ITV

Tag: CGSI

  • Need to regulate cable TV pricing: CUTS Survey

    Need to regulate cable TV pricing: CUTS Survey

    MUMBAI: Cable TV prices need to be regulated as consumers have no freedom to switch their operators and face frequent hike in subscription charges, according to a survey conducted by a group of consumer organisations in the country led by CUTS.

    The survey findings reveal that seven out of 10 households interviewed do not have option to change their cable operator, and 80 per cent of these households faced a hike in subscription charges at least once in the last one-year. The survey is based on responses of more than 1500 representative respondents from the four metropolitan cities of Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata and Chennai.

    The survey was conducted by CUTS in Delhi and Kolkata, CAG in Chennai and CGSI in Mumbai. The project was supported by the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Government of India, under their consumer welfare fund.

    “In an industry where there is a virtual monopoly at the consumers’ end, the survey identifies a crying need to regulate prices and ensure proper service standards at local level,” says CUTS secretary general Pradeep S Mehta and CAG legal coordinator in Chennai Bharath Jairaj.

    The Cable TV sector is a seller’s market and the consumer is merely a puppet in the hands of operators, the survey says. Though 70% cable TV subscribers received more than 50 channels, most of these (83%) usually watch less than 15 channels. Thus consumers are made to pay for more than 35 channels, which they do not watch.

    Eighty percent households covered by the survey pay between Rs 150-300 as monthly cable subscription charges. Maximum respondents (38 per cent) pay between Rs 150-200, followed by 24 per cent paying between Rs 200-250 and 20 per cent paying between Rs 250-300 per month. Importantly, there is not much difference in the subscription charges paid by consumers in lieu of the number of TV sets owned by them.

    Kolkata with average monthly subscription charge of Rs 175 is the least expensive metro, followed by Chennai (Rs 187), Mumbai (Rs 247), and Delhi (Rs 253).

    The survey reveals that most respondents (96 per cent) have heard of CAS. However, in terms of acceptance of the system, there is variation across metros. Majority of respondents in Delhi, Kolkata and Chennai are not in favour of accepting CAS and advance fear of increase in monthly rentals as the main reason for their response. On the other hand, majority of respondents in Mumbai, in particular those paying monthly subscription charge of Rs 200 and above favour CAS and expect that CAS would reduce the monthly rentals. Most respondents do not want an increase in their monthly cable bills, if CAS is implemented.

    Moreover, variation in perception of respondents across metros regarding post-CAS monthly subscription charges highlights the poor awareness with respect to CAS. In fact, lack of information about different aspects of transition to the CAS regime has been one of the main reasons for failure of CAS in its first attempt.

    “Trai is soon going to come out with its recommendations on Cable TV services. Given the experience with implementation of CAS, it is imperative that whatever system is proposed by Trai, there is full clarity and mass awareness of consumers, in order for any proposed system to succeed”, the consumer activists suggests.

    The survey also looked at the mode of procuring the set-top boxes. While majority of respondents in Delhi, Mumbai and Kolkata expressed their preference to buy, majority of respondents in Chennai prefer to rent a set-top box. Sixty-seven percent respondents do not mind advertisements during TV programmes. In contrast, only three out 10 respondents are willing to pay more if advertisements are removed from TV programmes.

    CUTS has prepared a Draft Cable TV Bill and is organising a one-day seminar in New Delhi on 18 October to deliberate on a consumer friendly cable TV system.

     

  • Consumer body urges PILs against govt on CAS

    NEW DELHI: The saga of conditional access system is far from over. A new twist in the tale has been added , now, by consumer activists who have threatened to file PILs against the government in the four metros where CAS is being sought to be implemented as it’s “anti-consumer.”
    Chairman of Consumer Guidance Society of India (CGSI) Anand Patwardhan in a statement today said, “CAS is definitely not in consumer interest and consumer organisations across the four cities must unite and decided to fight this anti-consumer and anti-national legislation, which is an example of thoughtless and apathetic draftsmanship.”
    The statement of CGSI states that the government has stated that it has introduced CAS to protect consumer interest. However, when the issue of under-declaration of subscriber homes is only between cable operators, broadcasters and government, why is the consumer being made a scapegoat and made to pay for the high cost of set-top-boxes or settle for only 30 free-to-air channels? 
    “It is the ‘babudom’ in Delhi that will now decide which channels a consumer may see, that too, if he feels those FTA channels to be of ‘consumer interest’. This concept has at the very implementation stage proved to be wrong, impossible and anti-consumer, besides infringing the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression, and the right to information,” the CGSI statement said. 
    The statement has in detail gone into various aspects of CAS and we reproduce here the text in full.
    CGSI STATEMENT: 
    The Cable Networks Act Amendment Bill proposed to address the following issues through introduction of CAS. 
    1. Give consumer a choice to ‘ask and pay’ for TV 
    channels
    2. Address the issue of massive under-declaration by 
    cable operators
    3. Address the issue of area-specific monopolistic 
    distribution system
    4. Address the issue of frequent and arbitrary hikes 
    by cable operators and broadcasters. 
    In the present form of CAS, the consumer has absolutely no choice to choose the free-to-air channels or even the pay channels in the present ground circumstances. 
    The right of a consumer to choose as regards free-to-air channels:
    The Government has failed to specify in the notification the FTA channels that can be shown in the four Metros and has notified only three DD channels as “must carry channels” and the choice of any 27 other channels is left to the cable operators. In fact, the government can 
    never decide which FTA channels to be shown, as it would be opposed to the right of a consumer to choose the channel of his choice, thereby defeating the very purpose of bringing the CAS regime.
    Such policies as opposed to the basic reason for calling in this amendment actually are restrictive in nature thus infringing the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, besides being obstructive to the free flow of information, thus infringing the right 
    to information and knowledge. Thus reducing the purpose of bring about this amendment into a futile exercise and waste of public money by the legislators.
    The right of a consumer to choose as regards the pay channels:
    Even after investing anywhere between Rs 3,000 to Rs 10,000, in the set-top-box, the consumer will still have no choice to ‘ask and pay’ for the pay channels he wishes to view but only the channels from among those ‘provided’ by the monopoly cable operator and the MSO in his area. The broadcaster, will be offering bouquets which means a consumer will pay more for viewing the channels of his choice out of a bouquet of channels. Again such a policy, is opposed to the basic reason for 
    calling in this amendment.
    The other key consumer questions which the government has failed to address in this amendment
    Why do consumers have to pay for the set-top-box?
    Though the government has failed to specify who ultimately pays of the massive cost of the set-top-boxes. Since the area specific monopolistic distribution system will continue well into the CAS regime, the consumers will be forced to pay of the set-top-boxes if they wish to view the ‘pay channels’. The cost of the set-top-box may vary from Rs 3,000 to Rs 10,000. Thus this experiment in four metro cities, at the cost of about Rs 3,500 crores (Rs 35 billion) to the consumer, will exist side by side with the area specific monopolistic distribution system in rest of the country.
    The 6.4 million cable and satellite consumers in four cities pay approximately Rs 100 crores (Rs 1 billion) in monthly subscription fees to cable operators. The consumers are now expected to cough-up to about Rs
    3,500 crore (Rs 35 billion) by 14 July 2003 on set top boxes and thereafter upto Rs 400.00, per month if they wish to receive the same set of channels they are receiving today. 
    Why has government failed to address the issue of cable monopolies?
    The key issue faced by the consumers today is the issue of choice of cable operator. The consumer has absolutely no choice to choose the cable operator and is forced to take the service from a single cable operator operating in their respective areas. 
    The government has stated that one of the objectives of the Amendment 2002 is the address the issue of ‘area-specific monopolistic distribution system’. However the government has failed completely to address this key issue facing the consumers! Instead of making available more than one cable operator in each area, by cracking down on the cable operators’ monopolies, the government by such policy will kill all the cable operators and create huge MSO monopoly.
    Why has the Government not protected the consumer interests by specifying the service quality parameters?
    Most consumer complaint against the cable operators today are relating to the poor quality of service provided. The government has failed to provide any service quality parameters to assure a certain standard quality of service to the consumer. 
    Who will address the consumer complaints?
    There is no regulatory provision to offer a redressal mechanism for consumer complaints. The consumer will have no protection if he has complaints against the service offered by the monopoly cable operator 
    in the area. 
    In short, consumer is the worst hit!
    The consumer is the worst hit in the current form of CAS regulation. The consumers will have to invest a lot of money, pay a lot more in the monthly fees, and receive a lot less number of channels with absolutely no choice in his hands for either FTA or even the pay channels; no 
    choice of cable operator; no service quality assurance and no redressal system in place in case of consumer complaints.

  • Mumbai-based consumer body flays CAS

    Mumbai-based consumer body flays CAS

    The Consumer Guidance Society of India has recommended that the government should first ensure that CAS addresses the critical issue of dismantling the on ground cable monopolies and that choice of selecting the channels rests with consumers, before implementing the system.

    According to CGSI chairman Anand Patwardhan, the Cable Networks Regulation Amendment Bill 2002, to be tabled in Parliament tomorrow, offers no protection to consumers against monopolistic cable ops, nor does it seek to redress the grievances of consumers. Patwardhan points out that while the choice of free to air channels to be part of the basic service will now rest with the government while the choice of which pay channels to be offered to consumers will rest with cable ops. While the burden of buying the set top boxes will have to be borne by the viewers, the consumers will also have to pay a higher monthly fee monthly fee for receiving the pay channels, he feels.

    “The consumer will have no recourse if a particular pay channel that a consumer wants to see and is ready to pay for is not made available by the cable op. Neither will the consumer have a choice to see the FTA channel of his choice,” says Patwardhan. He also terms as discriminatory the bill’s proposal to “legalise” consumers being charged differently in different areas of the same city, he observes.

  • Consumer society frowns upon agitating Mumbai cable ops

    Consumer society frowns upon agitating Mumbai cable ops

    The faceoff between ESPN-Star Sports and Mumbai’s cable TV trade continues as cable operators are adamant that they will continue to hold their ground and are preparing a delegation to visit information and broadcasting minister Arun Jaitley in Delhi.

    Now, it is the turn of the The Consumer Guidance Society of India (CGSI) to throw its hat into the ring. It has issued a press release saying that it “has received many complaints from television viewers against cable operators, where the cable operators are depriving millions of cricket lovers in Mumbai of the television coverage of triangular series being played between India, Pakistan and Australia.”

    The CGSI says it wholly condemns the cable operators agitation and has decided to initiate immediate legal action against the cable operators and their associations. “We believe this is totally unfair to hold the consumers to ransom where hundreds of thousands of sports enthusiasts are missing out on the exciting cricket series.” “The cable operators charge RS 100 – 150 from the consumers and they do not have any legal right to block out the channels. By doing so they are in the breach of their obligations to the consumers. We plan to initiate action against the operators under the Consumer Protection Act.”

    CGSI has also decided to focus on protecting consumer rights against cable operators in the following key areas. It also plans to educate consumers about their rights against the cable operators, and also take up the issues with the Information and Broadcasting Ministry, the Government and appropriate authorities where adequate regulation should safeguard consumers ‘interests.’

    The CGSI points out to the following deficiencies:

    1) Most of the cable operators do not specify which channels they will show and on what frequency band. A consumer has no recourse to file a complaint at any appropriate forum. The operators also do not give a receipt of monthly subscriptions they receive from consumers.

    2) Cable operators have formed service monopolies in all areas. Today in most areas the consumers do not have a choice to get the service from any other cable operator. The CGSI intends to take up the matter with MRPTC as this monopolistic practice violates the basic rights of the consumer.

    3) Many cable networks are passing on a very poor quality picture and sound to their consumers. There is absolutely no feedback, no action, no technical up-gradation despite making several complaints to cable operators.

    4) Adult movies along with offensive material is regularly shown on the cable operators’ channels. This practice is illegal, and is also affecting young minds, and disturbing the social fabric of our culture and traditions.

  • Consumer body sides with ESPN Star Sports in spat with cable ops

    Consumer body sides with ESPN Star Sports in spat with cable ops

    The Consumer Guidance Society of India (CGSI) has lambasted cable operators for “holding consumers to ransom” in the ongoing dispute between InCableNet and ESPN Software over increased subscription rates. 

    A press release issued today by Anand Patwardhan, chairman, CGSI, says feedback it has received from various consumers groups such as housing societies across the city indicate such bodies have “decided not to pay their monthly dues to the cable operators for depriving them of the exciting ESPN and STAR Sports channels, which is a very good way to protest.” 

    CGSI has exhorted consumers to initiate action against cable operators as the “operators continue to hold them at ransom for their personal gains. Non-payment of the fees for the month of Rs 24 during which these sports channels are blocked shall not prejudice or affect any action if initiated by the consumers / co-operative societies under the Consumer Protection Act.” 

    “The cable operators charge Rs 150 – 250 from the consumers and they do not have any legal right to block out the channels. By doing so they are stepping on the rights of their consumers, says CGSI. 

    The CGSI suggests the state government should devise a concrete action plan so that such situations could be prevented “because of massive under-declaration of subscribers, the state government is losing revenue worth crores (tens of millions) of rupees.” 

    The CGSI has taken up the following issues with the ministry of information & broadcasting and all the other appropriate authorities, the release says: 

    1. Most of the cable operators do not specify which channels they will show for the monthly subscription fee charged. The operators also do not give a receipt of monthly subscriptions they receive from consumers. 

    2. The cable operators have formed monopolies in all areas. The consumers do not have a choice to get the service from any other cable operator in case of any problems. 

    3. The cable operators do not specify and maintain the channels shown on prime bands and non-prime bands due to which a consumer has to keep searching for a particular channel and is often deprived of the same. 

    4. Adult movies and fashion channel containing offensive material are regularly shown by the cable operators. This practice is illegal, and is also affecting young minds, and disturbing the social fabric of our culture and traditions. 

    5. The right to information and education is a fundamental right and should not be left to be tampered as per the whims and fancies of a few monopolistic cable operators for their personal gains.

  • Consumer society frowns upon agitating Mumbai cable ops

    Consumer society frowns upon agitating Mumbai cable ops

    The faceoff between ESPN-Star Sports and Mumbai’s cable TV trade continues as cable operators are adamant that they will continue to hold their ground and are preparing a delegation to visit information and broadcasting minister Arun Jaitley in Delhi.

    Now, it is the turn of the The Consumer Guidance Society of India (CGSI) to throw its hat into the ring. It has issued a press release saying that it “has received many complaints from television viewers against cable operators, where the cable operators are depriving millions of cricket lovers in Mumbai of the television coverage of triangular series being played between India, Pakistan and Australia.”

    The CGSI says it wholly condemns the cable operators agitation and has decided to initiate immediate legal action against the cable operators and their associations. “We believe this is totally unfair to hold the consumers to ransom where hundreds of thousands of sports enthusiasts are missing out on the exciting cricket series.” “The cable operators charge RS 100 – 150 from the consumers and they do not have any legal right to block out the channels. By doing so they are in the breach of their obligations to the consumers. We plan to initiate action against the operators under the Consumer Protection Act.”

    CGSI has also decided to focus on protecting consumer rights against cable operators in the following key areas. It also plans to educate consumers about their rights against the cable operators, and also take up the issues with the Information and Broadcasting Ministry, the Government and appropriate authorities where adequate regulation should safeguard consumers ‘interests.’

    The CGSI points out to the following deficiencies:

    1) Most of the cable operators do not specify which channels they will show and on what frequency band. A consumer has no recourse to file a complaint at any appropriate forum. The operators also do not give a receipt of monthly subscriptions they receive from consumers.

    2) Cable operators have formed service monopolies in all areas. Today in most areas the consumers do not have a choice to get the service from any other cable operator. The CGSI intends to take up the matter with MRPTC as this monopolistic practice violates the basic rights of the consumer.

    3) Many cable networks are passing on a very poor quality picture and sound to their consumers. There is absolutely no feedback, no action, no technical up-gradation despite making several complaints to cable operators.

    4) Adult movies along with offensive material is regularly shown on the cable operators’ channels. This practice is illegal, and is also affecting young minds, and disturbing the social fabric of our culture and traditions.