ITV

Tag: charges

  • Trai for slashing spectrum charges

    NEW DELHI: Telecom regulator today recommended that spectrum fee paid by service providers to the government be lowered to four per cent (of the revenue) and added that a group of ministers be constituted to look into the spectrum allocation issue to further liberalize the regime.

    At present, the telecom service providers pay six per cent of their revenue as spectrum charges.
     
    The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai)’s suggestion on reduction of spectrum charges, if accepted by government, could lead to reduction in telecom tariffs, report news agencies.

    On the allocation of controversial 1900 MHz band, however, the Authority said it cannot be vacated by the defence sector and, thus, recommended that both GSM and CDMA players be allocated spectrum in the 2ghz bandwidth, PTI stated.

    The suggestion on formation of GoM on spectrum is aimed at paving the way for further telecom expansion in the country and to achieve the target of 200 million mobile subscribers by 2007.
     
     

    “Trai recognises that US-PCS 1900 MHz bandwidth for CDMA operators cannot be vacated by defence, hence even CDMA services will have to be allocated spectrum in 2 GHz band,” the regulator said in a statement here.

    Present spectrum allocation criterion for both GSM and CDMA operators may be revised within one month of acceptance of these recommendations such that, while retaining the subscriber base approach, the quantum and steps for additional spectrum allocation and area of co-ordination are technology neutral, PTI quoted Trai as saying.

    Commenting on the recommendations, Trai chairman Pradip Baijal said, “We have maintained the technology neutrality stand in our recommendations. Both GSM and CDMA operators have been given equal opportunity to pursue both 2G (voice) as well as 3G (advance mobile
    technology) services.

    Trai also recommended that a technology neutral policy for allocation of additional spectrum need to be followed for both GSM and CDMA operators. With a view to avoid the hoarding of spectrum, Trai said an additional annual spectrum charge on per MHz basis would be charged for IMT-2000 spectrum till the service provider rolls out such services.

  • Zee-Turner appeals to TDSAT against restoring signals to Asianet; charges it with piracy

    NEW DELHI: Zee-Turner, a distribution joint venture between Zee Telefilms and Time Warner, has appealed to the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) on a recent sector regulator directive asking it to restore signals to Asianet in Kerala.

    The Zee-Turner bouquet has been off from the Asianet cable network since 16 December 2004 due to alleged non-payment of dues amounting to Rs 30 million. The company has also charged Asianet with unauthorised distribution of signals and under-declaration of subscriber base that has resulted in huge financial losses.

    In a statement today, Zee-Turner CEO Siddharth Jain said, “Asianet has been indulging in rampant piracy of our signals and unethical business practices. While the company claims to reach over 700,000 (7 lakhs) households in Kerala, as per the information published in their official brochure, it has been making a mockery of the declaration of subscriber base to us by declaring a very small percentage. Even this minuscule declaration has not been paid for as is evident from the outstanding amount.”

    Since December last, viewers in Kerala have been missing out on their favourite programmes, as well as a slew of exciting new shows lined up for them, as a result of this imbroglio.

    Kerala cable TV households connected through Asianet have not been able to watch their favourite channels, including Zee Cinema, Zee TV, Zee English, Cartoon Network, Pogo, CNBC and ZMZ. After general entertainment and popular kids’ channels it was the turn of the prime time English movie channel HBO to disappear from the television screens last week.

    “Despite the numerous talks, it now seems futile to expect any co-operation from Asianet in resolving the situation. We have absolutely no other option but to stick to our rightful stand and appeal to TDSAT,” Jain said.

    The Rajan Raheja-controlled Asianet Satellite Communications Ltd. is the largest cable network services company in Kerala, and is the leading service provider in the region for Cable TV and Internet solutions. Its cable network services operate from over 40 centers spread throughout Kerala and touch over half a million homes and establishments.

    With a countrywide network of over 400 dealers, Zee-Turner has a wide distribution structure in the country and its bouquet caters to wide genre of programming.

    Zee-Turner Ltd. is a joint venture company that manages distribution and trade marketing for Zee Telefilms and Turner International (a Time Warner company) bouquet of channels, as well as third party channels such as CNBC and Reality TV, in India and Nepal. Headquartered in New Delhi, Zee-Turner boasts of a combined viewership of more than 30 million households with an equal spread throughout the country.

  • Net via satellite effort to be written off by Direc TV

    Net via satellite effort to be written off by Direc TV

    MUMBAI: Satellite television provider, Direc TV in a regulatory filing on Friday said that it may take up to $1.6 billion in pre – tax charges to write down the value of satellites it would use for broadcasting instead of high-speed data services.

    Apparently in September, this US satellite television provider, said that it would be using two satellites which were then under construction and other related assets to expand its programming capacity, particularly for high-definition television.

    The Spaceway satellites originally had been earmarked for high-speed Internet services. The change in strategy has led the company to review its book value of the satellites.

    The company expects to record a pre-tax charge of about $1.4 billion to $1.6 billion in the third quarter, according to the filing with the US Securities and Exchange Commission.

    DirecTV is controlled by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. through the Fox Entertainment Group.

  • Chandra charges Dalmiya, ESS of collusion

    Chandra charges Dalmiya, ESS of collusion

    MUMBAI/NEW DELHI: Match-fixing charges reared its ugly head in Indian cricket today, but on a surface different to that of the playing field. Following the Board of Control for Cricket in India’s (BCCI) decision to go in for a fresh tender for telecast rights, an outraged Zee Group CMD Subhash Chandra today accused the cricket board and ESPN-Star Sports of being in cahoots.

    “There is a collusion and conspiracy between BCCI’s (chief) Jagmohan Dalmiya and ESPN Star Sports. The court could also see it clearly. But since the petitioner ESPN Star Sports, in collusion with the BCCI counsel withdrew the petition, the court had no option than to record the statement and pass no order,” Chandra said. The Zee CMD confirmed that his company would be legally challenging BCCI’s move. In fact, company sources say the company would be moving the Supreme Court on 22 September.

    To recap the day’s events, following up on a comment made yesterday during arguments in the India cricket rights case, the BCCI today gave an affidavit in the Bombay High Court saying that it is cancelling the tendering process for India cricket telecast rights and may go in for a re-tendering. Following this fresh twist to the cricket telecast saga, ESS, a joint venture between Walt Disney and Rupert Murdoch’s Star Group, withdrew its petition against the award of the rights to Zee Telefilms.

    Chandra maintained that had been awarded the contract by BCCI. “We feel we have a concluded contract with us,” he said. He said after 14 members of the BCCI marketing committee decided to award the contract to Zee Telefilms, they were asked to submit $ 20 million. “We gave the money and they sent us the Letter of Intent (LOI). But it could not be progressed further due to the court proceedings,” he said. “All 14 members of BCCI’s marketing committee will be made respondents in the case,” Chandra asserted in an interview to the business channel CNBC TV-18.

    “Let me assure your (CNBC’s) viewers and everyone else that on 6 October the cricket match will be telecast on Zee Sports.” Chandra even drew upon mythological analogies while asserting, “‘Hum dharm ki ladai ladh rahe hai aur woh adharm ki’ (we are fighting for a just cause and they are fighting for an unjust one).” It needs noting here that Zee has announced plans to launch its Zee Sports channel from 2 October.

    Later, an official spokesperson for Zee Telefilms explained that the BCCI is clearly seeking to contradict its own affidavit filed earlier in the High Court, thus clearly indicating a “joint conspiracy to keep us out and mislead the honourable court.”

    Pointing out that the BCCI has accepted $ 20 million and issued a letter of intent, the Zee spokesperson added, “How can anyone say that the rights do not legitimately belong to us? Even the BCCI marketing committee members have expressed shock and disbelief as they were not consulted. Zee Network will take whatever legal measures are needed.”

    That the Indian cricket board could take such a decision without consulting its members — or that was what it was made out to be — is strange. At about 4:35 pm, when indiantelevision.com got in touch with N Srinivasan, head of BCCI’s marketing committee and member of the board’s tender committee, the gentleman almost expressed his ignorance when he blurted out, “I am hearing this from you. I am about to take a flight now and I can only comment after I have spoken to other BCCI officials.” Ditto for another committee member, Niranjan Shah, who said, “I am not aware of the details of the matter and so cannot offer any comment.” Shah said he was only privy to what he had seen on television and would have to therefore discuss the issue with other cricket board officials before saying anything on the matter.

  • Clarifications on The Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Services Tariff Order 2004

    Clarifications on The Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Services Tariff Order 2004

    MUMBAI: After announcement of the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Services Tariff Order 2004, a number of questions have been raised in regard to the underlying import of the provisions of the aforesaid Order. These are answered below:

     

    Q 1: What is the coverage of The Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Service Tariff Order 2004 dated 15.01.2004?

    Ans: The said order shall cover, throughout the territory of India, both for CAS and non-CAS areas, charges payable by
    a) Cable subscribers to cable operator;

    b) Cable operators to Multi Service Operators/Broadcasters (including their authorized distribution agencies); and

    c) Multi Service Operators to Broadcasters (including their authorized distribution agencies).

     

    Q 2: What is meant by word “charges” mentioned in the Tariff Order?

    Ans: ‘Charges’ mean and include the charges/tariff rates payable by one party to the other by virtue of the formal/informal Agreement prevalent on 26th December 2003. The principle applicable in the formal/informal Agreement prevalent on 26th December, 2003, should be applied for determining the scope of the term “charges” For instance,
    ” if under the Agreement applicable as on 26th December, 2003 specified the total amount as rate or charge per subscriber, multiplied by the subscriber base, the ceiling applies to the per subscriber charge and not to the subscriber base.
    ” if earlier the amount paid varied on certain limited occasions linked to the likely change in the subscribers base for a specified short period, such a practice could still continue. However, the charge per subscriber in such cases should not be more than those applicable on 26th December 2003.

     

    Q 3: What about the charges if the cable service provider gives lesser number of channels compared to those shown on 26th December 2003?

    Ans: The ceiling charges are specified in terms of the products that they pertained to, namely the channels that were shown on 26th December 2003. Normally, there should not be a reduction in the number of channels shown on 26th December 2003. If, however, due to certain unavoidable reasons, the number of channels is reduced, the charges should also be reduced on a pro-rata basis.

     

    Q 4: What about the situation where the channel or cable service was not available on 26th December, and the channel or cable service is being provided after this date?

    Ans: In such cases, the Tariff Order does not provide any specific ceiling, and the formal/informal Agreements regarding such charges could be entered into by the relevant parties. However, in specifying the relevant charges, the charges that the broadcaster/Multi System Operator/Cable Operator might have in place in the contiguous areas/similar channels as on 26th December 2003 should be kept in mind.

     

    Q 5: Will the TRAI intervene, in case the subject matter of dispute between two service providers relates to “the number of subscribers”?

    Ans: The remedy in this case would lie in
    ” a civil court;
    ” Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT), under section 14 of the TRAI Act..

     

    Q 6: Whether individual subscribers can file complaints with the TRAI?

    Ans: Under the TRAI Act, the TRAI does not deal with complaints from individual subscribers/consumers for whom redressal mechanism is available before a Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum or a Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission or the National Consumer Redressal Commission established under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986).

     

    Q 7: What is the remedy available for contravention of The Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Service Tariff Order 2004?

    Ans: In case of any violation of TRAI’s Order/Directive/Regulation, if a complaint is filed with TRAI with properly documented evidence, TRAI would, after examining the matter give a direction that the Order be followed. If the Order is still not followed, the TRAI has the option of filing a complaint before the appropriate courts under section 29 and 30 read with section 34 of the TRAI Act.

     

    Q 8: What is the remedy available to the stakeholders in case of a dispute between two or more service providers or between a service provider and a group of consumers?

    Ans: In case of a dispute between two or more service providers or between a service provider and a group of consumers, the dispute may be referred to Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) under section 14 of the TRAI Act.

    For more information please see Section 11, 13 and 14 of the TRAI Act on the TRAI website www.trai.gov.in.