ITV

Tag: Aftab Alam

  • TDSAT dismisses Media Pro’s 14 petitions seeking payments from cable ops

    TDSAT dismisses Media Pro’s 14 petitions seeking payments from cable ops

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has dismissed 14 petitions by Media Pro Enterprise India, Mumbai against cable operators as “there is no material on record even to show what were the dues, if any, of the respondents on the date their respective agreements came to end.”

     

    TDSAT chairman Justice Aftab Alam and member Kuldeep Singh said in fact that three cases by the petitioner were plainly barred by limitation. 

     

    The judgment said, “We are satisfied that in none of the cases in the batch, the claim of the petitioner is fit to be allowed. All the petitions are accordingly dismissed with costs at Rs 5,000 per petition payable to the TDSAT Employees’ Welfare Society. A receipt showing payment of the cost should be filed in the Registry within a month from the date of the judgment.”

     

    The three petitions barred by limitation (time-barred) were against S.M. Advertising, Maharashtra; Nileshwar Cable TV Network, Kerala; and Tara Cable Network, Maharashtra.

     

    The other local cable operators (LCOs) against whom the petitions had been filed included five from Gujarat – Narmada Cable Service, Five Star Network, Star Marketing, Anjali Cable Network, and Jai Santoshi Maa; two from Maharashtra – Bhusawal Network and H.R. Entertainment; Rathore Network, Rajasthan; Apna In Cable Broad Band Services, Andhra Prdesh; Nandgaon Cable Network, Chhattisgarh; and Haridwar Cable Network, Uttarakhand. 

     

    Media Pro used to be the agent and intermediary of several broadcasters, including Zee Turner Ltd and StarDEN Media Services on the basis of agreements executed with the broadcasters. According to the averment made in the petition, it started its operations as their agent in July 2011. Before that the channels of the aforesaid two broadcasters were given to the distributors on the basis of agreements executed by the broadcasters themselves. 

     

    The 14 petitions are for recovery of different sums of money as dues of monthly subscription fees. According to the petitioner, the 14 LCOs were receiving the signals from Zee and Star DEN on the basis of agreements executed with them on different dates, on payment of different sums of money as subscription fees in terms of their respective agreements. It is further the case of the petitioner that on the basis of agreements executed with the broadcasters, it took over the control and distribution of their channels and was also authorised by its principals to collect their outstanding dues from all the distributors, including the present LCOs.

     

    According to Media Pro, after assuming the role of agent and intermediary, it raised invoices against the LCOs for payment of monthly subscription fees as also the past dues of the principal broadcasters. The LCOs, however, failed to make payments against the invoices and as a result dues accumulated, leading to the petitions. Media Pro has claimed the amounts due along with interest at 18 per cent from the date the amount became due till the date of the filing of the petition. 

     

    The Tribunal noted that in all cases, the subscription agreement had come to end before Media Pro stepped into the shoes of the agent and the intermediary of the broadcasters. Furthermore, the supply of signals to the LCOs continued for many months even after the agreements had come to end – a fact admitted in the petitions and by witnesses examined.

     

    None of the 14 cable operators appeared despite service of notice. Hence, all the petitions in the batch were proceeded with ex parte. As all are based on similar facts with the exception of the amounts of money claimed and the date of disconnection of signals, all were heard together. 

     

    The witnesses said Media Pro requested the LCOs to renew the expired agreements but the latter delayed this on one pretext or other and invoices were raised. The TV channel signals accordingly continued to be retransmitted by LCOs to their subscribers until May 2012. 

     

    The said retransmission by the respondent to its subscribers has been duly verified and corroborated by the petitioner through ground verification conducted from time to time and as recent as on April – May 2012.  

     

    However, the Tribunal noted, “the averment of Media Pro is thus directly in teeth of the clear directive of the Regulations.” 

     

    The Tribunal said clause 4A of the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconnect Regulations 2004 with effect from 17 March, 2009 is clear that the Interconnection Agreements have to be in writing. It further says no broadcaster of pay channels or distributor of TV channels, such as multi system operator or headend in the sky operator shall make available signals of TV channels to any distributor of TV channels without entering into a written interconnection agreement.

  • HITS to be treated at par with pan-India MSOs; TDSAT advises TRAI to frame consolidated Broadcasting Code

    HITS to be treated at par with pan-India MSOs; TDSAT advises TRAI to frame consolidated Broadcasting Code

    NEW DELHI: In a judgment expected to have far reaching consequences on the Indian broadcasting industry, the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) today said that headend-in-the-sky (HITS) players should be treated on the same level as pan-India multi-system operators (MSOs) for commercial purposes.
     

    In a judgment on a petition filed by the Noida Software Technology Park Ltd (NSTPL) against Media Pro and others, the Tribunal said its judgment would come into effect from 31 March, 2016 by which time the relevant reference interconnect offers will be revised wherever necessary.

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

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

    TDSAT chairman Justice Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said both Star and Taj, as well as the other broadcasters who have joined the proceedings as intervenors are directed to issue fresh RIOs in compliance with the Interconnect Regulations, as explained in the judgment within one month from the date this order becomes operational and effective. It will be then open to NSTPL to execute fresh interconnect agreements with Star and Taj, and with any other broadcasters on the basis of their respective RIOs or on negotiated terms within the limits.

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

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

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

    The Tribunal said the non-discrimination obligation, which TRAI acknowledges as the pivot of those regulations, appears inconsistent with a regime where parties are allowed full latitude to mutually negotiate their agreements and also not disclose the commercial terms of the agreement to other market participants.
     

    There is the obligation to frame a meaningful RIO in which all bouquet and a la carte rates are specified, and there is also some room for mutual negotiation (even on rates) within certain specified parameters. This will achieve the objective of introducing a transparent non-discriminatory regime whereby distributors can obtain access to content, while still retaining some latitude to mutually negotiate the terms and conditions of access. It will also make the nexus between a la carte and bouquet rates, which the regulator thought fit to introduce, applicable to all mutually negotiated agreements. Negotiations must be within the parameters to those mandatory.

     
    At the same time, TDSAT said it was conscious that the present judgment may unsettle the way in which various parties in the broadcasting sector have entered into existing agreements. “We are further conscious that while the TRAI has taken a position broadly in line with our conclusions in this case, that has not always been the case. As the Amicus Curiae and the counsel for the Petitioner have pointed out, the positions taken by TRAI in the past have not always been fully consistent. In particular, we note the observation of TRAI in Consultation Paper No.15 / 2008 that in view of the confidentiality restrictions, the automatic implementation of non-discrimination clause in Interconnect Regulation is practically difficult,” it said.
     

    Thus, as far back as 2008, TRAI was aware that the non-discrimination clause – which, in these proceedings, it has sought to place on a very high pedestal – was effectively inoperative. And yet, matters in the broadcasting sector have been allowed to lie where they are by TRAI.
     

    TDSAT said it had on past occasions as well, made similar suggestions with the hope of nudging the Regulator to take proactive steps to reduce the scope of disputes arising out of the Regulations. At the same time, the fact that regulatory intervention may be the ideal way forward cannot and should not be an excuse for this Tribunal to shirk the interpretative issues that have come before us. This is particularly so when there appears to be regulatory inertia.
     

    This was the reason for suspending the operation of this judgment till 31 March, 2016. The judgment shall take effect on 1 April, 2016. “While we are aware that this is not a common procedure, we are of the view that it is appropriate in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, since the effect of this judgment may be to unsettle a number of existing agreements and necessitate re-negotiation,” the Tribunal said.
     

    In the meanwhile it will be open to TRAI to undertake a comprehensive restructuring of the Regulations, which would hopefully clarify many of the issues that arise in these proceedings. “We make it clear that this Tribunal is issuing no such direction to TRAI. The delayed operation of the judgment is only to afford an opportunity to TRAI to consider the matter and act in the intervening period, if appropriate,” it further added.
     

    As a greater part of the country would come under the DAS regime with effect from 1 January, 2016 the Tribunal said it would be advisable that TRAI should try to frame a consolidated Broadcasting Code instead of the large number of Regulations dealing with different aspects of the service and each having undergone numerous amendments. In order to make a serious effort in that direction, TRAI would be required to get hold of all the negotiated interconnect agreements between the broadcasters and the distributors of channels, which the broadcasters are in any event obliged to submit to TRAI. The Regulator may even feel the need to take a re-look at the tariff orders framed by it.

     
    Needless to add that in case TRAI issues any fresh Regulations before 1 April, 2016, the petitioner and the broadcasters would be obliged to execute agreements on that basis. In case, however, no fresh Regulations are issued by TRAI, this judgment and order will come into effect from the aforesaid date and the parties would be obliged to follow the directions give above.

    Suspension of this judgment is in the larger interest of the broadcasting sector. But this leaves open the question of the petitioner’s liability to pay licence fees to the broadcasters Star and Taj for their signals received by it during the pendency of the petitions before the Tribunal and further until execution of fresh agreements in terms of this judgment or in terms of fresh Regulations, if any, framed by TRAI. And since it will not be fair that the broadcasters should continue to supply signals to the petitioner without any payment for the next several months, some interim arrangement under which the petitioner should make payment of licence fees to the two broadcasters until after execution of fresh agreements accounts are finally reconciled. For this purpose, the petition against the broadcasters was de-tagged from this judgment and kept pending.
     

    Star has already filed an application in Petition No. 314 (C) of 2015 claiming the dues of licence fees from the petitioner. Petition No. 526 (C) of 2015 is directed to be tagged with Petition No. 314 (C) of 2015. In these two petitions, the Tribunal proposes to determine the Petitioner’s liability to pay the license fees to Star and Taj on an ad hoc basis and as an interim measure until the execution of the agreements with the two broadcasters, and when the accounts of the two sides may be reconciled to determine any final liability of the Petitioner or Respondents to make any further payments.
     

    It also made clear that all future deals between broadcasters and MSO/HITS players will be bound by the RIO agreements.

     
    While the case was initially filed against Media Pro in mid-2014, NSTPL had subsequently in December last year filed another petition against Star India and Taj TV.
     

    Since the issues in both petitions were similar and any judgment would affect the broadcasting sector as a whole, TDSAT had on 30 July this year issued a public notice asking all stakeholders to present their case on the issues involved.
     

    In an earlier case in 2013 between NSTPL and Media Pro Enterprise India Pvt. Ltd. TDSAT had on 12 September, 2013 directed Media Pro to provide signals of its TV channels to NSTPL.
     

    Later, NSTPL moved the Tribunal against Media Pro in which Taj Television Ltd and Star India Private Limited were brought in. Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) was also a party in the two petitions of 2014.

     
    The first petition 10 July, 2014, NSTPL raised some questions regarding RIO and wanted the Tribunal to declare Clause 3.2 of The Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconnection Regulation 2004, as amended from time to time should mandate that all distributors be offered the same rate per subscriber per month which is the rate specified in the broadcaster’s RIO, unless the conditions of Clause 3.6 of Interconnection Regulation are fulfilled.

     
    It also wanted declaration in terms of Clause 3.6 of Interconnect Regulation to the effect that any discounted volume related scheme must be disclosed in a transparent manner, so as to enable the similarly placed distributors to avail of the same.
     

    It demanded that Media Pro be directed to disclose the volume related schemes at which it offers TV channel signals to distributors that are similarly placed with NSTPL and permit NSTPL to avail of such schemes.
     

    The second petition on 12 December, 2014 was against Taj and TRAI, which impugned the disconnection measures that had been initiated by Taj against NSTPL on account of alleged defaults like non-payment of certain amounts of subscription fees.

  • TDSAT permits LCO to seek TV signals directly from distributor

    TDSAT permits LCO to seek TV signals directly from distributor

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has said that SRE Digital Cable Communications is entitled in law to ask Sun TV for supply of signals directly despite the fact that it has been receiving these signals from another multi system operator (MSO).

     

    TDSAT chairman Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said however that this is subject to the operator satisfying the conditions mandated in the Regulations.

     

    Listing the matter for 21 December, the Tribunal said, “It will be open to Sun Distribution Services Pvt Ltd to make an inspection of the LCO’s system and to be satisfied that it is compliant with the regulatory norms.”

     

    On the next date, the LCO’s counsel Sujeet Kumar Mishra will also produce the invoices of A.C.T. Digital with the materials showing that payments are duly made against those invoices.

          

    The Tribunal also noted that the area in which the petitioner is operating is to come under the DAS regime in the third phase from 1 January, 2016. “It is, therefore, reasonable to assume that the petitioner would have a digital head-end in place. As a matter of fact, Mr. Mishra states that such is the position and the petitioner is capable of retransmitting any signals, including those received from SUN in digital mode.”

     

    However, it said that Sun could not be denied the request to examine the systems.

     

    In pursuance of the order passed on 29 October, Sun counsel Abhishek Malhotra filed an affidavit stating that the petitioner is receiving Sun’s signals from A.C.T. Digital. 

     

    Mishra admitted to the Tribunal that the petitioner had been receiving Sun’s signals from A.C.T. Digital from the month of November 2015. “Evidently, the earlier statements made on behalf of the petitioner were not correct,” the Tribunal noted.

  • TDSAT issues bailable arrest warrants against two directors of Sahara India TV Network

    TDSAT issues bailable arrest warrants against two directors of Sahara India TV Network

    New Delhi: In a power rarely exercised by it, the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal has issued a bailable warrant of arrest against Sahara India TV Network Directors Govind Tiwari and Devendra Kumar Srivastava in a case of non-payment of dues to multi-system operator Delhi Distribution Company.  

     

    Listing the matter for 22 December, Chairman Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said: “From the earlier orders, it appears that the Directors of the company are willfully flouting the directions of this Tribunal. The Tribunal is, therefore, left with no option but to secure their presence through coercive measures.” 

     

    It was also noted that neither the details of moveable and immoveable properties of the company were filed nor any payment being made towards the discharge of the decree. 

     

    Sahara India counsel Pankaj Agarwal who was present said he had been instructed that he would be handed over the cheque to be handed over to the MSO but was later told no cheque was being sent.

     

    The TDSAT office was directed to issue bailable warrants of arrest on the addresses being furnished by MSO Counsel Vibhav Srivastava to ensure their personal appearance on the next date fixed in the matter.

  • Sun asked to sign provisional agreement and commence signals to MSO

    Sun asked to sign provisional agreement and commence signals to MSO

    New Delhi: Sun Network has been directed by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal to enter into a provisional interconnect agreement with multi system operator Balu Cable Network and commence supply of signals.

     

    Chairman Justice Aftab Alam and member Kuldip Singh felt that the order was proper and appropriate considering much time has already lapsed.

     

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

     

    Listing the matter for 14 December, the Tribunal said Sun Network may make a physical verification of the petitioner’s SLR and submit its report on completion of the verification.

     

    Thereafter, the Tribunal will pass further orders, the bench said.

  • TDSAT sends team to Punjab to ascertain alleged links between Fastway & Apna Cable

    TDSAT sends team to Punjab to ascertain alleged links between Fastway & Apna Cable

    NEW DELHI: A team of three Advocate Commissioners has been appointed by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) to go to Talwandi Sabo in Punjab to examine allegations as to whether Fastway Transmission Pvt. Ltd is using an entity by the name of Apna Cable to transmit signals in the area of the Malwa Cable Operator Sangarsh Committee.

     

    The allegation by the 12 cable operators, who are members of the Committee, is that Apna Cable is transmitting signals in analogue mode and is operating in digital mode.

     

    The team will also examine whether Apna Cable has its own head-end and cable network or if it is using the “leased lines” taken from Fastway or is otherwise using the network, systems or equipment of Fastway. It will also look into whether Apna Cable is engaged in laying down any cables in that area and being helped by Fastway in doing so.

     

    The commissioners will also find out all the channels that Apna Cable is giving to its subscribers and which of those channels are being received from Fastway and which channels it is getting directly from different broadcasters on the basis of agreements with them. 

     

    The commissioners will also find out by engaging with subscribers of both Apna Cable and the petitioner LCOs the amounts of monthly subscription fee they are charging from their respective subscribers and whether Apna Cable has issued pamphlets or it is making any public announcements that the subscribers should take the Fastway channels from Apna Cable at much lower rates than those realised by the petitioner LCOs.

     

    The Advocate Commissioners – Nasir Husain, Vibhav Srivastava and Ravi S S Chauhan – have been asked to go to the area by the end of this week and the matter has been listed for 23 November.

     

    TDSAT chairman Justice Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava also directed that Apna Cable be issued notice and added to the list of respondents.

     

    The Tribunal noted that there appeared to be “some seriously disputed facts on the ground.”

     

    In pursuance of the previous order passed on 14 October, Deenadayalan had been appointed as the Advocate Commission but could not proceed beyond Bhatinda becase of serious social disturbance and was advised to come back. 

     

    Fastway counsel Navin Chawla denied the allegations about Apna Cable and said there was no link between his client and the LCO.

     

    The petitioners alleged that Apna Cable is only a front name and the entire work of cable-laying is being done at the instance of and using the resources of Fastway. It is alleged that Apna Cables is receiving signals from Fastway and re-transmitting those signals in the petitioners’ area of operation in analogue mode. It is further alleged that Apna Cable is issuing pamphlets and making public announcements that the subscribers should take their signals from Apna Cable as it would give them Fastway signals at a much cheaper rate. According to the petitioners, Apna Cable is an entity simply set up by Fastway as a ploy to drive them out of business.

     

    According to Chawla, Apna Cable had its own independent head-end and it has interconnect agreements with a few broadcasters whose signals it might be transmitting on the basis of the agreements with them. But during arguments, he said a little later that Fastway has given leased lines to Apna Cable and it might also be giving some local free-to-air channels like the live telecast from the Golden Temple to Apna Cable. The Tribunal noted that “admittedly Fastway is not giving any of its local free-to-air channels, like the live telecast from the Golden Temple to any of the LCOs represented in this petition.”

     

    The Commissioners will first try to find out if the supply of signals to the 12 LCOs (whose description is given in the affidavit filed on 14.09.2015) was disrupted for several days in the middle of October 2015. For this purpose, the team of Commissioners may examine the networks of the petitioner LCOs as also the local system of the respondent. They may also interview and engage with the subscribers of the 12 LCOs to find out whether or not they were receiving signals through the petitioner’s network during the past month or even now.

     

    Each member of the Advocate Commissioners’ team will be paid, apart from actual expenses, honorarium at the rate of Rs 20,000 per day. The payment will be made by the two sides in the ratio of 75 per cent by the respondent and 25 per cent by the petitioners. 

     

    The Tribunal rejected objections by Chawla to the respective shares and insists that the payment must be made in equal shares.

  • TDSAT directs Taj TV to not disconnect Indusind signals in DAS & non-DAS areas

    TDSAT directs Taj TV to not disconnect Indusind signals in DAS & non-DAS areas

    NEW DELHI: Taj Television (India) Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai was today directed by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) not to give effect to the disconnection order in Digital Addressable System (DAS) and non-DAS areas against IndusInd Media & Communications Ltd if the latter makes payment according to formulas drawn up by the Tribunal as an interim arrangement.

     

    Under the order for DAS areas, Indusind counsel Vandana D. Jaisingh handed over to Taj TV counsel Tejveer Singh Bhatia four cheques amounting to Rs 5.42 crore. In addition, Indusind will pay Rs 10 crore by 2 November, Rs 5 crore by 9 November and Rs 10 crore by 30 November, 2015.

     

    Admitting both cases and posting them before the Registrar’s court on 18 December for completion of pleadings, the Tribunal made clear that the directions are towards earlier dues as far as DAS areas are concerned. 

     

    In addition, Indusind must make payments of the invoices raised by Taj TV for the months of October and November this year for DAS areas.

     

    TDSAT chairman Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said the payments made in terms of this interim order will be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties.

     

    In the case relating to non-DAS areas, the Tribunal asked Indusind to make immediate payment of the outstanding dues up to 30 September subject to verification by reconciliation of accounts.

     

    Taj TV had issued the disconnection notice as it claimed that dues amounted to Rs 9.58 crore till 31 October but this was disputed by Indusind, which submitted that it had made already payment of Rs 2.26 crore and was entitled to pay for October by 15 November.

     

    However, Taj said the amount was arrived at after taking the amounting already paid into account.

     

    The Tribunal directed Indusind to go to the respondent’s Mumbai office on 3 November for this purpose.

     

    Following the reconciliation of accounts, the Tribunal said Indusind will pay the dues up to 30 September by6 November. The invoice for the month of October 2015 will be paid by 15 November.

     

    Bhatia accepted notice on behalf of Taj TV for both petitions and was asked to file the reply within three weeks from today (30 October). Rejoinder, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

     

    The agreement under which Indusind receives its signals from Taj TV came to end on 31 March but the latter continued to supply signals and Indusind continued to receive the signals and re-transmit them to its affiliates without any renewal of agreement and under the pretext that negotiations for the renewal of the agreement is going on between the two sides.  

     

    The matter finally came to a head when Taj TV gave disconnection notices for disconnection of its supply of signals to the petitioner. The disconnection notices are based on grounds of non-payment of dues and non-renewal of the interconnect agreement. In the notice, the dues are quantified at Rs 36.44 crore upto 30 September. The amount of dues mentioned in the disconnection notice relate only to the monthly subscription fees.

     

    Jaisingh disputed the amount mentioned in the disconnection notices. According to her, the admitted dues amount to Rs 24.85 crore. She contended that after the expiry of the agreement, the respondent is unauthorisedly raising invoices increasing the rate by more than 10 per cent from the rate mentioned in the previous agreement. 

     

    Bhatia said the invoices from April 2015 onwards had been raised strictly in terms of the provisions of the agreement. 

     

    The Tribunal felt that the submission of Bhatia “appears to be prima facie correct but we do not wish to make any conclusive pronouncement on that aspect of the matter at this stage.”

  • Prasar Bharati moves TDSAT against Mumbai based FM radio licensee

    Prasar Bharati moves TDSAT against Mumbai based FM radio licensee

    NEW DELHI: Indian pubcaster Prasar Bharati has moved the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) against Mumbai based FM radio licensee Pan India Network Infravest Pvt Ltd for not vacating its properties in different cities even after the end of the lease period.

     

    To this regard, Prasar Bharati has admitted eight petitions for hearing to TDSAT.

     

    The petitions have been filed by the pubcaster from Allahabad, Amritsar and other parts of Punjab, Jalgaon, Varanasi, Akola, Agra, and Nanded.

     

    TDSAT chairman Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava admitted the petition after hearing Government counsel Rajeev Sharma. No one appeared for Pan India Network Infravest.

     

    Pan India Network was directed to file a reply within three weeks and rejoinder by Prasar Bharati, if any, two weeks thereof.

     

    The case was listed for 15 December before the Registrar’s court for getting the pleadings completed. 

     

    FM operators were given some land by Prasar Bharati on its land in many cities for putting up transmitters etc under conditions set out in agreements with each of them.

  • TDSAT to hear AROI’s petition challenging radio migration fee methodology; payment date extended

    TDSAT to hear AROI’s petition challenging radio migration fee methodology; payment date extended

    NEW DELHI: The vacation bench of the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) today extended till tomorrow the deadline for payment of the balance of the non-refundable One Time Migration Fee (NOTMF) for migrating from Phase II to Phase III of Radio FM.

     

    The vacation bench of TDSAT chairman Justice Aftab Alam and member Kuldip Singh, who gave the interim direction after preliminary hearing, are expected to hear tomorrow the petition by the Association of Radio Operators in India (AROI) challenging the criteria for NOTMF for migrating from Phase II to Phase III of Radio FM.

     

    The primary plea of AROI is that the Information and Broadcasting Ministry is charging very high fee for smaller cities for NOTMF.

     

    Meanwhile in a letter to I&B Secretary Sunil Arora yesterday, TRAI secretary Sudhir Gupta rejected the plea of AROI with regard to ten cities for which no bids had come in the recent e-auctions.

     

    Gupta said the AROI had in its representation “assumed zero percent increase in reserve prices for 10 group Z cities where auction was unsuccessful as no bids were received. This assumption of AROI is not tenable as the final prices for allocation of channels in such cities have not been determined.”

     

    He said AROI had indicated another two concerns in respect of calculation of NOTMF by the Ministry. In the first case wherein example of Shimla is given by AROI, the methodology followed by the I&B Ministry is in line with TRAI’s recommendations of 20 February, 2014, as this has been explained in an example given in a table of TRAI’s recommendations on “Migration of FM Radio Broadcasters from Phase-11 to Phase-III” dated 20 February, 2014.

     

    Accordingly, the request of AROI for review of NOTMF on this ground is not acceptable, Gupta said.

     

    The letter was in response to a letter from the Ministry dated 8 October wherein the Ministry has sought TRAI’s comments on the methodology used by the I&B Ministry for calculation of NOTMF for existing cities and to confirm whether the I&B Ministry has done calculation of city wise NOTMF in accordance with the TRAI’s recommendations of 20 February, 2014.

     

    Gupta said TRAI had examined the methodology of calculation of NOTMF followed by the Ministry for group X, Y and Z cities. “The methodology followed by the Ministry for calculation of NOTMF is in accordance with TRAI’s recommendations dated 20 February 2014.”

     

    However, Gupta said, “TRAI has neither verified the arithmetic accuracy of city-wise NOTMF calculated by the I&B Ministry nor looked into the city-wise prices determined through the auction process.”

  • TDSAT warns Den Network against piracy of Star channels

    TDSAT warns Den Network against piracy of Star channels

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has cautioned and warned Den Network to desist from activities like piracy and transmitting any channels of Star available to it on a la carte basis on any of its channels available in any bouquets.

     

    As per Star, it telecast the Salman Khan starrer film Bajrangi Bhaijaan on one of its channels, Star Gold which is available to Den’s network only on a la carte basis. In order to circumvent the a la carte restriction, Den unauthorisedly transmitted the movie on one of its local channels called Den Cinema, which was available to its entire subscriber base.

     

    TDSAT chairman Justice Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said, “Prima facie it appears to us that Den is indulging in practices that are not only not sanctioned by law but which in fact may constitute criminal offence.”

     

    It further clarified that in case Den is “violated the warning it would do so at its risk as to costs and consequences. It is further made clear that Star, if so advised, may file claim for damages against Den for allegedly having indulged in piracy of its signals.” 

     

    The Tribunal noted that in the petition filed by Den, Star had even earlier alleged similar piracy and that matter had been posted for 3 November as Den counsel Abhay Chattopadhyay sought time to get instructions. 

     

    The Tribunal hoped that by the next date, Chattopadhyay may file Den’s reply to the two applications. 

     

    In the present application, Star counsel Kunal Tandon alleged that Den was “indulging in rampant piracy of some of the Star channels.” Both the earlier application and the present application are supported by screen shots and CDs.