ITV

Tag: CTN

  • BBC Worldwide sells Dancing with the Stars to Cambodian Broadcasting Service

    BBC Worldwide sells Dancing with the Stars to Cambodian Broadcasting Service

    MUMBAI: BBC Worldwide has announced that hit entertainment TV format Dancing with the Stars has been licensed to Cambodian Broadcasting Service (CBS). The series will air on CTN, Cambodia’s most watched terrestrial channel.

     

    The announcement marks the debut of Dancing with the Stars in Cambodia. It is also BBC Worldwide’s first format sale in the country.

     

    One of BBC Worldwide’s most popular global brands, Dancing with the Stars has been licensed in 49 countries, and a version of the show has been seen in over 75 countries, with over 220 series to date. Local versions of Dancing with the Stars air in countries as diverse as Lebanon, India and Russia.

     

    The brand has also extended into live events, gaming and digital properties. In Asia, the format has been sold in Thailand, Vietnam, Japan, China, South Korea and two versions in India. In India, the sixth and latest season of the Hindi version, Jhalak Dikhhla Jaa has achieved its best audience figures to date for Colors. The grand finale pushed the show to the top of weekend programming nearly doubling the ratings from 2012.

     

    The company thinks that Cambodia is an important market to grow in terms of business in Asia and thus it is looking at expanding there. Earlier, BBC World News, BBC Lifestyle and BBC Knowledge were launched in the country.

     

    The series is set to premiere in mid 2014.

  • TDSAT-TRAI ad cap: NBA finishes rejoinder

    TDSAT-TRAI ad cap: NBA finishes rejoinder

    MUMBAI: It was day two of the News Broadcasters Association (NBA) submission of its rejoinders in the hearings on the proposed Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) ad cap regulation. NBA counsel Anup Bhambhani clarified that it was untrue that channels had tried to suppress documents, as everything related to teleport licence is in the public domain and hence easily accessible to the regulator. Channels had individual teleport licences while others were uplinking through Bharti Airtel or Essel Shyam which made them the licensees and not the channels.

     

    The counsel also pointed out that the TRAI had not informed the TDSAT that ads are of three types- commercial, social and programme promos. Not every ad is a paid ad and DAVP ad rates are also low.And the number of minutes of advertising does not take into consideration any of these facts; and hence is not reflected in these categories. He stated that the TRAI had gone overboard in describing the type, length and look of the adverts, in a consultation paper issued in 2012. And even though it was later dropped, it never had any mention of section 7 (11 )of the Cable TV Networks Regulation (CTN) act. Also, the proposed 10+2 regulation finally did not mention that TRAI was using section 11 of the TRAI act in order to enforce section 7 (11) of the CTN act.

     

    According to the NBA counsel, the 7 (11) argument was very ingenious in order to defend the TRAI regulation which was previously never mentioned. Assuming TRAI can regulate, the intention while framing was not keeping in mind this regulation. He pointed out that the ministry of information and broadcasting (MIB) is the authority for the news channels and not the TRAI.

     

    The NBA lawyer also clarified that the Bengal Cricket Association vs MIB and Doordarshan judgement does not apply to private broadcasters as is stated in para 79 of the case. Although the case was read against the channels, it claims that the argument that ‘airways are public property’ only applies when you are seeking a teleport licence for setting up a TV station. While thinking of granting a licence, Article 19 (1) of the Constitution that speaks about freedom of speech and expression, can be thought of but not after it has been granted.

     

    Mentioning the Sakaal papers case, the NBA counsel said that that case was contended because page numbers were restricted and similarly in the case of TV channels also ad duration is being controlled. It also stated that there is no need to prove a loss because even if there is a prospect that there may be a shutdown due to the restriction then it is a violation of Article 19.

     

    Another point argued was that when TRAI says it is laying down standards of quality under section 11 of the TRAI act, as per precedents it had itself set, it can only include technical aspects such as tariff regulation and never content. According to the NBA, duration is content.

     

    Addressing the point that the amicus curiae had made, the NBA counsel presented data supporting the fact that channels’ ad rates would need nearly 50 to 100 per cent increases, if losses due to lower air time are to be covered. To support the contention that TRAI only has recommendatory authority, the NBA lawyers pulled up SO 44 and 45 from the TRAI notifications which said “Broadcasting and cable services to be telecommunication services and showed that it is mentioned in it by the central government that TRAI only has a recommendatory function regarding duration of commercials.”

     

    SO 45E 1 b states “Without prejudice to the provisions contained in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 11 of the Act, to make recommendation regarding (b) the parameters for regulating maximum time for advertisements in pay channels as well as other channels”.

     

    Even though broadcasting has no correct definition, the NBA read from the TRAI explanatory memorandum 2012 where it mentioned broadcasting services to be ‘dissemination of signals.’

     

    Another argument was that TRAI couldn’t change a statutory law by changing ‘per hour’ to ‘clock hour’ and reporting authority as TRAI. Before coming up with the regulation TRAI didn’t even bother to serve a notice to broadcasters.

     

    TRAI’s argument that it was for the benefit of consumers that the regulation is being framed was countered by the NBA saying that viewers need choice. If they wanted channels free of ads they should be ready to pay more for the service or else they have an option to switch channels. The channels said they are happy to consider it post DAS is implemented which according to a KMPG report will make subscription and advertisements a 50:50 affair.

     

    A major point raised was the discrimination towards pay channels and bias towards the pubcaster Doordarshan which according to the NBA was also violating the regulation.

     

    Tomorrow the music channels are expected to give their rejoinders.

  • TDSAT-Ad cap: 2nd amicus curiae done, channels turn now

    TDSAT-Ad cap: 2nd amicus curiae done, channels turn now

    MUMBAI: The second amicus curiae Aman Ahluwalia continued his arguments today in the TDSAT-ad cap hearing. After giving the legal perspective yesterday, today he focused on the commercial implications of the ad cap regulation.

    Ahluwalia said that the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) has the power to implement licensing under section 11 (1) (a) of the TRAI Act as well as enforcing it on broadcasters through section 7 (11) of the Cable TV Networks (CTN) Act. There is no need for it to choose the CTN act. The TRAI’s procedure may have been faulty but the bench should not strike down the ad cap regulation on account of this.

    The bench wondered that when a licence is issued, the terms and conditions need to be read properly, and if the ad cap regulation issued by TRAI adds anything to section 7 (11) of the CTN act, then should it be accepted. The agreement between the licensor and licensee is only for section 7 (11) and if points like clock hour and reporting to TRAI come into the picture, it is in excess of the section.

    The bench said that one cannot change, modulate or supplement the terms of the licence. If TRAI had implemented it under sections 11 and 12 of the TRAI Act that address the issue of licensing and advertisements then such problems wouldn’t have come up.

    The amicus curiae read out the final draft report of the convergence bill which gives the definition of ‘broadcasting services,’ as it doesn’t have an exact one. He said that content, distribution and technical components all come under the TRAI act and content and distribution together mean carriage. By reading out reports such as the Nariman report, he chose to interpret broadcasting services to include content.

    Ahluwalia then proceeded to the commercial aspects. He told the bench that after reading the code in the UK, he saw that the ad cap may work for GECs while the news channels that have less viewership will be most affected by it. The only way revenue can be raised is either by digitisation when subscription revenue will go up, or by raising advertising rates. However, if subscription rates are jacked up, viewers may not pay, and resort to cord cutting, resulting in lower viewership, and comitantly lower ad revenues as they depend entirely on viewership.

    To support his statement, he also produced financial reports of Zee TV and the Sun Network which showed that their ad revenues were high as compared to news channels. Sponsored shows could be a way out for news channels to generated additional revenues but this could turn out to be dangerous as news could become coloured. And thus he suggested that genres should be dealt with differently.

    According to him, English news channels will be the most affected because advertisers will start turning the screws on them as viewership will quite likely drop off the cliff. The scenario could improve when DAS is implemented completely all over the country as by then subscription and ad revenues each will contribute equally to a company’s top line.

    Reading from an Ofcom (independent regulator and competition authority for the UK communications industries) report, he emphasized that TRAI’s ad cap regulation needs to be more precise in terms of the number of ads per half an hour, duration of the promos etc. Till DAS isn’t complete, it should not be implemented as, under Article 19 of the Constitution, broadcasters have the right to disseminate information and viewers have the right to receive plurality of information giving them the power to choose.

    If the regulation comes into effect now, many smaller news channels may shut down and the existing ones will generate less revenue and hence news could end up being coloured as only a limited number will be left to provide news.

    After Ahluwalia concluded, the News Broadcasters Association (NBA) counsel presented the rejoinder. He argued that TRAI’s analysis of the ad cap violations was incorrect.

    His second argument was that TRAI has the power to implement the terms and conditions between the licencee and licensor under section 4 A of the Telegraph Act that talks about teleport licences. It cannot implement it on the basis of the uplinking and downlinking policies.

    Teleport licences do not mention the CTN act at all and when TRAI is enforcing it on the basis of licensing then its line of reasoning needs to be read in the context of teleport licensing.

    The NBA counsel stated that TRAI cannot act against broadcasters under the uplinking/downlinking policy since it falls under the ambit of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.

    During its arguments, TRAI mentioned that broadcasters had suppressed documents related to licensing. The NBA counsel clarified that the data was about OB vans and teleports, which was available in the public domain.

    He added that, according to Ofcom, UK channels were allowed ad commercials of 9-12 minutes averaging and not per clock hour. Also, if TRAI were to enforce the ad cap, it should be under the teleport licence under section 4 A of the Telegraph Act.

    The NBA will continue its rejoinder tomorrow as well.

  • TDSAT-Ad cap: Amicus curiae No 2 takes over

    TDSAT-Ad cap: Amicus curiae No 2 takes over

    MUMBAI: The TRAI ad cap hearing has entered its final stages at the TDSAT even as the second amicus curiae Aman Ahluwalia came up spoke forth, following the completion of first amicus curiae Madhavi Divan’s arguments.

    Divan had opined that the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) has authority because duration of TV commercials is not content and quality of service is not a technical point. So the TRAI had the right to mandate any ad regulation under section 11 of the TRAI Act.

    Ahluwalia put forth the point that there wasn’t a necessity to get into the larger aspects as to whether TRAI has the right to deal with content or not because duration is not content. A decision can be made as to whether duration can be taken as content and if it is not then TRAI has the powers under section 11 of the TRAI act to deal with quality of services.

    Articles 19 and 14 of the Constitution will not come into the picture if it is held that duration is not content.

    He also said that he had personally done an average of ad timings on English channels for a week in September, after the 12 minute ad cap regulation came into effect. His finding was that broadcasters were doing an average of 17 to 19 minutes of TV commercials and it was not as grave as TRAI was making it out to be.

    The TDSAT bench questioned Ahluwalia that if there already was a provision in the Cable TV Networks (CTN) Act then what was the need to consider enforcement of regulating advertising under the TRAI Act. The bench added that it was difficult to understand that the regulation is the same as section 7 (11) of the CTN Act because they don’t have the same wording. To this Ahluwalia said that if they have powers under two laws but they have just used one then the two should be harmoniously constructed.

    Ahluwalia will continue on the commercial aspects of the the enforcement of the ad cap case tomorrow after which broadcasters will get a chance to submit their rejoinders.

  • TDSAT & Ad cap: TRAI almost done with its arguments

    TDSAT & Ad cap: TRAI almost done with its arguments

    MUMBAI: The third day of the arguments presented by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) saw several crucial points being touched upon and the TDSAT also noting down points that could be pondered upon for rumination.

    The TRAI counsel Rakesh Dwivedi pointed out that if one reads section 7 (11) of the Cable TV Networks (CTN) Act then it must be read with the ad cap regulation because the regulator was using it only to enforce this section.

    Section 7 (11) states that the authority has the power to ‘seize equipment used for operating the cable television network if it is found to be breaching its other sections’.

    According to the TRAI, programmes and advertisements are different and the regulator is trying to prevent intermixing of these two and ensuring an increase in quality of service.

    The regulator also gave its version regarding Article 19 (a) of the Constitution saying that airwaves and frequencies are a public property of the government and so there is no fundamental right that can apply to it. Electronic media and press are different and cannot be treated equally. Broadcasters are companies and not citizens so fundamental rights don’t apply to them, Dwivedi argued.

    The point about misuse of clock hour was once again raised by Justice Aftab Alam to which the TRAI reverted by saying that the clock hour regulation instituted by the TRAI and the CTN Act are the same thing and they cannot be interpreted in any other way. Broadcasters are thinking of a bankable hour, that can be carried over within 24 hours but the TRAI says that a clock hour is fixed.

    The bench questioned the TRAI that if it could have enforced the ad cap law under the CTN Act then it need not have made a separate regulation or a direction or use the TRAI act for it.

    To this, counsel said that the CTN Act only applies to cable operators at this stage. And just because they have two powers that are coinciding they cannot take away one power. The point where broadcasters come into the picture of this Act, is for the advertising and programming code, which they have to adhere to by virtue of them having to apply for an uplinking and downlinking licence.

    The TRAI counsel also requested that merely because it had framed a regulation or passed a direction the bench may not nullify it because it has passed it under the TRAI act and not the CTN act, although it has powers under both. He also requested that if the bench were to find anything wrong with the ad cap regulation, they may modify it. However, Alam said that it cannot be done since it was a delegated regulation. To this TRAI asked the bench to consider it as a direction and then modify it keeping in mind the best interest of the viewers.

    One of the arguments, that the counsel raised, relates to Article 14 of the Indian Constitution that speaks about the fundamental right to equality. He stated that it would be in fair spirit if cable operators and broadcasters are not equated with each other at this juncture. The TRAI counsel presented data which clearly showed that broadcasters were airing TV commercials for an unbearable duration every day in between programmes and hence it had decided to apply the ad cap to them first. The limits on TV commercial time will be imposed on cable operators later by the TRAI, the counsel revealed. And the fact that cable ops will be made to comply later does not mean that broadcasters should be excluded from the ad cap now.

    The counsel said he would be addressing the issue of clubbing channel genres together on Monday.

    The bench asked the TRAI why it wasn’t willing to wait till digitization was completed to impose the ad cap regulation. The TRAI argued that by September 2014, nearly 50 per cent of the country will be digitized. Hence it was a good enough reason to bring in ad time limits rules now so that TV air time could be slowly modulated over the period. The TRAI counsel agreed the regulation may not be perfect in its current form, but that does not give the TDSAT a reason to strike it down.

    Regarding FTA channels, Dwivedi said that the broadcasters had not given the TRAI any financial or commercials analysis of the minute by minute usage of ad time and data to support that ad revenues will indeed fall when the ad cap comes into effect. Hence, the regulator had made a general reccee of the channels and deduced what needed to be done and only then drawn up the ad cap regulation. It also stated that FTA channels don’t have too many ads so TRAI did not know why they were objecting to it.

    At the end of the proceedings, an important observation was made by the TDSAT that if the ad cap regulation is struck down, no law can be contended except section 7 (11) of the CTN Act, because broadcasters have accepted this act. Articles 14 and 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution are against the imposition of the ad cap regulation and then the only thing that remains is the interpretation of the 7 (11) section of the CTN Act.

    The TRAI will continue with its arguments on Monday and the broadcasters are scheduled to speak after that.