central Government thereby mandating them to be laid before both houses of Parliament. Thereafter, Parliament has the power to annul or modify the same. But there is ambiguity on what happens if it is not laid in parliament. Does it stand void? Or can it still be taken as a regulation?

    The bench stated that ‘the Tribunals are competent to hear matters where the vires (read: powers) of statutory provisions are questioned. However, in discharging this duty, they cannot act as substitutes for the High Courts and the Supreme Court’ meaning that they cannot hear cases which go into legislative laws.  Although the Tribunal will have the power to test the vire of subordinate legislation the exception would be questions regarding the vires of its parent statute. ‘A Tribunal which is a creature of an Act cannot declare that very Act to be unconstitutional’ reads the judgment.

    This makes the Tribunal incapable of deciding the fate of the ad cap case as it is a challenge to the validity of one of its parent statute.  

    The TRAI Act, amended in the year 2000 brought judicial functions under the TDSAT and kept the legislative and administrative powers under the regulator.

    The BSNL vs TRAI and others case verdict states: ‘In exercise of the power vested in it under Section 14(b) of the Act, TDSAT does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the challenge to the regulations framed by the Authority under Section 36 of the Act.”

    Now, if anyone wants to challenge the validity of the regulation framed under section 36, such as the ad cap regulation, the party has to file a petition before the High Court and not TDSAT. However, cases regarding the application of a regulation can still be taken to the TDSAT.

     

    The ad cap regulation that has been challenged by the News Broadcasters Association (NBA) and others has now come under a cloud. The contention of the broadcasters is that regulation is not valid and TRAI does not have the authority to regulate content, let alone prosecute it. However, the TRAI claims that advertisements form a part of content and by the contract between licensor and licensee; it had come out with the Standards of Quality of service (Duration of advertisements in TV channels) (amendment) regulation 2013 under section 36 and section 11 of the TRAI act.

    The judgement in the case has been reserved and according to lawyers from both sides, TDSAT will have to take into consideration this SC verdict and then give its final verdict on the case. Legally speaking, TRAI says it came out with an ad cap ‘regulation’ but the NBA says that TRAI has not fulfilled the laying requirement.

    If the TDSAT’s verdict says that the case is dismissed then the next step for the NBA would be to challenge TRAI in the High Court, which seems to be most likely one. 

    But it could also lead to some furrowed brows amongst the TV channel executives as  the stay order on TRAI not to take any coercive actions against channels that are not following the ad cap would be annulled and from then till the time the HC does not give a stay, TRAI could go back to taking its aggressive stance against broadcasters

    Click here for the Supreme Court Verdict

  • Ad cap dispute to move to High Court?

    Ad cap dispute to move to High Court?

    MUMBAI: Its wings have been clipped. If one goes by the decision of the Supreme Court announced yesterday, all appeals against regulations set by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) will now be dealt with in the various High Courts, not by the Telecom Disputes and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT).

    TRAI has since 2010 been contending that TDSAT cannot hear appeals against its regulations, only those against its directions, decisions or orders. And yesterday a bench of the Supreme Court ruled in its favour.

    The authority normally sets regulations on issues such as rates, inter-connection and quality of service. TDSAT, TRAI states, was set up to adjudicate any dispute between a licensor and a licensee, between two or more service providers, between a service provider and a group of consumers, and to hear and dispose appeals against a direction, decision or order of TRAI.

    This is clearly set to have an impact on the course of the ad cap regulation set by the TRAI, which the TDSAT is set to adjudicate upon, following hearings involving broadcasters’ and the regulator’s lawyers. Broadcasters have been stating that the TRAI-mandated ad cap is going to have a detrimental impact on their business and the argument has been on whether it is in the form of a direction or a regulation. The stance of the TRAI has been that what it has issued is a regulation and not a direction under the quality of service, keeping in mind the interests of consumers.

    Observers expect the ad cap hearing to now move to the High Court. Other cases that will be impacted included the VAS regulation which has crippled the VAS industry but was issued by the TRAI keeping in mind consumer interest.

    The background of the Supreme Court ruling is that over the years several appeals have been filed with it by telcos such as Bharat Sanchar Nigam , Cellular Operators Association of India, Tata Teleservices and Reliance Infocomm against TDSAT orders involving regulations set by TRAI. And the TRAI had itself filed a petition in the Supreme Court in 2010 against a TDSAT order which had asked the authority to take a fresh look at the telecommunication interconnection (port charges) Amendment regulation 2007 after Bharat Sanchar Nigam had filed an appeal against it.

     

    TRAI had under that regulation reduced port charges by about 23 to 29 per cent on various slabs.

    TRAI had petitioned in the Supreme Court that TDSAT can only decide against any direction, decision or order passed by the TRAI, and not its regulations. And yesterday’s ruling by the Supreme Court clearly indicates where the law of the land lies.

  • 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 almost done with its arguments

    TDSAT & Ad cap: TRAI almost done with its arguments

    MUMBAI: The third day of the arguments presented by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) saw several crucial points being touched upon and the TDSAT also noting down points that could be pondered upon for rumination.

    The TRAI counsel Rakesh Dwivedi pointed out that if one reads section 7 (11) of the Cable TV Networks (CTN) Act then it must be read with the ad cap regulation because the regulator was using it only to enforce this section.

    Section 7 (11) states that the authority has the power to ‘seize equipment used for operating the cable television network if it is found to be breaching its other sections’.

    According to the TRAI, programmes and advertisements are different and the regulator is trying to prevent intermixing of these two and ensuring an increase in quality of service.

    The regulator also gave its version regarding Article 19 (a) of the Constitution saying that airwaves and frequencies are a public property of the government and so there is no fundamental right that can apply to it. Electronic media and press are different and cannot be treated equally. Broadcasters are companies and not citizens so fundamental rights don’t apply to them, Dwivedi argued.

    The point about misuse of clock hour was once again raised by Justice Aftab Alam to which the TRAI reverted by saying that the clock hour regulation instituted by the TRAI and the CTN Act are the same thing and they cannot be interpreted in any other way. Broadcasters are thinking of a bankable hour, that can be carried over within 24 hours but the TRAI says that a clock hour is fixed.

    The bench questioned the TRAI that if it could have enforced the ad cap law under the CTN Act then it need not have made a separate regulation or a direction or use the TRAI act for it.

    To this, counsel said that the CTN Act only applies to cable operators at this stage. And just because they have two powers that are coinciding they cannot take away one power. The point where broadcasters come into the picture of this Act, is for the advertising and programming code, which they have to adhere to by virtue of them having to apply for an uplinking and downlinking licence.

    The TRAI counsel also requested that merely because it had framed a regulation or passed a direction the bench may not nullify it because it has passed it under the TRAI act and not the CTN act, although it has powers under both. He also requested that if the bench were to find anything wrong with the ad cap regulation, they may modify it. However, Alam said that it cannot be done since it was a delegated regulation. To this TRAI asked the bench to consider it as a direction and then modify it keeping in mind the best interest of the viewers.

    One of the arguments, that the counsel raised, relates to Article 14 of the Indian Constitution that speaks about the fundamental right to equality. He stated that it would be in fair spirit if cable operators and broadcasters are not equated with each other at this juncture. The TRAI counsel presented data which clearly showed that broadcasters were airing TV commercials for an unbearable duration every day in between programmes and hence it had decided to apply the ad cap to them first. The limits on TV commercial time will be imposed on cable operators later by the TRAI, the counsel revealed. And the fact that cable ops will be made to comply later does not mean that broadcasters should be excluded from the ad cap now.

    The counsel said he would be addressing the issue of clubbing channel genres together on Monday.

    The bench asked the TRAI why it wasn’t willing to wait till digitization was completed to impose the ad cap regulation. The TRAI argued that by September 2014, nearly 50 per cent of the country will be digitized. Hence it was a good enough reason to bring in ad time limits rules now so that TV air time could be slowly modulated over the period. The TRAI counsel agreed the regulation may not be perfect in its current form, but that does not give the TDSAT a reason to strike it down.

    Regarding FTA channels, Dwivedi said that the broadcasters had not given the TRAI any financial or commercials analysis of the minute by minute usage of ad time and data to support that ad revenues will indeed fall when the ad cap comes into effect. Hence, the regulator had made a general reccee of the channels and deduced what needed to be done and only then drawn up the ad cap regulation. It also stated that FTA channels don’t have too many ads so TRAI did not know why they were objecting to it.

    At the end of the proceedings, an important observation was made by the TDSAT that if the ad cap regulation is struck down, no law can be contended except section 7 (11) of the CTN Act, because broadcasters have accepted this act. Articles 14 and 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution are against the imposition of the ad cap regulation and then the only thing that remains is the interpretation of the 7 (11) section of the CTN Act.

    The TRAI will continue with its arguments on Monday and the broadcasters are scheduled to speak after that.

  • TDSAT & Ad cap: TRAI continues arguments

    TDSAT & Ad cap: TRAI continues arguments

    MUMBAI: Continuing to present its side to the Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT), the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) put forth its arguments to the bench consisting of Justice Aftab Alam and member Kuldip Singh.

    It started off continuing on yesterday’s argument trail saying that the law does not state that if the laying requirements are not fulfilled then it becomes void. That is, TRAI cannot execute its regulation on channels. That broadcasters are covered by both the Cable TV Networks Act and the TRAI act is a parliamentary mandate and there is nothing illegal in what it is doing. There are several precedents where a subject matter could be covered by more than one statute,  TRAI counsel  Rakesh Dwivedi stated.

    TRAI also claimed that it has a clear parliamentary mandate exercised through the central government to regulate advertisements. It contested the broadcasters’ arguments that TRAI has just a recommendatory role, by highlighting that it has an additional function under section 11 (1) (a) of the TRAI  Act and that does not mean its plenary functions under section (11) (1) (b) are taken away. Therefore, apart from its recommendatory function under (a), its powers also remain under (b). Both the sub clauses complement each other and there is no clash, the counsel stated.

    Reiterating that it has the authority, it said that what it is aiming to do is in perfect accordance with the powers the ministry and it has under section 7 (11) of the Cable TV Act. Likewise, the counsel, said it is not as if the government is seeking to have a higher allowance for advertising air time and is in disagreement with the limit of 12 minutes that the TRAI is seeking to impose.

    To support its argument, the counsel also read out various preceding judgments. According to the TRAI, broadcasters are licensees under the Telegraph Act and so the regulator has full power to ensure compliance within the licence term.
    Singh asked if TRAI can direct Google on the duration and number of ads it can run. To this, the TRAI counsel replied by saying: ‘I am the regulator and I will decide who, when and how much to regulate.

    Coming to the point raised yesterday about a statement TRAI had made in 2004 that “there should not be any regulation at present on advertisement on both FTA and Pay channels” it said that much water had flown under the bridge since it made its statement and the situation was different today. So, it can deem it appropriate to regulate since an expert opinion at one point of time does not mean that it will stay forever, the counsel stated.

  • TRAI presents its ad cap arguments

    TRAI presents its ad cap arguments

    MUMBAI: After nearly a week long argument from the News Broadcasters Association (NBA) and music channels – B4U, 9XM, Mastiii and M Tunes — it was time for regional players and the big daddy – the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) to present their side of the story on the ad cap.

    Among those who presented their case today were Polimer Media and south India biggie Sun TV. The channels brought to the fore a point from February 2011 when TRAI had confirmed that “there should not be any regulation at present on advertisement on both FTA and Pay channels.”

    It had taken this position in Petition No. 34(C) of 2011 in the TDSAT filed by a society called Utsarg against TRAI and several other broadcasters and content aggregators seeking a cap on television advertising time on the ground that these advertisements interfered with viewership of television programmes. The channels questioned the reversal in TRAI’s  stance today.

    Now, it was the turn of the TRAI to send its lawyer to make its deposition.  TRAI argued that it was right in taking recourse to  both the Acts – the Cable Networks Regulation Act 1995 as well as The Indian Telegraph Act 1885 and the TRAI Act – and it was empowered under both as broadcasters are licensees under the latter. To this, the bench comprising of Justice Aftab Alam and member Kuldip Singh said that if it already has the authority under the Cable TV Act then it should not have acted on the TRAI Act.

    However, TRAI argued that the Cable TV Act is applicable only to cable operators and the bench in turn responded that a broadcaster does not come under it then. TRAI claimed that they were merely interpreting section 7 (11) of the Cable TV Act of 1995 which says that the authority has the power to ‘seize equipment used for operating the cable television network’ if it is found to be breaching its other sections.

    On the laying of the ad cap regulation in Parliament, TRAI’s counsel said that it had submitted it to the relevant ministry. To this, the bench responded that the law decrees that it would become applicable only after it is accepted or rejected or modified in the house. All the actions TRAI takes won’t apply with retrospective effect. Hence if TRAI  prosecutes a broadcaster before laying in parliament would not that be a violation of fundamental rights was the question?  The argument was then that in such a situation it is beyond the jurisdiction of the TDSAT and comes under the ambit of the Supreme Court.

    One of the points raised by the petitioner channels was the possible misuse of the 12 minute ad cap regulation. It said that a broadcaster could have uneven advertising slots such as one minute of advertisement in the first 30 minutes while the next half an hour could have 11 minutes. Similarly the concept of clock hour too had its flaws. Hypothetically, a broadcaster could air 11 minutes of ads from7:49 pm to 8 pm and then another 11 minutes of commercials between 8:00 pm to 8:11 pm. That would mean TV viewers would be subjected to 22 minutes of commercials in an hour of television time, thus putting paid to TRAI’s mandate to maintain quality of service. To this, the TRAI claimed that all laws can be misused but then it doesn’t stop them from being made.

    TRAI will continue its arguments tomorrow.

  • What the music channels said on the ad cap issue

    What the music channels said on the ad cap issue

    MUMBAI: After the News Broadcasters Association (NBA) presented its side of the story, it was the turn of the music channels to present their case in the Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) regarding the troublesome 12 minute ad cap regulation that is being enforced by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI).

    The hearing that went on for two days (Monday and Tuesday) had the music channels counsel speaking on behalf of the four music channels – 9XM, B4U, M Tunes and Mastiii. The main point raised was violation of Article 14 of the constitution of India by the TRAI. The Article states: “The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth”.
     
    According to counsel, the TRAI is violating Article 14 by putting all the channels in the same basket. There are different types of broadcasters delivering both free to air and pay channels in the genres of news, sports, music etc. It is inappropriate to be treating ‘unequals as equals’ by classifying all channels in the same category, counsel emphasized. To support his argument, he said that FTA channels don’t get subscription revenue and work on purely advertising while pay channels have the benefit of both.
     
    Apart from this, other issues raised during the hearing were similar to the ones the NBA counsel had raised such as the jurisdiction of the TRAI to come out with such a regulation, unregulated and high carriage fees and high cost of content production.
     
    There is a long list of channels that will now present their cases in front of the TDSAT bench of Justice Aftab Ahmed and member Kuldip Singh including Reliance Big Broadcasting, Sun TV Network, Raj TV, E24 Glamour, Eenadu Television and Polimer Media.
     
    After this, TRAI will defend itself. The hearing is set to continue today.
     
    This is surely one case that will take much time to resolve.

    To read about previous reports on the case scroll down.

  • TDSAT: Ad cap saga continues on Day 2

    TDSAT: Ad cap saga continues on Day 2

    MUMBAI: The hearings on TRAI’s proposed 12 minute ad cap regulation by the Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) that began yesterday look unlikely to get over in a hurry. For the past two days it is the News Broadcasters Association (NBA) which has been presenting its case to the tribunal. Today, the NBA counsel raised the point that the TRAI had not fulfilled the laying requirements to the parliament as per section 37 of the TRAI Act which says that “the Regulations made by the TRAI have to be placed before the Parliament to seek its approval. Thus, there can be no dispute that the regulations framed by the TRAI have the force of law having been made through the process of subordinate legislation provided they are consistent with the Act and Rules.”

    Any law infringing the fundamental rights of the people needs to be laid before the parliament after which it can be either annulled or amended or approved by the parliament, says a counsel. A senior broadcaster who has been following the case closely says, “If anything is a law then it has to be passed by the legislature.”

    Therefore, the NBA said that TRAI is crossing its line by enforcing the ad cap and prosecuting channels that aren’t following it. TDSAT Justice Aftab Alam wanted to know from TRAI if they had laid it before parliament as it’s an issue that should have been dealt in the preliminary stages itself to which TRAI did not have a substantial reply.

    In yesterday’s hearing, one of the points put forth by the NBA counsel was section 2(G) of The Cable Act of 1995 according to which advertisements are a part of content. At this, TDSAT wondered how a broadcaster can come under this act. Counsel for NBA today validated the position under this act by stating that permission for uplinking falls under the Cable Act bringing broadcasters under this Act. It also says that channels adhere to the programme code.

    Since the Cable Act comes under the jurisdiction of the Information and Broadcasting (I & B) ministry, broadcasters fall under the purview of the I & B ministry and not TRAI.

    NBA also contended yesterday that TRAI does not have the authority to regulate content and its powers are restricted only to licensing and quality of service while content regulation falls under the ambit of the I & B ministry. Neither the TRAI Act nor the Indian Telegraph Act, under which TRAI works, gives the regulator the powers to deal with content.

    The case will continue tomorrow post noon when NBA will put forth more points in front of the TDSAT.

    Read here for yesterday’s hearing:
    TDSAT hearing on ad cap to continue tomorrow