Tag: Cable Networks’ Association

  • Cable frat sees deal between govt, pay broadcasters to quash CAS

    Cable frat sees deal between govt, pay broadcasters to quash CAS

    NEW DELHI: What was originally meant to be a public support seeking conference turned out to be a government bashing exercise and also a platform to take a swipe at the consumer in whose name the whole fight over CAS (conditional access system) is being carried out.

    His predecessor Sushma Swaraj should replace information and broadcasting minister Ravi Shankar Prasad. The present lot of bureaucrats in the ministry should be done away with. It is the broadcasters who are at the bottom of the CAS impasse because they don’t want addressability to be rolled out and the media was not reporting CAS developments “honestly”. This is what a section of the cable industry chorused here today at a press conference.

    If one could make oneself heard over the babble of the cable fraternity — top guys like Siti Cable’s Jawahar Goel and Hathway Datacom’s president for North India, SN Sharma were said to be away meeting some anti-CAS politician — it all boiled to one stock reply: CAS is the best medicine for all the ills afflicting the industry.

    “The I&B minister should be replaced as he’s playing into the hands of the broadcasters,” said Rakesh Dutta of the Cable Networks Association, while National Cable & Telecom Association’s Vikki Chowdhry hinted that the broadcasters have come to an understanding with politicians on a quid pro quo basis with an aim to sabotage CAS.

    It was unfortunate that amidst the likes of Dutta, Chowdhry and Roop Sharma — all hard working entrepreneurs, no doubt — a probable saner voice could not be heard much. Siti Cable’s Rajiv Khattar, the right hand man and deputy of Goel, preferred to keep a low profile. But he came up with the most logical explanation when a journalist asked whether the set-top boxes, being sold and rented out, conformed to the standards mandated by the government.

    At times, the whole meet looked like a charade, propped up, probably, to send across a message more to the government than the consumer — don’t tinker around with the CAS rollout. “We would move the courts also if the government brings about an ordinance putting an end to CAS implementation,” thundered Dutta.

    But when he was asked why weren’t industry factions like the cable ops and broadcasters sitting across a table and hammering out their differences, instead of resorting to under-declaration, Dutta evaded a direct answer. According to him, the “arm twisting by broadcasters” forced them to resort to under hand tactics to keep afloat.

    “The government always wants to rein in the cable industry, but is unable to check the pay channels, which raise their prices and also collect advertising revenue,” Sharma of Cable Operators Federation of India said.

    In the end, it seemed that some reports on a government proposal to have an ordinance junking CAS had upset the cable fraternity. And that too badly.

    “We feel that this move may have come about as a consequence of the decision to advance general elections. Pursuing CAS may mean a fallout with the pay channel broadcasters, whose support is crucial to the government in view of the elections,” a statement circulated by the cable ops stated.

    The statement further added: “The media has been constantly listing out the negative fallout of a poorly implemented CAS, thereby confusing the general public about the system itself. Certain senior journalists (hinting at the likes of Vir Sanghvi who have written on CAS in Hindustan Times) have been criticizing CAS severely. It must be asked if these media persons can think of any other system that will be more consumer friendly. Do they think that cable operators should continue under declaration and avoid paying taxes to help consumers pay less than what they give to the broadcasters or spend on operating the networks?”

    So, in this whole drama where was the consumer friendliness? “For 10 years the consumers have made hay (by paying low monthly cable subscription rates). Now they should pay more or have to do with the free to air channels,” pointed out Chowdhry.

    Indeed words of encouragement for a section of society whose support the cable fraternity had wanted to seek and which was the purpose for calling today’s press meet.

  • Delhi HC reserves CAS case judgment

    Delhi HC reserves CAS case judgment

    NEW DELHI: The Delhi high court today reserved its judgement on a clutch of petitions on conditional access system (CAS) where the Central government is a respondent.

    The government had been directed yesterday by the a two-judge bench of the high court to produce before the court official records relating to CAS where it had been stated that CAS was being deferred in Delhi owing to public interest.

    Today, it was found out that the a wrong set of papers had been brought to the court by the government counsel, represented by KK Sud.

    The court had wanted to see official records as it had earlier observed that deferring implementation of CAS on the plea that state elections are round the corner is making a mockery of public opinion and choice.

    However, a long argument took place on the case and later the court reserved its judgement, meaning that it’d be delivered at a later date.

    The petitions against the government had been filed by Zee Telefilms cable arm Siti Cable, the Delhi-based Cable Networks Association and an individual.

  • Broadcasters back low FTA package price to push pay channel bundles: cable ops

    NEW DELHI: The cable operators are again taking a shot at forging a unity in a bid to neutralise the broadcasters and have the conditional access system implemented as soon as possible.

    In a submission given to the information and broadcasting ministry yesterday on CAS, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, Cable Networks’ Association and the semi-active Cable Operators’ Federation of India have said that broadcasters, some of them who have an interest in ground distribution, are deliberately trying to have the basic tier of free to air channels in a CAS regime very low so that cable subscribers would not feel the pinch going in for additional pay channels.

    In the letter addressed to I&B minister Sushma Swaraj, the cable operators associations have submitted: “We wish to bring to your kind knowledge that the pay channel broadcasters who have considerable interest in the ground distribution business through their respective MSO companies in order to safeguard their own interests, want the pricing for the basic tier to be minimum, as this is in their own interest.”

    The letter, drafted mostly with inputs from NCTA, on the financial aspects further adds; “The stated rate of interest may be adequate at present rate of bank lending. But banks/ financial institutions do not lend to cable networks (venture risks are considered too high). Hence the rate of private borrowing, including defaults in payment schedules, should be considered, which work out to 18.5 per cent. It needs to be borne in mind that in addition to normal profit margin, there should also be scope for future upgradation in the convergence era and CAS, if this industry has to grow. Lack of adequate financial support will suffocate this industry to death.”

    The I&B ministry had been conducting a series of meeting to decide on the pricing of the basic tier of cable service to be offered post CAS. The prices suggested in the last meeting, held sometime back, ranged from as low as Rs 35/month/household to Rs 100/month/household.

    The cable industry representatives had also pointed out that certain figures arrived at by the finance ministry representative at the meeting did not adequately take into consideration all the aspects of, especially financial ones, related to cable service.

    The letter states that during the meeting held by the I&B ministry on 22 August, the analysis of the collected data was disclosed, which is as follows:
    1. Total Free to Air Channels – 40
    2. Total Pay TV channels – 40
    3. Total Number of Channels – 80
    4. Maximum Radius of area per headend – 7 Kms
    5. Maximum Length of cable per Km – 1.5 Kms
    6. Trunk Cable used – 42 Kms
    7. Feeder [Sub Trunk] Cable used – 231 Kms
    8. Total Area Covered – 154 Sq Kms
    9. Cost per Channel – Rs.30, 000 – 40,000
    10. No. of homes per Km – 200
    11. % of TV Homes – 90
    12. % of Cable TV Homes-70
    13. In 154 Sq Km of Area – Homes passed – 41,500
    14. Max. Number of Subs per Headend – 29,100 Subs
    15. Cost Incurred per Subscriber – Rs. 800 – 1000
    16. Total investment on cabled Distribution plant – Rs. 31 million
    17. Net Operating expenditure per Subscriber – Rs 35 – 45 per month 18. Estimated life of Headend – 7 years
    19. Estimated life of Distribution plant- 5 years
    20. Rate of interest – 15%

    “It is evident that the above results reached are simply based on mathematical calculations and an average mean has been taken out of the cost details as submitted by the MSOs, broadcasters, broadcaster-owned MSOs, Prasar Bharati, independent networks and industry associations,” the letter to Swaraj says, hinting that many more hidden costs are involved too, which must be taken into consideration before deciding on the basic tier of cable service.

    Clarifying the cable operators’ point of view the letter lists out the concerns and the views which are as follows:

    1. Network is to be designed for 90 channels. On an average, across the country, average number of Free to Air satellite channels is 60.

    2. Total number of Pay TV channels is 32 and that too when the few popular channels are bundled along with non-popular pay TV channels in a bouquet.

    3. The radius of operation of 7 km over coaxial cable, as stated, is technically inappropriate. It is not possible to deliver 68 channels with equal clarity and free of impairments within this radius. It cannot exceed 4.6 km. With trunk output of 4.5 km each (generally 4 trunk feeders are leaving headends, utilization of 500 series trunk cable will be 18 km. Whereas every trunk feeder can have 15 branches (in a cascade of 16 amplifiers in every trunk line feeder) of RG-11 employing 3 amplifiers, spaced 180 metres i.e. 3 km on every feeder and 12 km on every network. Based on this, the calculated cost of cable, support wire and connectors would be Rs 1.32 million for 500 series coaxial cable, Rs 375,000 for RG-11 feeder Cables. To add to this is Rs 250,000 for the support wire, accessories and cabling labour. The requirement of RG-6 drop cable @ 20 meters per subscriber will be 100 km for 5000 subscriber homes.

    4. The cost of 64 Trunk amplifiers would be Rs 1.92 million @ Rs 30,000 each and of 192 Line Extender Amplifiers would be Rs 1.54 million @ Rs 8,000 each.

    5. Therefore, the Trunk cable 500 series will be 18 km, RG-11 feeder cable will be 12 km and RG-6 drop cable will work out to approximately 110 km in a network.

    6. The total area covered on coaxial cable network will be 72 sq km and on HFC 3,632 sq km.

    7. The cost per channel, with low-grade modulators and receivers, shall be Rs 30,000-40,000 for RF network. Another Rs 30,000 per channel can be added for optical fibre interface. Using consumer grade modulators (recommended) would cost up to Rs80,000 per channel.

    8. The average number of homes passed per sq. km is 250 i.e. a maximum of 18,000 homes per coax distribution network and 908,000 homes in HFC distribution. With a penetration rate of 60 per cent on an average, it comes to 10,800 Cable TV homes per coaxial RF network and 544,800 Cable homes on HFC network.

    9. Based on calculations, the cost of distribution network per subscriber comes to not less than Rs 1,350 per subscriber on coax distribution and Rs 3,500 per subscriber on HFC distribution. The stated cost of Rs 800-1,000 is unreasonable. The total investment on distribution plant would be much less than the stated Rs. 30 million.

    10. Also the stated figure of 29,100 as maximum number of subscribers per headend is inaccurate because with7,500 existing headends in India this figure works out to 218 million whereas total national CATV connectivity is only 37 million.

    11. The estimated life of distribution plant cannot exceed 4 years, if the norm of amplifier-to-amplifier cable replacement when number of joints between amplifiers exceeds 4 is to be followed. That will be the fate of coaxial cable and associated accessories laid externally exposed to whether and corrosion.