ITV

Tag: DPOs

  • TRAI extends deadline to 31 Jan for migration to new tariff regime

    TRAI extends deadline to 31 Jan for migration to new tariff regime

    MUMBAI: Stakeholders of India’s broadcast sector can now breathe a sigh of relief as the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) has extended the date of customer migration to the new tariff regime by a month to 31 January 2019.

    With 28 December, the initial deadline for the tariff order implementation neared, the DPOs in particular were highly concerned how the transition would pan out.

    Thanks to the decision, now DPOs can seek options from consumers till 31 January. Customers will be migrated as per their choice from 1 February.

    "We had a meeting of broadcasters, DTH operators, and MSOs today [Thursday]. Everyone confirmed their readiness to implement new regulations. However, they requested that some more time may be given to seek options from subscribers for smooth and interruption free migrations," TRAI secretary Sunil K Gupta was quoted as saying by a PTI report.

    The regulatory body may consider holding weekly review meetings with industry representatives to monitor the progress of the transition of TV viewers, a Hindu Business Line report stated. The report also added that the DPOs are likely to be asked to submit weekly reports on the number of subscribers who have migrated to the new subscription plans in accordance with the new tariff order.

    “It is definitely a step forward from the original plan. Once the bouquet prices are declared by DPOs, only then consumers can migrate to the new plan. These are all interlinked – broadcaster prices have come based on which the DPOs have to declare their prices, they need time for that. Once they (DPOs) declare, consumers need time for selecting a plan. So there needs to be a logical gap between the declaration of prices by broadcasters and then a gap for the DPOs to declare their prices and then time for consumers to choose also,” KCCL CEO Shaji Mathews told Indiantelevision.com

    Earlier this week, TRAI also squashed all rumours about a channel blackout on 29 December. TRAI asserted that it advised all broadcasters, DPOs and LCOs to ensure there is no disruption of TV services. TRAI also added then that it was working on a detailed migration plan for all subscribers.

    “It will help consumers and DPOs as well as broadcasters. This is not only required for DPOs, if there’s no time consumers will not choose new packages or channels which means there will be a blackout of channels and then broadcasters will suffer as DPOs will not be able to collect money. This is a step towards avoiding a blackout,” he added.

    The new tariff order will give the power of choice to the hand of consumers. While until now consumers only watch the channels offered by DPOs, the new order allows them to select their desired TV channels and pay accordingly. Currently, all the broadcasters have updated their channel and package pricing.

  • TRAI says no blackout of TV channels on 29 December

    TRAI says no blackout of TV channels on 29 December

    MUMBAI: Speculations have been rife about a complete blackout of TV channels on December 29 following the Supreme Court orders of implementing a new tariff regime, as the system allegedly is not ready for such a big move. Squashing all such rumours, regulator TRAI has asserted that it has advised all the broadcasters, DPOs, and LCOs to ensure there is no disruption of TV services.

    It says in the release, “The authority is seized of the matter and hereby advises that all broadcasters/DPOs/LCOs will ensure that any channel that a consumer is watching today is not discontinued on 29.12.2018. Hence, there will be no disruption of TV services due to implementation of the new regulatory framework.”

    The release further reads, “Keeping in view the interest of the subscribers and to enable a smooth transition, the authority is preparing a detailed migration plan for all the existing subscribers. The migration plan will provide ample opportunity to each and every subscriber for making informed choice. This will also enable service providers in carrying out the various activities as stipulated in the new regulatory framework in a time-bound manner.”

    As per TRAI, the new tariff order will give consumers the power to choose and will also lower the prices for TV channels. This new framework allows them to select and pick channels that they like to watch and pay accordingly. It also requires the TV broadcasters to disclose maximum retail price (MRP) of their respective channels and also of the channel bouquets. As per the Supreme Court verdict of 30 October 2018, the service providers were advised to complete the preparation for migration to the new framework by 28 December 2018.

    Earlier, as well, TRAI had asked the broadcasters to work closely with all the service providers to ensure a hassle-free transformation, in the interest of the consumers.

  • TRAI seeks stakeholders’ inputs on audience measurement overhaul

    TRAI seeks stakeholders’ inputs on audience measurement overhaul

    MUMBAI: Television audience measurement in India continues to remain one of the key subjects that evoke reactions from stakeholders. Given that advertising expenditures are typically guided by such data and, in the wake of the matter being raised at various fora, TRAI has come out with a public consultation on various facets of TV audience measurement and how the existing system could be made more robust.

    Telecom Authority of India (TRAI)’s move gains importance as stakeholders during meetings with the regulator, leading up to the present consultation, had conveyed that the present measurement system, spearheaded by a joint industry body Broadcast Audience Research Council India (BARC India), has done a credible job till now, but additional improvements could be made, including making data collection more robust and finding ways to curb panel infiltrations leading to possible manipulations. More so as the industry has already invested in the present system over the past three years and it would be improper to try find alternate mechanisms at this juncture.

    Keeping such views in mind, TRAI has raised issues relating to RPD(return path data) and whether set-top-boxes deployed in the country were technically adept at catching such figures — initiatives that would add to data robustness. The specific questions asked is: What percentage of STB supports transferring viewership data through establishing a reverse path/connection from STB? What will be the additional cost if existing STBs without return path are upgraded?

    Asking whether regulatory tweaks were needed to reduce the impact of manipulation of measurement panels — an issue red-flagged by BARC India itself in an earlier consultation — TRAI has sought comments on the country-wide panel size and also the size of the individual panels in rural and urban areas.

    The consultation paper highlights several such issues, including if BARC India, the organisation presently doing audience measurement, has been able to accomplish its purpose.

    Industry observers said though the regulator may have raised pertinent issues, some of them could be answered by the stakeholders only if they decide to take a firm view on them. For example, TRAI asks whether the present sample size of bar-o-meters employed to collect data is adequate. The answer is, maybe no. But to increase the sample size, the stakeholders need to commit more financial investments and give BARC India the go-ahead — though annually some boxes are added to live up to promises made at the time Ministry of Information and Broadcasting green-lighted the BARC project.

    The TRAI paper also seeks inputs from the stakeholders regarding shareholding/ownership pattern of BARC India and whether its credibility and neutrality can be enhanced further, while highlighting various methods of collating such data in other countries, including the US, the UK and France.

    Some of the other issues highlighted in the TRAI paper are the following:

    # Is there a need to promote competition in television rating services to ensure transparency, neutrality and fairness to give TAM rating?

    # What regulatory initiatives/measures can be taken to make TV rating services more accurate and widely acceptable?

    # Is the current audience measurement technique used by BARC apposite?

    # Does broadcasting programmes that are out of their category or in different languages for some time during the telecast affect the TAM (TV audience measurement) rating? If so, what measures should be adopted to curb it?

    # Can TV rating, based on limited panel homes, be termed as truly representative?

    # What should be done to reduce the impact of manipulation of panel home data on overall TV ratings?

    # What should be the panel size both in urban and rural India to give true representation of audience?

    # What method/technology would help to rapidly increase the panel size for television audience measurement in India? What will be the commercial challenge in implementing such solutions?

    # Should DPOs be mandated to facilitate collection of viewership data electronically, subject to consent of subscribers to increase data collection points for better TRPs?

    # What percentage of STB supports transferring viewership data through establishing a reverse path/connection from STB? What will be the additional cost if existing STBs without return path are upgraded?

    # What method should be adopted for privacy of individual information and to keep the individual information anonymous?

    # What should be the level/granularity of information retrieved by the television audience measurement agency from the panel homes so that it does not violate principles of privacy?

    # What measures need to be taken to address the issue of panel tampering/infiltration?

    # Should BARC be permitted to provide raw level data to broadcasters? If yes, how secrecy of households, where the people meters are placed, can be maintained?

    BARC India, set up in 2015, is a joint venture amongst broadcast and advertising industry bodies IBF, AAAI, ISA with Indian Broadcasting Foundation or IBF being a majority shareholder. India’s public broadcaster Prasar Bharati also sits on the BARC India board. Apart from TV audience data, BARC India is also exploring rolling out similar figures for digital platforms.

  • TV channels cite logistical challenges in broadcast for the disabled

    TV channels cite logistical challenges in broadcast for the disabled

    NEW DELHI: A debate on broadcasting for persons with disabilities (PWDs) has thrown up more questions than solutions. TV channels have stated that though desirable, the process is expensive and challenging, for instance, in case of live events and that before setting guidelines for private broadcasters, pubcaster Doordarshan should lead by setting an example.

    Pointing out that content to be made accessible to PWDs is viewed by the masses as well, which itself increases backend work, the Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF) has said in a country such as India, where varied languages, dialects and language-scripts prevail, broadcasting for specially abled people is challenging.

    “There should be synergies between capacity building for equipment manufacturers, distributors/re-distributors (DPOs) as well as broadcasters who are working with the Ministry [of Information and Broadcasting] for framing the Accessibility Standards for TV channels and the entire end-to-end chain of broadcasting should be coordinated, including amongst distributors and consumer premise equipment providers,” it added.

    IBF, an industry organisation comprising TV channels, was articulating its views on a consultation paper floated by the TRAI on making broadcast and ICT services accessible to persons with disabilities.

    If the IBF stated more co-ordination was needed amongst various stakeholders in the broadcasting value chain, another industry body representing news TV channels, the News Broadcasters Association (NBA), highlighted: “Though desirable, the effort required to make broadcasting and ICT accessible to PWDs is a major and expensive exercise.”

    What are the challenges in making broadcasts suitable for PWDs? There are several financial, technical and logistical challenges, including closed captioning, which is critical for people who are deaf or hard-of-hearing, or those who may have a disability that requires audio description. Wikipedia clarifies the term `closed’ indicates that the captions are not visible until activated by the viewer, usually via the remote control or menu option. Many Hollywood and European films providing subtitles sometimes have closed captioning, too.

    “News content presents special challenges to provide subtitling, especially in multiple languages. Most news items are cut live or within minutes of an event and there is no time to redo the content in multiple languages or provide subtitles,” the IBF has pointed out adding that TV screens in most news channels are “clogged with scrolls and headlines” leaving little space for additional closed captions to be run.

    However, it was conceded by the IBF that an effort to provide closed captioning can be made in repeat news bulletins, which, again, will carry a heavy financial burden as old clips also need to be captioned apart from news.

    According to the NBA, a universal categorisation is an impediment to finding a solution to the problem of accessibility for PWDs as broadcasting and ICT services include inadequate “distribution equipment and consumer premise equipment,” including remote-control systems that have voice recognition and a touch­-screen.

    The two industry organsiations, representing a wide spectrum of TV channels in India, have not only exhorted the regulator to advise the government to provide financial incentives before launching such guidelines, but have also suggested identifying certain percentage limits (50 per cent in one case) in the category or genre of TV channels that could possibly make broadcasts more accessible to PWDs.

    “We request that the consultation on issues relating to distribution/re-distribution of broadcast signals and related equipment and technical aspects be suspended till the time Accessibility Standards for Television Channels are issued by the Ministry,” the IBF has submitted, adding DD must “take the lead” in providing access solutions such as visual captioning to PWDs and demonstrate their applicability for private broadcasters to develop appropriate programming and technology to meet threshold requirements.

    Also Read :

    TRAI seeks better accessibility for persons with disabilities

    Broadcasters, DPOs oppose TV channel auction proposal

     TRAI bats for converged regulator & renaming of NTP’18

  • 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.)

     

  • TRAI draft tariff order skewed in favour of DPOs, will harm industry: IBF

    TRAI draft tariff order skewed in favour of DPOs, will harm industry: IBF

    NEW DELHI: The Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF), an apex body of broadcasting companies, has criticised sector regulator TRAI for over-regulating and proposing draft guidelines on tariff and interconnection that are skewed in favour of distribution platform operators (DPOs).

    Responding to Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) draft orders relating to tariff, inter-connections and quality of service, IBF said the new regime will lead to “de-growth” of the industry and discourage investments and production of good quality content in the television industry.

    Pointing out that the proposed regulatory regime “regresses rather than advances”, IBF in a lengthy reply has said with over 830 channels for consumers to choose from and a large pubcaster offering of over 100 private and public TV channels, whether there a “need to regulate all aspects of a set of 200 odd pay TV channels”.

    “The question for the Authority would be, is there proven evidence of market failure that a dire need has arisen to over-regulate these 200 odd pay TV channels(?). We are of the firm belief that there is no compelling reason to regulate these channels and, accordingly, only a light touch regulation, if at all, ought to have been proposed,” IBF has submitted justifying its criticism of  draft  guidelines.

    Contending that pay TV channels (read cable and DTH services) were not essential services IBF counters there was no compelling reason to regulate these channels. “The present tariff order is based on the ‘erroneous premise’ that pay TV channels are essential services,” the broadcasting industry body said.

    Citing international copyrights and IPR laws, IBF pointed out that whole exercise undertaken by TRAI was in direct conflict with the provisions of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957.

    According to IBF, the proposed tariff and inter-connect orders conflict with the Copyright Act in the following ways and need to be “harmonised”:

    a.       The proposed tariff order(s) that impose restrictions on nature of content, prices of channels, mandated discount caps and commissions, manner of offering, etc have to be reviewed and modified in the light of specific copyright laws providing freedom to broadcast organisations to charge royalties and any other consideration/fees for their works and BRR in accordance with the market demands and contract laws.

    b.      The draft interconnect regulations issued by TRAI that take away the broadcast organisations’ exclusive rights to deal and imposes restrictions on their contractual abilities and takes away their ability to negotiate the terms of trade need to be reviewed and modified to harmonise the same with the provisions of the Copyright Act pertaining to voluntary licensing and assignments by Broadcast Organisations by permitting mutual negotiations.

    c.       The existing commercial tariff orders and regulations issued by TRAI in relation to commercial establishments is also at odds with copyright laws in as much as the Copyright Act clearly provides broadcast organisations the right to charge differential rates of royalties and license fees on commercial establishments vis-a-vis domestic/residential subscribers.

    Going a step further, IBF has raised questions over transparency and the manner in which draft guidelines were issued: “The draft consultations also do not meet the threshold of transparency mandated by Section 11(4) of the TRAI Act 1997, which requires that the Authority will ensure transparency while exercising its powers and discharging its functions.”

    Also Read:

    TRAI unlikely to take final call on draft orders soon

  • TRAI draft tariff order skewed in favour of DPOs, will harm industry: IBF

    TRAI draft tariff order skewed in favour of DPOs, will harm industry: IBF

    NEW DELHI: The Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF), an apex body of broadcasting companies, has criticised sector regulator TRAI for over-regulating and proposing draft guidelines on tariff and interconnection that are skewed in favour of distribution platform operators (DPOs).

    Responding to Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) draft orders relating to tariff, inter-connections and quality of service, IBF said the new regime will lead to “de-growth” of the industry and discourage investments and production of good quality content in the television industry.

    Pointing out that the proposed regulatory regime “regresses rather than advances”, IBF in a lengthy reply has said with over 830 channels for consumers to choose from and a large pubcaster offering of over 100 private and public TV channels, whether there a “need to regulate all aspects of a set of 200 odd pay TV channels”.

    “The question for the Authority would be, is there proven evidence of market failure that a dire need has arisen to over-regulate these 200 odd pay TV channels(?). We are of the firm belief that there is no compelling reason to regulate these channels and, accordingly, only a light touch regulation, if at all, ought to have been proposed,” IBF has submitted justifying its criticism of  draft  guidelines.

    Contending that pay TV channels (read cable and DTH services) were not essential services IBF counters there was no compelling reason to regulate these channels. “The present tariff order is based on the ‘erroneous premise’ that pay TV channels are essential services,” the broadcasting industry body said.

    Citing international copyrights and IPR laws, IBF pointed out that whole exercise undertaken by TRAI was in direct conflict with the provisions of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957.

    According to IBF, the proposed tariff and inter-connect orders conflict with the Copyright Act in the following ways and need to be “harmonised”:

    a.       The proposed tariff order(s) that impose restrictions on nature of content, prices of channels, mandated discount caps and commissions, manner of offering, etc have to be reviewed and modified in the light of specific copyright laws providing freedom to broadcast organisations to charge royalties and any other consideration/fees for their works and BRR in accordance with the market demands and contract laws.

    b.      The draft interconnect regulations issued by TRAI that take away the broadcast organisations’ exclusive rights to deal and imposes restrictions on their contractual abilities and takes away their ability to negotiate the terms of trade need to be reviewed and modified to harmonise the same with the provisions of the Copyright Act pertaining to voluntary licensing and assignments by Broadcast Organisations by permitting mutual negotiations.

    c.       The existing commercial tariff orders and regulations issued by TRAI in relation to commercial establishments is also at odds with copyright laws in as much as the Copyright Act clearly provides broadcast organisations the right to charge differential rates of royalties and license fees on commercial establishments vis-a-vis domestic/residential subscribers.

    Going a step further, IBF has raised questions over transparency and the manner in which draft guidelines were issued: “The draft consultations also do not meet the threshold of transparency mandated by Section 11(4) of the TRAI Act 1997, which requires that the Authority will ensure transparency while exercising its powers and discharging its functions.”

    Also Read:

    TRAI unlikely to take final call on draft orders soon