ITV

Tag: AIDCF

  • Hearing to end next week in Madras HC on Star India challenge to TRAI Tariff order

    NEW DELHI: The Madras High Court was today told by Telecom Regulatory Authority of India counsel Saket Singh the reasons for moving from analogue to digital and the necessity of the new tariff order.

    Concluding his arguments in the petition by Star India and Vijay TV challenging the jurisdiction of TRAI to issue tariff orders on the ground that content came under the Copyright Act, Singh said digital addressable system had led to greater transparency leading to the subscriber base going up, which led to higher advertising revenue.

    While adjourning the matter for 17 July, the Court indicated that arguments will commence on behalf of intervenors All India Digital Cable Federation and Videcon d2h. This will be followed by rejoiner arguments by the petitioners, after which the court will reserve its orders.

    Singh said the aim was to create level playing field for rates to distributor platforms  and give an effective and informed choice to the consumer.

    The new tariff had asked broadcasters to declare their minimum retail price per channel to consumers and give a la carte price for pay channels. This would give greater cChoice to consumer.

    The bench asked why HD and SD cHannels could not be regulated in the same bouquet. Singh also wondered why broadcasters are using this as one of the contentions as they themselves during the consultation process wanted HD and SD to be separated. They had also said so in their responses to the consultation paper on the subject.He said that the channels at that stage had only wanted the free-to-air and pay channels to be in separate boiuquets.

    Singh showed to the court the broadcasters comments during consultation process.

    He said prior to the tariff order, broadcaster would sell distribution right to multi-system ioperators at wholesale prices level and MSOs would accordingly sell to the consumers. Thus the consumer had no direct link to pricing.

    The new tariff had taken away the power of distributors in terms of pricing and that has been given to the broadcaster. Hence they are the master of their channel and can price the consumer accordingly.

    The consumer also got the right to refuse to pay for channels he did not watch. Singh also explained the concept of carriage fee.

    Although the Supreme Court had in early May while staying the tariff order directed the Madras High Court to complete hearing within four weeks, the High Court had commenced the in the last week of June.

    The hearing had commenced with the pleadings of counsel for the petitioners.

    Meanwhile, TRAI TV reference interconnect offer (RIO) and Quality of service order (QoS) came into effect from 2 May following the order of the High Court.

    In the hearing in April-end, it had said Section 3 of the Tariff order and all other consequences of such implementation/enforcement would be subject to the outcome of the main petition.

    Apart from the Tariff order which had originally been issued on 10 October last year, the regulator also issued the DAS Interconnect Regulations which had been issued on 14 October last year, and the Standards of Quality of Service and Consumer Protection (Digital Addressable Systems) Regulations which had been issued on 10 October last year.

    The orders can be seen at:
    http://trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/Tariff_Order_English_3%20March_20…
    http://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/QOS_Regulation_03_03_2017.pdf
    http://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/Interconnection_Regulation_03…

    Also Read

    Decks cleared for TRAI tariff order implementation as HC declines stay (updated)

    Star India case questioning TRAI jurisdiction over content postponed
     

  • Star Vijay case in Madras HC: TRAI to conclude arguments today, AIDCF & Videocon to argue tomorrow

    MUMBAI: In the Star-Vijay-TRAI case hearing in the Madras High Court, one of the TRAI’s senior counsel P Wilson concluded his arguments on Wednesday. The other TRAI (Telecom Regulatory Authority of India) counsel Saket Singh is expected to put forth his arguments on Thursday, official sources told Indiantelevision.com

    Interveners in the case — All India Digital Cable Federation (AIDCF) and Videocon hope to put forth their arguments on Friday. And, on Friday itself, the Madras High Court would provide a rejoinder date — for the final outcome and directive in the case that challenged the jurisdiction of TRAI to issue tariff orders on the ground that content came under the Copyright Act.

    TRAI TV reference interconnect offer (RIO) and Quality of service order (QoS) came into effect from 2 May following the order of the high court.

    In the hearing in April-end, it had said Section 3 of the Tariff order and all other consequences of such implementation/enforcement would be subject to the outcome of the main petition.
     
    Apart from the Tariff order, the regulator also issued the DAS Interconnect Regulations, and the Standards of Quality of Service and Consumer Protection (Digital Addressable Systems) Regulations which had been issued on 10 October last year.

    Also Read:

    Star-TRAI case hearing in Madras High Court starts 

    Star & Vijay TV amend plea, TRAI asked by Madras HC to file response

    SC stays new TRAI tariff, asks Madras HC to complete hearing in four weeks

     

  • MSOs prepared for new regime, AIDCF stresses on ‘a la carte’ offers from 1 Sept

    MUMBAI: All-India Digital Cable Federation (AIDCF), the apex body of Digital Multi System Operator’s (MSOs), has urged all its members to gear up for the new tariff regime. 

    In its meeting held on Monday, the members were advised to gear up to meet the requirement under the new regulation and prepare their backend to handle dynamic offerings including offering channels on à la carte basis. While the broadcasters and MSOs are free to form their own bouquets, the ultimate “right to choose” to end-consumers will happen by giving them the ability to choose channels on à la carte basis.

    This step has been taken to stream-line MSOs services so that the end-consumer does not face any hiccup when the new regime kick-in on 1 September 2017. It should be noted that the members of the apex body are fully committed to migrate to the new tariff and interconnect regime.

    AIDCF would also like to put on record that the new tariff regime will bring in more transparency and fuel growth by regulating the broadcast distribution system. It will also help in creating a more synergetic environment unlike the current unfettered one and will give the end-consumers, the freedom to choose what they want to watch and provide safeguard to ensure that the channels are being offered with fair trade margin, thus harmonising the entire eco-system.

    The Federation also welcomed the Supreme Court judgment as it will be an ideal scenario if all the legal procedures are put to rest before the new regime kicks in. This way there will be no ambiguity and application of the new regime will be smooth and seamless.

    AIDCF president TS Panesar said, “We are happy to note that the Supreme Court has requested the  Madras High Court to hear this matter on a daily basis beginning 12 June 2017  and come out with the judgement in 30 days. This does not affect the 1 September implementation deadline and we are hopeful that it will be implemented on time.”

    Also Read:

    MSOs upload channel capacity & RIO, AIDCF requests b’casters too

    Upload channel capacity & RIO immediately, AIDCF urges MSOs

    Furnish details of cable connections, Delhi Govt asks operators, MSOs wary of cascading effect

  • MSOs upload channel capacity & RIO, AIDCF requests b’casters too

    MUMBAI: Multi-system-operators (MSOs) in India which fall under the aegis of All-India Digital Cable Federation (AIDCF) yesterday night uploaded their RIO, channel carrying capacity and interconnect agreements on their respective websites. AIDCF, a few days back, had advised its member-MSOs to upload the same before the deadline set by TRAI.

    It is not clear when or whether broadcasters will follow TRAI guidelines and upload RIO on their respective websites.

    In this digital era, MSOs are now ready to pass on the benefits of the new tariff order to 120 million viewers of TV channels.

    The new set of Tariff and Interconnect Regulations issued by TRAI will help in creating a level playing field for all the stakeholders, specially the end viewers who will now have complete freedom at their disposal. It will also help in bringing more transparency and fuel growth by regulating and balancing the entire broadcasting eco-system.

    AIDCF, once again requests all the Broadcasters to upload their RIO on their websites without any further ado, as the deadline for the same has already expired.

    AIDCF president TS Panesar said,“To honour TRAIs deadline and pass on
    the benefits of new regulations to end viewers, MSOs are fully ready as
    they have already uploaded their RIO, Channel Carrying Capacity and
    Interconnect Agreement on their websites. We hope that esteemed
    Broadcasters would join hands with us and upload their RIO rates ASAP
    in true spirit of collaboration and indulgence.”

  • Upload channel capacity & RIO immediately, AIDCF urges MSOs

    NEW DELHI: With the Madras High Court declining to stay the tariff order for television, the All-India Digital Cable Federation (AIDCF) which represents multi-system operators has said that this “will help in creating a level playing field for all the stakeholders, especially the end consumers who will now have complete freedom at their disposal”.

    In a press release on the three regulations issued on 3 March 2017 which will come into effect on 2 May 2017, AIDCF sad: “It will also help in bringing more transparency and fuel growth by regulating the entire broadcasting eco-system.”

    Star India and Vijay TV had challenged the orders of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India on the ground that it had no jurisdiction over content which actually came under Copyright Act, which is not administered by TRAI. Resultantly, the Department of Industrial Promotion and Policy which administers intellectual property rights had been made the first respondent. AIDCF had intervened in the case to oppose any stay order.

    The Federation, which had advised its member-MSOs to upload their RIO, channel carrying capacity and interconnect agreement on their websites as soon as possible. AIDCF also urges all the broadcasters to upload their RIO by 2 May 2017 on their websites.

    AIDCF president T S Panesar expressed the hope that “the new tariff order and the interconnect regulations will put things in the right perspective. This new tariff order will give the end consumer, the power to choose what they want to watch and ensure content is made available to all distribution platforms without any discrimination, thus balancing the entire eco-system.”

    Chief justice Indira Banerjee and Justice M Sundar directed the main petition by Star India and Vijay TV to be heard on 12 June. However, the court said that Section 3 of the Tariff order and all other consequences of such implementation/enforcement would be subject to the outcome of the main petition.

    The Court said in its order of 27 April that “the situation prevailing on 3 March 2017 when the order was issued and that prevailing today ‘has not changed so drastically’ as to warrant an interim stay. The Court said that it had also kept in view the larger public plea made by the Government counsel.

    Earlier, on 28 March, both the broadcasters had not pressed their plea for stay of the order after TRAI told the court that implementation of these orders had been postponed from 2 April to 2 May. TRAI had issued the tariff order, Quality of Service, and Reference Interconnect Agreement orders after getting clearance on 3 March from the Supreme Court.

    Hearing on the petition has had a chequered history with three judges recusing themselves. Though it was not clear, it appeared that the judges Justice S Nagamuthu, Justice Anita Sumanth and later Justice Govind Rajan had received letters which prompted them to withdraw from the case.

    The fresh petitions became necessary as the matter is being heard afresh by the bench headed by the Chief Justice .

    Apart from the Tariff order which had originally been issued on 10 October last year, the regulator also issued the DAS Interconnect Regulations which had been issued on 14 October last year, and the Standards of Quality of Service and Consumer Protection (Digital Addressable Systems) Regulations which had been issued on 10 October last year.

    The orders can be seen at:
    http://trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/Tariff_Order_English_3%20March_20…
    http://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/QOS_Regulation_03_03_2017.pdf
    http://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/Interconnection_Regulation_03…

    Also Read:

    HC orders on Star plea for stay on TRAI tariff today

    Decks cleared for TRAI tariff order implementation as HC declines stay (updated)

  • Arasu DAS licence: Stakeholders fear flurry of similar requests & permissions

    NEW DELHI: Even as Tamil Nadu state government-backed MSO Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corp (TACTV) expressed satisfaction at getting the DAS license after “five years of struggle”, some other stakeholders felt this move by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting may go against a policy recommendations by sector regulator TRAI and, possibly, open up floodgates for similar requests from other local governments.

    TACTV general manager Ramana Saraswathi, while welcoming the development, told indiantelevision.com that the matter about shuttering analogue signals within three months was something that the state government would decide.

    She said that TACTV would await government instructions. Incidentally, the state government in Tamil Nadu state is an ally of the BJP-led NDA coalition that is in power in New Delhi.

    While officially analog has had a sunset on 31 March 2017 in India, MIB’s internal review of the ground situation revealed that full digital play is yet to be a reality. The Andhra Pradesh state government, meanwhile, had exhorted MIB to extend the March 2017 deadline, which had received no official feedback from MIB.

    However, not everybody was as upbeat as Arasu. Most MSOs and LCOs outside Tamil Nadu, contacted by indiantelevision.com, made clear their apprehension saying this might “open the floodgates” and “other state governments may take advantage” of this by regularising or floating MSO companies, which will indirectly help politicians control what all gets aired and what all people can watch.

    One Andhra-based MSO said that an inter-ministerial committee had itself held that the matter was one of policy that should be decided by the MIB. LCO Sky Vision managing director R S Raju said that when TRAI has submitted a series of recommendations on why government or semi-government bodies should not be allowed in TV distribution business, which are awaiting a final decision at MIB, such permissions, conditional or otherwise, send a wrong signal to the industry players.

    Saharsh Damani of the All India Digital Cable Federation (AIDCF) said the organization would study the government order in detail and then give an official reaction.

    In August 2014, TRAI had suggested barring political parties from entering into broadcasting space, while it recommended several restrictions on the corporate houses in this regard.  It had made a similar recommendation in December 2012 and earlier in November 2008.

    “Ownership is a huge concern… how do you know that a TV channel operated out of Bhopal owned by a local MLA or MP is conveying the truth rather than tinted version of the truth. This is one problem with political ownership,” the then TRAI chairman Rahul Khullar had said in 2014 while releasing recommendations on ‘Issues Relating to Media Ownership’.

    TRAI had suggested that entities, including political bodies, religious bodies, central and state government ministries and government funded entities be barred from entry into broadcasting and TV channel distribution sectors.

    The regulator even suggested that surrogates of such entities too “should be barred”.

    TRAI had pushed for enactment of a new legislation through an executive decision for its recommendations to be implemented, while suggesting an exit option should be provided in case permission to any such organizations had already been granted.

    Arasu’s conditional license makes things that much more difficult for MIB and other central government department to take a final decision on the regulator’s suggestions.

    ALSO READ:

    Arasu gets provisional MSO license subject to analogue switch-off in three months

    Can a MSO block a channel airing unfavourable poll survey?

    DAS: MSOs, LCOs give low figure of STB seeding, official sources admit it’s under 80%

  • Star & Vijay TV amend plea, TRAI asked by Madras HC to file response

    NEW DELHI: The Madras High Court today decided to hear on 24 March the case by  Star India and Vijay TV alleging that the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India tariff and other orders allegedly were in conflict with Copyright Act 1957.

    This development came after the HC allowed an amended application from petitioners to be filed, which, according to industry sources, broadly states that TRAI regulations involving tariff, etc are bad in law.

    Following the Supreme Court directive of 16 February 2017 on an appeal permitting TRAI to issue its tariff and other orders even as the case would continue in the High Court, both the broadcasters had filed an amended petition. The court also directed TRAI to file its reply by Wednesday next.

    TRAI had issued three regulations, including one on tariff on 16 January 2017, the day the Supreme Court gave its clearance.

    The broadcasters had sought to argue that the TRAI orders are in conflict with the Copyright Act 1957. As a result of that court order and pending the full hearing of the case, TRAI would not be able to pass any guideline for issues such as broadcast tariff, broadcast interconnect, and quality of services. The temporary stay by Madras HC was over-ruled by SC later.

    It is also expected that a final judgment on the case could come about by 3 April 2017 in the Madras HC, if not before that date.

    Last year, TRAI had issued draft guidelines on tariff interconnect and quality of service, and TRAI chairman RS Sharma had then told indiantelevision.com that the regulator would come out with its final recommedation by the end of 2016.

    It may be recalled that the Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF) had also said in reaction to the TRAI drafts that the exercise was in direct conflict with the provisions of the Indian Copyright Act.

    The comments had been stated in a submission to the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconnection (Addressable Systems) Regulations 2016; the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable Services) (Eighth) (Addressable Systems) Tariff Order 2016; and the Standards of Quality of Service) and Consumer Protection (Digital Addressable Systems) Regulations 2016.

    The All India Digital Cable Federation (AIDCF), which had made itself party to the case after being allowed by the Madras High Court, till the time of writing this report had not yet made up its mind whether to further join issues with petitoners’ amended application in Madras High Court.

    Also read

    Maintain status quo on broadcast guidelines, Madras HC tells TRAI

  • Guest Column: TRAI’s radical tariff & interconnect norms will usher in major changes

    At the onset one must appreciate the efforts put in by the TRAI in coming out with path-breaking orders involving tariff, services inter-connection and quality of services. The effort of the regulator is clearly to increase choice in the hands of consumers to pay for what they want to watch.

    The TRAI guidelines are aimed at encouraging moving away from a push-based model to a pull-based one where demand and supply will be the deciding factors. Still, it’s a known fact that consumers themselves find it difficult to pick and chose, preferring packages instead. But time will tell how the Indian consumer behaves this time around. But if the industry and the government/regulator work together, a lot can be made possible. However, there are some actions that need to be acted upon urgently. In my opinion, they are the following:

    1. TRAI guidelines pre-suppose that all distribution platform operators (DPOs) have the built in capability to create packages and also bill on a la carte basis. While it might be possible for the bigger DPOs who have invested in the backend to have this capability, I am less confident of smaller DPOs. Unfortunately, for many of them digitalization was just converting analog signals to digital. Such DPOs selected weak support players resulting in inadequate capabilities in the backend, which is the heart of digitalization (packaging and bundling). For them to make adequate changes will also mean making huge investment and technology upgrade. One way to make this possible quickly and in a cost efficient way is to implement infrastructure sharing at every level keeping advancing technology in mind. And, to make this aspect possible, it’s necessary to make licensing norms amendments in the statutory regulations relating to cable TV, HITS, and DTH.

    2. As of today, the balance of negotiating power is clearly in the hands of broadcasters and, while the TRAI orders are quite exhaustive in terms of various provisions, lets us not underestimate the capability/ingenuity/creativity of the broadcasters. I personally do not think any broadcaster will absorb the DPO margins. As broadcasters have an in-built minimum return they expect from their channels, in all probability, they will add this margin to the channels’ prices. The regulator should consider setting up a mechanism by which it can review and intervene in a time-bound manner.

    3. DPOs must move away from their analog mindsets and embrace digitalization and its implications by being more honest and transparent in their dealings with broadcasters and other stakeholders.

    4. While TRAI has outlined the terms and conditions of providing TV channels to DPOs, it has been observed that commercial negotiations are fairly simpler than the legal terms and conditions. In my view, this is a result of legacy mistrust between a broadcaster and an MSO. I would, therefore, suggest that a model interconnect be prepared by TRAI, which must be the document entered into by the said parties till the industry settles down to this new environment and mutual trust develops.

    5. Broadcasters and DPOs must work together to jointly grow the business. At the end of the day, both will benefit only if the consumer pays. I think a working group comprising representatives from various industry organizations like the IBF, NBA, AIDCF, DTH Association and TRAI/MIB should be constituted along with some independent experts to facilitate the process. This should be a small group that could make valuable suggestions. Trust and transparency will need to be the hallmark for the industry to move forward and litigations must be kept out as far as possible.

    6. The government should provide more clarity on taxation issues; especially in view of the new GST regime set to be rolled out from later this year. Simultaneously, the government must seriously consider giving `industry status’ to the broadcast sector.

    7. As far as the tariff order is concerned, DPOs have an opportunity, with the different margin structures, to set their houses in order. They need to invest in the backend, introduce VAS (value added services) and look at having some unique content.

    8. From the tariff point of view broadcasters have a challenge on their hands as they know there is a price cap with restrictions on packaging (sports channels). They should seriously consider promoting events on short-term basis as there is no minimum period for subscription. We all know consumers by and large watch 12 to 15 channels. It will be interesting to see how competing broadcasters price channels in specific genres as consumers in the short-term are likely to cap their spends on TV entertainment.

    9. DPOs in smaller towns should consider forming co-operatives to work together, while at the same time retaining their individual identities.

    As a result of fresh TRAI orders, I hope there will be more discipline and transparency in the industry, which could also see mergers within platforms as this is a time to consolidate. The Indian broadcast and cable sector is on the cusp of major changes. Those who embrace change, will flourish, while the rest will slowly perish.

    public://tony_0.jpg (The author, an Indian media industry veteran, is the former CEO-Media, Hinduja Group. The views expressed here are personal, and Indiantelevision.com need not necessarily subscribe to them.)

     

  • Star-Vijay Copyright case hearing next week, TRAI to file counter

    NEW DELHI: The petition under the Copyright Act in the Madras High Court challenging the jurisdiction of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India is to be heard on 15 March 2017 as the regulator has sought more time to file a counter-affidavit in the matter.

    The time was also sought for more time as both Star India and Vijay TV amended their plaint and prayer in the light of the order of the in the light of the Supreme Court vacating the stay order earlier granted by the High Court. The Court had initially adjourned to 17 March but preponed it to 15 March as one counsel said he would not be available on 17 March.

    The broadcasters have pleaded that the regulator has no jurisdiction over matters relating to intellectual property rights.

    The Bench comprising Justice S Nagamuthu and Justice Anitha Sumanth was informed by All India Digital Cable Federation (AIDCF) counsel A L Sundaresan and Star counsel P S Raman about the proceedings in the appeal by TRAI in the apex court. TRAI was represented by P Wilson while Additional Solicitor General G Rajagopalan represented the Central Government.

    Even as TRAI objected to the amendment and sought time for a counter, AIDCF informed the court that the notification itself provides that the effective provisions will come into effect after 30 days from date of publication (or in some cases, more than 30 days), hence the stay should not be granted. AIDCF also submitted that even on merits, a stay ought not to be granted.

    AIDCF informed the Court that Star may be directed to furnish copies of all documents and pleadings filed, to which the judge orally informed the counsel for Star to furnish the same.

  • TRAI jurisdiction: Madras HC yes to MSOs as interveners, no as impleaders

    NEW DELHI/MUMBAI: The Madras High Court yesterday gave concession to the MSOs allowing them to intervene on matters of law under consideration. But, the court refused to let them implead, via AIDCF, in a case filed by broadcasters (content generators) challenging whether regulator TRAI can have jurisdiction over commercial issues relating to copyright of content.

    Both sides — petitioners Star TV and Vijay TV and All India Digital Cable Federation (AIDCF) — viewed the court stand as a moral victory.

    Star TV and Vijay TV had moved the Madras High Court pleading that Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), India’s broadcast carriage and telecoms regulator, didn’t have jurisdiction to issue guidelines that had a bearing on tariff of content, both TV and film, especially if such issues were also governed under the copyright law.

    In an official statement, AIDCF said the court was “pleased to permit AIDCF to participate in the proceedings as (an) intervener” allowing it to “file all relevant material, make oral submissions and file written submissions in the main writ petition.”

    The AIDCF statement, quoting organisation president and Hathway video division CEO TS Panesar, said, “We are delighted to note the decision of the Madras High Court in recognising us as an important stakeholder in this matter.”

    A source close to the petitioners, however, described the court’s decision as “disallowing” MSOs to directly implead in the main writ petition, the same way as it had not allowed Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF) to implead itself in the case. “AIDCF can only intervene on the main matters of law under consideration, which is whether TRAI has jurisdiction over copyright issues relating to content,” the source opined.

    TRAI, which has been trying to bring about semblance of order in the broadcast and cable sector in India via various guidelines, could not be reached for comments by indiantelevision.com till the time of writing this report. However, TRAI chairman RS Sharma had told indiantelevision.com in an year-end interview in December 2016 that the regulator’s main aim behind issuing draft guidelines relating to broadcast and cable tariff, quality of service and interconnection was to reduce litigation amongst stakeholders and create a broad playing arena for all players, including the consumers.

    Industry sources had indicated that the MSOs had moved the court as they apprehended viewpoints of distribution platforms of TV services in India, notably the MSOs, may not be heard; especially when they have views that don’t converge with those of the petitioners on all aspects of the petition.

    However, there is lack of clarity on the status of the petition filed by Videocon D2H, a distribution platform, to get impleaded in the aforementioned case being heard by Madras HC. The matter is listed for another round of hearing 7 March, 2017.

    Incidentally, the Supreme Court, petitioned by TRAI, had refused to intervene in the case being heard by Madras HC and had stated in its last hearing few days back that it would wait for the outcome at the high court, listing TRAI appeal for a March-end hearing.

    ALSO READ:

    SC keeps TRAI request on tariff pending till Madras HC completes hearing

    TRAI jurisdiction: IBF plea dismissed, AIDCF impleadment decision on 22 Feb

    MSOs join issues with TRAI tariff plea at Madras HC

    Tariff order: Don’t notify without SC nod, TRAI told; Madras HC case to continue