ITV

Tag: HITS

  • Delhi High Court declines to interfere on TDSAT’s HITS order; Star may move SC

    Delhi High Court declines to interfere on TDSAT’s HITS order; Star may move SC

    NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court today said that it did not feel the need to examine whether the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) had the jurisdiction to direct broadcasters to treat the headend-in-the-sky (HITS) operator Noida Software Technology Park Ltd (NSTPL) at the same level as pan-India multi-system operators (MSOs).

     

    Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw said that there was a statutory provision for parties aggrieved by orders of TDSAT to go to the Supreme Court.

     

    The judge had on 7 January reserved its orders on the petition by Star India arising out of the Tribunal’s judgment of 7 December.

     

    The Court also agreed that all questions were open for being taken up by the Supreme Court if it is approached by the broadcaster.

     

    Star India had filed the petition on the ground that TDSAT exceeded its jurisdiction as it did not have the authority to ‘re-write the regulation.’

     

    A Star India spokesperson told Indiantelevision.com late in the evening that the broadcaster was examining future course of action. It is understood that this includes the opening of an appeal before the apex court.

     

    The High Court on 7 January had also said that a directive by TDSAT of 18 December asking Star India and other broadcasters to produce the kind of agreements it had with Hathway, Den and Siti Cable and listing the matter for 12 January, would stand suspended until the outcome of the High Court case.

     

    The Court heard arguments presented by Star India and NSTPL, whose petition had been accepted on 7 December by the Tribunal, which had asked Star India and Taj TV to execute fresh agreements with NSTPL. However, TDSAT had kept the operation of the judgment pending till 31 March this year.

     

    It had said that on past occasions as well similar suggestions were made with the hope of nudging the TRAI to take proactive steps to reduce the scope of disputes arising out of the regulations. “At the same time, the fact that regulatory intervention may be the ideal way forward cannot and should not be an excuse for this Tribunal to shirk the interpretative issues that have come before us. This is particularly so when there appears to be regulatory inertia,” TDSAT had said.

     

    The Tribunal had, on 18 December, impleaded Zee Turner and others in another petition by Star India against NSTPL and asked the broadcasters to produce the agreements between the broadcasters and major MSOs. It opined that some agreements have to be suspended by Star and Taj TV.

  • Delhi High Court declines to interfere on TDSAT’s HITS order; Star may move SC

    Delhi High Court declines to interfere on TDSAT’s HITS order; Star may move SC

    NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court today said that it did not feel the need to examine whether the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) had the jurisdiction to direct broadcasters to treat the headend-in-the-sky (HITS) operator Noida Software Technology Park Ltd (NSTPL) at the same level as pan-India multi-system operators (MSOs).

     

    Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw said that there was a statutory provision for parties aggrieved by orders of TDSAT to go to the Supreme Court.

     

    The judge had on 7 January reserved its orders on the petition by Star India arising out of the Tribunal’s judgment of 7 December.

     

    The Court also agreed that all questions were open for being taken up by the Supreme Court if it is approached by the broadcaster.

     

    Star India had filed the petition on the ground that TDSAT exceeded its jurisdiction as it did not have the authority to ‘re-write the regulation.’

     

    A Star India spokesperson told Indiantelevision.com late in the evening that the broadcaster was examining future course of action. It is understood that this includes the opening of an appeal before the apex court.

     

    The High Court on 7 January had also said that a directive by TDSAT of 18 December asking Star India and other broadcasters to produce the kind of agreements it had with Hathway, Den and Siti Cable and listing the matter for 12 January, would stand suspended until the outcome of the High Court case.

     

    The Court heard arguments presented by Star India and NSTPL, whose petition had been accepted on 7 December by the Tribunal, which had asked Star India and Taj TV to execute fresh agreements with NSTPL. However, TDSAT had kept the operation of the judgment pending till 31 March this year.

     

    It had said that on past occasions as well similar suggestions were made with the hope of nudging the TRAI to take proactive steps to reduce the scope of disputes arising out of the regulations. “At the same time, the fact that regulatory intervention may be the ideal way forward cannot and should not be an excuse for this Tribunal to shirk the interpretative issues that have come before us. This is particularly so when there appears to be regulatory inertia,” TDSAT had said.

     

    The Tribunal had, on 18 December, impleaded Zee Turner and others in another petition by Star India against NSTPL and asked the broadcasters to produce the agreements between the broadcasters and major MSOs. It opined that some agreements have to be suspended by Star and Taj TV.

  • I&B Ministry awaits Law Ministry’s opinion on DAS Phase III stay orders

    I&B Ministry awaits Law Ministry’s opinion on DAS Phase III stay orders

    NEW DELHI: Even as High Courts across different Indian states continue to issue extension of the Digital Addressable System (DAS) Phase III deadline beyond 31 December, 2015, the Information and Broadcasting Ministry is still waiting for the Law Ministry to respond to the file on the issue.

     

    However, as was first reported by Indiantelevision.com, I&B Secretary Sunil Arora had confirmed that the Ministry will move the Supreme Court and file an application for clubbing the various orders in different High Courts, which ordered an extension of the deadline.

     

    That said, it was not immediately clear whether this would be a fresh appeal, or would be in the form of an appeal against one of the High Court orders with an additional request that since other matters are similar, they could also be heard at the same time.

     

    This decision came as a disappointment to many multi system operators (MSOs) in other states who said that they would find it very difficult to come to Delhi to fight the case or pay the high fee charges by Supreme Court advocates for this purpose.

     

    Several rounds of discussions have been held internally as well as with officials of the Law Ministry and legal experts over the past few days before coming to this decision, to thwart the snowballing effect of the orders that commenced from Hyderabad and found a boost in the arguments in the Bombay High Court based on the Kusum Ingots case of 2004, which encouraged MSOs and local cable operators (LCOs) in other states.

     

    While the Kerala and Karnataka High Courts are to hear petitions early next week, the implementation remains stayed for varying periods in the states of Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra, Orissa, Sikkim, and Telangana, apart from Tamil Nadu where prolonged legal cases have been pending since Phase I.

     

    Adding to its woes, I&B Minister Arun Jaitley has received a letter from the Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu seeking a six-month extension for the 800+ MSOs and 9000+ LCOs across 13 districts serving 1.3 million households in the state. 

     

    Reacting to this, an official of the I&B Ministry said that these High Courts orders would have no effect on the Government decision to stick to its date of 31 December, 2015 and it had asked broadcasters and MSOs to switch off analogue signals in all areas covered under Phase III, which was aimed at the remaining urban areas except where certain states sought exemption.

     

    The official also said that the Courts were generally following the logic given before the Bombay High Court whereby the Supreme Court had said in the Kusum Ingots case that if one High Court gives an order, others can give similar orders if the circumstances are similar. In this case, the petitioners had sought to say in all the cases that there was a shortage of set top boxes (STBs), which belied the figures received by the Government, the official added.

     

    There was also general consensus in the Ministry that this was the right course as the apex court had on an earlier occasion relating to the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act 1995 and orders issued thereunder that High Courts have to be cautious when giving orders on matters relating to policy.  

       

    While the Ministry would prepare to file its counters in all the High Courts, the Ministry official also said it was working on how plans to thwart the implementation of Phase III could be prevented – if necessary through legislative processes.

     

    The Government feels that the cases would in fact work against the last mile operator (LMO) and benefit the direct to home (DTH) and Headend In the Sky (HITS) players.

     

    Sources said that they had evidence to show seeding of STBs to the extent of 76 per cent as revealed in the 13th Task Force meeting on 30 December. 

     

    Broadcasters and channel distributors feel any extension would only lead to delays in all fields of digitisation including a further delay in not just the Phase III and Phase IV (slated for December 2016) but also pockets of Phase I and Phase II, which have still not implemented digital addressable systems.

     

    At the same time, stakeholders agree that there is a shortage of STBs and just one or two players are making local boxes despite the ‘Make in India’ campaign, and the government had to be make some relaxations in the budget in this regard.

  • Delhi HC examining if TDSAT had jurisdiction in giving parity to HITS with MSOs

    Delhi HC examining if TDSAT had jurisdiction in giving parity to HITS with MSOs

    NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has reserved its orders on whether the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) had the jurisdiction to ‘re-write the regulation’ by asking broadcasters to treat the headend in the sky (HITS) operator Noida Software Technology Park Ltd (NSTPL) at the same level as pan-India multi-system operators (MSOs).

     

    Justice Rajiv Sahai End law passed the order on a petition by Star India arising out of a Tribunal judgment of 7 December, 2015.

     

    The court also said that a directive by TDSAT of 18 December asking Star India and other broadcasters to produce the kind of agreements it had with Hathway, Den and SitiCable and listing the matter for 12 January would stand suspended until the outcome of the High Court case.

     

    The Court heard arguments presented by Star India and NSTPL whose petition had been accepted on 7 December by the Tribunal, which had asked Star India and Taj TV to execute fresh agreements with NSTPL. However, TDSAT had kept the operation of the judgment pending till 31 March this year.

     

    It had said that on past occasions it had made similar suggestions with the hope of nudging the Television Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) to take proactive steps to reduce the scope of disputes arising out of the Regulations. At the same time, the fact that regulatory intervention may be the ideal way forward cannot and should not be an excuse for this Tribunal to shirk the interpretative issues that have come before us. This is particularly so when there appears to be regulatory inertia.

     

    The Tribunal had, on 18 December, impleaded Zee Turner and others in another petition by Star India against NSTPL and asked the broadcasters to produce agreements between broadcasters and major MSOs. It opined that some agreements have to be suspended by Star and Taj TV.

  • “Our strategy is clear, we are ready to associate with everybody but we won’t compromise with our transparency:” Tony D’Silva

    “Our strategy is clear, we are ready to associate with everybody but we won’t compromise with our transparency:” Tony D’Silva

    For Hinduja’s Headend In The Sky (HITS) platform – NXT Digital, which was launched earlier this year, the journey so far has been about tussling it out. From procuring the requisite license from the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting (MIB) to getting broadcasters on board, for NXT Digital, it was no mean feat. Focusing on phase III and IV areas of Digital Addressable System (DAS), the venture has made it very clear that they mean business and are here for the long haul.

    Led by Grant Investrade managing director Tony D’Silva, the venture is investing heavily in order to achieve the goals that have been set. With an aim to spread its network pan India, NXT Digital has deployed teams on ground to reach out to operators. Speaking to Indiantelevision.com’s Anirban Roy Choudhury, D’Silva speaks about the roadmap ahead for NXT Digital, the recent deal with Zee Entertainment Enterprises as well as India’s cable digitisation drive. D’silva makes no bones about the fact that the company is ready to associate with anybody but will not compromise with its transparency.

    Read on:

    How did the industry respond to the launch of NXT Digital?

    The launch of NXT Digital has been very well received by most markets across the country. Initially people were skeptical about what this system was all about. There was a lot of negative publicity in the market spread by people with various vested interests saying that we would face the same problems that Jain HITS faced. I think we have been able to overcome that gradually. And now we believe that we are a platform to stay. We have made substantial investment and have the financial support to invest more.

    What do you think has been the biggest achievement so far for NXT Digital?

    The most important achievement is the fact that we have successfully signed all the broadcasters. The deal with broadcasters is for both active and passive services (with exception of Zee), which is a greater achievement. Now I think we have started to move faster. Initially the progress was a little slow because there was a lot of confusion in the market as what will be the last date of DAS Phase III. However, now that there is clarity on the final date, the demand has seen a substantial growth in terms of COPE mini headend systems and set top boxes (STBs).

    When you speak about demand, is there any particular region where you are witnessing the demand or is it pan India?

    It is indeed pan India. In fact, we are observing a huge demand in phase I and II areas. But considering our decision to not disturb the existing ecosystem, we have decided to focus on phase III and IV markets only as of now. That said, we will review the model whenever needed.

    How robust is your infrastructure to meet the growing demand?

    We built our infrastructure for a particular demand but we have gone well beyond that demand and hence we have to now re-build our infrastructure. And that’s exactly what we will do to meet the demand.

    Infrastructure will certainly not be a problem as far as NXT Digital is concerned. We are evaluating various options when it comes to STBs. DAS Phase IV will have a different affording power as compared to phase III and keeping the diversity in mind, we plan to offer a variety of options when it comes to STBs. By next year we will add one or two more transponders too.

    How do you plan to ensure cordial reach out to the operators?

    We reach out to the operators through various print, digital mediums, live roadshows etc. Moreover we have an on-ground team, which interacts with the operators. I think the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Once cable operators as well as the market have seen our services, there will automatically be a level of satisfaction and confidence and then they will be our ambassadors.

    What’s your take on pricing when it comes to DAS Phase III and IV?

    The content pricing is a function of broadcasters. We follow a business model where we don’t make any money from content. We don’t want to make money from content. The lower the broadcaster gives us, the lower we offer to our operators. Broadcasters unfortunately don’t see a difference between Phase III and Phase IV even though we have been repeatedly appealing to them because there is a clear difference in Average Revenue Per User (ARPU) in the two regions. I think it’s the function of authority overseeing the digitisation process to ensure the fact that the price quoted is fair for the entire ecosystem.

    Is there a clear enough revenue model?

    I think there should be a differentiation in the markets, or another way to look at it is to see what you can afford and pay for it. But I don’t know if the second one is a right option at this stage. And the reason I say at this stage is because the consumer is used to a kind of model and suddenly you cannot give him another rationale and logic. The transition needs to happen after following a logical approach and that is something that I firmly believe in. You cannot bring in a change by being harsh on the end consumers. 

    How many operators has NXT Digital signed with so far? Are you happy with the number?

    We are very close to touching the 500 mark and I am very happy with the number. The number will go up substantially as we come closer and closer to the D-Day. There are a huge number of people who are still trying to figure out the best way forward. The main reason why operators held back was because they were insecure about us not having all the content. After getting Zee on board that problem has been addressed and now we will certainly see the demand going up.

    The other problem that we faced in the initial stages was our broadcaster friends campaigning against us. They went on to many operators and mis-informed them saying NXT Digital will also be on the same track as Jain HITS as we will not provide them the content. I think we have proved that these were just rumours and hence they don’t count anymore.

    What’s your take on the entire digitisation process?

    Not all operators are equipped with higher education and hence they do not understand the actual meaning of digitisation. Digitisation does not mean putting a digital head-end and STBs but it is also about managing the backend, packaging and bundling. On the other hand, there are a lot of smart, intelligent Chinese vendors all around laying the trap and there are a good number of operators falling in that trap maybe because of the government pressure or lack of understanding.

    The other thing I have been telling the government is that when you look at regulation per se, the entire onus of implementing digitisation lies on the MSO. However, we are forgetting that a very important part of the process is the local cable operator (LCO), who is delivering the signal to the end consumer. Therefore billing, receipt collection, ensuring quality, consciousness and other on-ground responsibilities should remain with the LCO.

    The government needs to understand that unlike many other countries, India is not a homogenous market. On a single street you will find slums and multi-storeyed apartments, which are both are consuming content. The LCO cannot go with a fixed price because it will be more than some or less than some. Moreover, he will also have to pay service tax on it. The concept of billing needs to be realistic and practical. There are a lot of things that need to be addressed if we really want to digitise the country. 

    You are also providing local channel facility, which is something that lacks on DTH. Who takes the responsibility of the content put on those channels?

    We have a mechanism through which operators can have as many as eight – sixteen local channels. The benefit is that they are all encrypted and hence piracy is taken care of. We are clear with the operator that whatever content is put up, should follow the Cable Act. If the operator airs pirated content or breaches the law, the broadcasters can inform us and we will switch off signals. We have the power to switch off, which other MSOs don’t and that’s another advantage that we have. We have to understand one thing that the COPE belongs solely to the operator and therefore the liability of whatever is inserted through that COPE is on him. 

    Can DD Freedish capitalise on the on-ground chaos? If there is a blackout, people may just move to DD Freedish?

    DD Freedish is also like any other DTH platform. I don’t think it meets consumer requirements. The consumer knows what he wants to watch. Setting up a DD Freedish and buying an STB is similar investment. It’s just that there is no subscription fee attached to DD Freedish but it has its limitations when it comes to number of channels. And not only channels, the exposure that we offer is far beyond, be it international with global channels, local channels or value added services. So we are far ahead of a platform like DD Freedish and we are not bothered by it.

    You had all major broadcasters on board except Zee. How was your experience inking the deal with Zee?

    A deal that took four months to be signed cannot be called a smooth one. We went to the MIB, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) and then eventually tussled it out at the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT). For many years now we have been requesting TRAI to come up with a standard Interconnect Agreement (ICA). There are so many operators across the country who cannot even afford to go to the TDSAT. It’s not an easy process; he has to come to Delhi, hire a lawyer and it needs a lot of financial backup. The deal signing with Zee was a learning experience for me. It was a case of dealing with people who say something and do something totally different. It was a clear case of mis-interpretation of law.

    What is the way forward for NXT Digital?

    Value added services are important to ensure growth and now we are focusing aggressively on that front. I want to make one thing very clear, which is that the Hinduja Group will fight this till the very end. We are not going to be tempered over by anybody in this industry. If there is a genuine problem or concern, we are more than happy to sit and discuss. At the same time, no matter what, we will not be stepped on for nothing. I firmly believe that the whole is always bigger than the individual. If we have all the broadcasters with us and one against, there has to be some vested interest. Our strategy is clear, we are ready to associate with everybody for business or betterment of the industry but we won’t compromise with our transparency. 

  • MIB warns broadcasters against giving FTA signals to unauthorised operators

    MIB warns broadcasters against giving FTA signals to unauthorised operators

    NEW DELHI: The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) has warned broadcasters against giving signals of free to air (FTA) channels to unauthorised operators. 

     

    The government said that it should be ensured that satellite TV channels do not provide their signal reception decoders or access to their signals to any cable or multi system operators (MSO), DTH operators, IPTV service provider and headend in the sky (HITS) operator, which is not registered or permitted by the MIB.

     

    The Ministry said that non-adherence to the laid down stipulation is “liable for stern action from this Ministry in case corrective action by broadcasters is not taken immediately.”

     

    It was pointed out that there should be strict adherence to clause 5.6 of the Article 5 of Downlinking Guidelines in this regard.

     

    The clause stipulates that all the broadcasters “shall provide satellite TV channel signal reception decoders only to MSOs/Cable Operators registered under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act 1995 or to a DTH operator registered under the DTH guidelines issued by Government of Indian or to an Internet Protocol Television (IPTV) Service Provider duly permitted under their existing Telecom License or authorised by Department of Telecommunications or to a HITS operator duly permitted under the policy guidelines for HITS operators issued by the I&B Ministry to provide such service.”

     

    The MIB said that it had come to its notice that certain DTH operators were beaming into India FTA channels without obtaining due license or registration authorisation in any manner from the Ministry. “These FTA TV channels, it is learnt, are permitted TV channels. However, broadcasters appear to have allowed their signals to be used by such unauthorised operators,” the Ministry said.

  • Taj TV to supply signals to Grant Investrade after signing ICA

    Taj TV to supply signals to Grant Investrade after signing ICA

    NEW DELHI: Grant Investrade, which operates the headend-in-the-sky (HITS) brand NXT Digital, and Taj Television have arrived at an agreement.

     

    Taj Television will provide its signals to Grant Investrade as soon as an inter-connect agreement is signed.

     

    Stating this, the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) noted however that the agreement will be “without prejudice to Grant’s rights and contentions with regard to those clauses.”

     

    Listing the case for 13 January, TDSAT chairman Justice Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava made this observation after counsel Salman Khurshid on behalf of Grant Investrade said his client had some reservations on two or three clauses of the agreement.

     

    Both counsels namely Pratibha Singh on behalf of Taj and Khurshid said there was broad agreement for supply of Zee channels as also for Turner channels and this would be signed this week.

     

    Singh accepted that the agreement would be signed “without prejudice to Grant’s rights and contentions with regard to those clauses.”

  • MSOs, LCOs upbeat about Hinduja’s NXT Digital HITS platform

    MSOs, LCOs upbeat about Hinduja’s NXT Digital HITS platform

    MUMBAI: The Indian television industry is bracing itself for the third phase of digitisation as the deadline for Digital Addressable System (DAS) ends on 31 December, 2015.

    Phase III deadline of digitisation is what the broadcast ecosystem has been talking for a year now. While on the one hand, the government of India has time and again made it clear that there will be no extension of deadline, which is 31 December, 2015, on the other, stakeholders are pointing fingers at the system as the teething issues like inter-connect agreement (ICA), CPS deals et al are yet to be taken care of. In a recent notice the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) headed by Arun Jaitley and MoS RajyavardhanSingh Rathore, has asked broadcasters to stop beaming analogue signals to all MSOs. Now with only days to go, people are still unclear as to what’s ahead.

    Amidst the chaos of litigations between stakeholders and various pot-shots being fired, Hinduja’s Headend In The Sky (HITS) platform NXT Digital found its calm in doing actual ground work before launch.

    Harvard Business School professor Rosabeth Moss Kanter once said, “Leaders must pick causes they won’t abandon easily, remain committed despite setbacks, and communicate their big ideas over and over again in every encounter.” And that’s exactly what the team helming NXT Digital did. Prior to its launch on 16 September, the HITS platform carried out road shows involving Last Mile Operators (LMOs) in over 19 cities spread across the length and breadth of the country to communicate the new idea.

    While the initial reactions from the operators weren’t that encouraging, the lack of collaboration on-ground between existing MSOs and LCOs turned out to be a blessing in disguise for NXT Digital, which in turn fuelled its penetration into the hinterland. Now, MSOs and LCOs that Indiantelevision.com spoke to are upbeat about the new platform.

    An independent MSO from the North Eastern Province tells Indiantelevision.com, “I recently invested Rs 50 lakh to establish a cable head-end but as of now I don’t know how much I will be charging the consumers. The Cost Per Subscriber (CPS) model is not even talked about yet. Broadcasters are giving out different deals to different MSOs. If anybody asks me for a suggestion, I would tell them to go for HITS as it is a much more transparent platform.”

    Another impeding problem that the industry will soon face is a serious crisis of Set-Top-Boxes (STBs). While the boxes are assembled in India, the components are still being shipped from China. “The components have not yet been ordered. While a few have placed the first round of orders, there are many who are yet to do that. It takes three months for the components to be delivered from China and then an additional one month to assemble them. So it is certain that the boxes will not reach on time. The STB crisis will be there for NXT Digital too,” said a senior official of an established MSO.

    However, NXT Digital is unperturbed. A senior official of the company says, “There was going to be a set-top box crisis and we always knew about it. Hence we placed an order for four million boxes and there are close to 1.1 million boxes available for us at this stage. So NXT Digital is pretty sorted from the STB point of view.”

    If sources are to be believed, Star is charging Rs 38 for its bouquet in DAS Phase III areas, whereas the Zee bouquet costs close to Rs 30. Sony Pictures Networks India (erstwhile Multi Screen Media) is pricing its bouquet at Rs 24, while India Cast is charging Rs 20.

    On the other hand, NXT Digital is charging Rs 71 per box. “It’s a good deal. It’s just that they don’t have Zee in their package yet. But I don’t think it will take long for them to get them in,” says a reputed member of a Southern cable federation. “They are giving a total of over 300 channels and if there is a spike in demand, they have the infrastructure to meet it too. So it’s a good long term investment.”

    NXT Digital follows a prepaid model, which the Indian ecosystem is not yet used to. “That’s not really a big issue; people usually get used to it. I am getting a lot of positive feedback from the industry about the HITS platform. However, there’s one thing that I will request Mr Tony to look at and that is the exchange of STBs. People are not ready to forget the STB investment that they have already made to have one. If they give an exchange offer, it would be great for us,” opines an LMO.

    Now it remains to be seen how NXT Digital proceeds further and to what extend they succeed in capitalising the hinterlands.

  • MIB reminds broadcasters & MSOs of DAS Phase III signal transmission laws

    MIB reminds broadcasters & MSOs of DAS Phase III signal transmission laws

    NEW DELHI: After the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) firmly ruled out any extension of Phase III of digital addressable systems (DAS), the Information and Broadcasting Ministry today told broadcasters that “it is obligatory to stop TV signals to multi system operators (MSOs) and local cable operators (LCOs) who are not registered with the Ministry for operation in DAS notified areas.”

     

    In a letter sent to all broadcasters and MSOs, Ministry joint secretary (broadcasting) R Jaya said, “All the broadcasters are requested to ensure to stop TV signals to those MSOs who are not registered with this Ministry for operation in DAS notified areas under Phase Ill and/or those who are not transmitting digitally encrypted TV signals in phase Ill areas after the cut-off date of 31 December, 2015.”

     

    The letter aimed at drawing the attention of all broadcasters is drawn to certain rules, regulations and guidelines related to transmission of television signals in connection with approaching cut-off date for Phase Ill of cable digitisation in the country.

     

    The letter said under Section 4A of the Cable Television Network (Regulation) Act 1995, it is obligatory for every cable operator to transmit or re-transmit programmes of any channel in an encrypted form through a digital addressable system with effect from the date as may be specified in the notification.

     

    Under para 5.6 of the Policy Guidelines for downlinking of Television Channels, the company will provide satellite TV channel signal reception decoders only to MSOs/cable operators registered under the Act or to a direct-to-home operator registered under the DTH guidelines issued by the Government or to an Internet Protocol Television Service (IPTV) provider duly permitted under their existing Telecom license or authorised by the Telecommunications Department or to Headend In The Sky (HITS) operator duly permitted under the policy guidelines for HITS operators issued by I&B Ministry to provide such service.

     

    Furthermore, the letter said under sub-regulation 3(2) (Chapter II- Interconnection) of Interconnect (Digital Addressable System) Regulations 2012, every broadcaster will provide signals of its TV channels to MSOs registered under rule 11 of the Cable Television Networks Rules 1994, making request for the same.

  • HITS to be treated at par with pan-India MSOs; TDSAT advises TRAI to frame consolidated Broadcasting Code

    HITS to be treated at par with pan-India MSOs; TDSAT advises TRAI to frame consolidated Broadcasting Code

    NEW DELHI: In a judgment expected to have far reaching consequences on the Indian broadcasting industry, the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) today said that headend-in-the-sky (HITS) players should be treated on the same level as pan-India multi-system operators (MSOs) for commercial purposes.
     

    In a judgment on a petition filed by the Noida Software Technology Park Ltd (NSTPL) against Media Pro and others, the Tribunal said its judgment would come into effect from 31 March, 2016 by which time the relevant reference interconnect offers will be revised wherever necessary.

    The Tribunal said, “It is difficult to see a HITS operator as different from a pan-India MSO and in our considered view a HITS operator, in regard to the commercial terms for an interconnect arrangement has to be taken at par with a pan-India MSO and must, therefore, receive the same treatment.”

    Expectedly, the judgment will also help Hinduja Group’s HITS platform NXT Digital, which entered into the fray earlier this year.

    TDSAT chairman Justice Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said both Star and Taj, as well as the other broadcasters who have joined the proceedings as intervenors are directed to issue fresh RIOs in compliance with the Interconnect Regulations, as explained in the judgment within one month from the date this order becomes operational and effective. It will be then open to NSTPL to execute fresh interconnect agreements with Star and Taj, and with any other broadcasters on the basis of their respective RIOs or on negotiated terms within the limits.

     
    Star and Taj will have to execute fresh interconnect agreements with the petitioner within two weeks from the date of issuance of their fresh RIOs. The agreement with Star would relate back to 30 October, 2015 and with Taj to 30 June, 2015. The issuance of the fresh RIOs by the broadcasters will also give right to other distributors of channels with whom the broadcasters may be in interconnect agreement to have their agreements modified in terms of clause 13.2A.7.
     

    NSTPL had executed an RIO based agreement with Media Pro. At that time, it did not complain before the Tribunal that it was being forced into the RIO based agreement even though it had ample opportunity to do so as the Media Pro application was pending before the Tribunal. Later on, after Media Pro ceased to be an agent of the broadcasters, NSTPL, even after filing the present petition, signed RIO based agreements both with Star and Taj. The agreement with Star was for the period upto 30 July, 2015 and the two agreements with Taj were upto 31 March, 2015.
     

    NSTPL must, therefore, be held bound by those agreements till the periods of those agreements and further, three months beyond that in terms of clause 8 of the Interconnect agreement. After those dates (29 October in case of Star and 30 June in case of Taj) the arrangement will be governed by the fresh agreements.

    The Tribunal said the non-discrimination obligation, which TRAI acknowledges as the pivot of those regulations, appears inconsistent with a regime where parties are allowed full latitude to mutually negotiate their agreements and also not disclose the commercial terms of the agreement to other market participants.
     

    There is the obligation to frame a meaningful RIO in which all bouquet and a la carte rates are specified, and there is also some room for mutual negotiation (even on rates) within certain specified parameters. This will achieve the objective of introducing a transparent non-discriminatory regime whereby distributors can obtain access to content, while still retaining some latitude to mutually negotiate the terms and conditions of access. It will also make the nexus between a la carte and bouquet rates, which the regulator thought fit to introduce, applicable to all mutually negotiated agreements. Negotiations must be within the parameters to those mandatory.

     
    At the same time, TDSAT said it was conscious that the present judgment may unsettle the way in which various parties in the broadcasting sector have entered into existing agreements. “We are further conscious that while the TRAI has taken a position broadly in line with our conclusions in this case, that has not always been the case. As the Amicus Curiae and the counsel for the Petitioner have pointed out, the positions taken by TRAI in the past have not always been fully consistent. In particular, we note the observation of TRAI in Consultation Paper No.15 / 2008 that in view of the confidentiality restrictions, the automatic implementation of non-discrimination clause in Interconnect Regulation is practically difficult,” it said.
     

    Thus, as far back as 2008, TRAI was aware that the non-discrimination clause – which, in these proceedings, it has sought to place on a very high pedestal – was effectively inoperative. And yet, matters in the broadcasting sector have been allowed to lie where they are by TRAI.
     

    TDSAT said it had on past occasions as well, made similar suggestions with the hope of nudging the Regulator to take proactive steps to reduce the scope of disputes arising out of the Regulations. At the same time, the fact that regulatory intervention may be the ideal way forward cannot and should not be an excuse for this Tribunal to shirk the interpretative issues that have come before us. This is particularly so when there appears to be regulatory inertia.
     

    This was the reason for suspending the operation of this judgment till 31 March, 2016. The judgment shall take effect on 1 April, 2016. “While we are aware that this is not a common procedure, we are of the view that it is appropriate in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, since the effect of this judgment may be to unsettle a number of existing agreements and necessitate re-negotiation,” the Tribunal said.
     

    In the meanwhile it will be open to TRAI to undertake a comprehensive restructuring of the Regulations, which would hopefully clarify many of the issues that arise in these proceedings. “We make it clear that this Tribunal is issuing no such direction to TRAI. The delayed operation of the judgment is only to afford an opportunity to TRAI to consider the matter and act in the intervening period, if appropriate,” it further added.
     

    As a greater part of the country would come under the DAS regime with effect from 1 January, 2016 the Tribunal said it would be advisable that TRAI should try to frame a consolidated Broadcasting Code instead of the large number of Regulations dealing with different aspects of the service and each having undergone numerous amendments. In order to make a serious effort in that direction, TRAI would be required to get hold of all the negotiated interconnect agreements between the broadcasters and the distributors of channels, which the broadcasters are in any event obliged to submit to TRAI. The Regulator may even feel the need to take a re-look at the tariff orders framed by it.

     
    Needless to add that in case TRAI issues any fresh Regulations before 1 April, 2016, the petitioner and the broadcasters would be obliged to execute agreements on that basis. In case, however, no fresh Regulations are issued by TRAI, this judgment and order will come into effect from the aforesaid date and the parties would be obliged to follow the directions give above.

    Suspension of this judgment is in the larger interest of the broadcasting sector. But this leaves open the question of the petitioner’s liability to pay licence fees to the broadcasters Star and Taj for their signals received by it during the pendency of the petitions before the Tribunal and further until execution of fresh agreements in terms of this judgment or in terms of fresh Regulations, if any, framed by TRAI. And since it will not be fair that the broadcasters should continue to supply signals to the petitioner without any payment for the next several months, some interim arrangement under which the petitioner should make payment of licence fees to the two broadcasters until after execution of fresh agreements accounts are finally reconciled. For this purpose, the petition against the broadcasters was de-tagged from this judgment and kept pending.
     

    Star has already filed an application in Petition No. 314 (C) of 2015 claiming the dues of licence fees from the petitioner. Petition No. 526 (C) of 2015 is directed to be tagged with Petition No. 314 (C) of 2015. In these two petitions, the Tribunal proposes to determine the Petitioner’s liability to pay the license fees to Star and Taj on an ad hoc basis and as an interim measure until the execution of the agreements with the two broadcasters, and when the accounts of the two sides may be reconciled to determine any final liability of the Petitioner or Respondents to make any further payments.
     

    It also made clear that all future deals between broadcasters and MSO/HITS players will be bound by the RIO agreements.

     
    While the case was initially filed against Media Pro in mid-2014, NSTPL had subsequently in December last year filed another petition against Star India and Taj TV.
     

    Since the issues in both petitions were similar and any judgment would affect the broadcasting sector as a whole, TDSAT had on 30 July this year issued a public notice asking all stakeholders to present their case on the issues involved.
     

    In an earlier case in 2013 between NSTPL and Media Pro Enterprise India Pvt. Ltd. TDSAT had on 12 September, 2013 directed Media Pro to provide signals of its TV channels to NSTPL.
     

    Later, NSTPL moved the Tribunal against Media Pro in which Taj Television Ltd and Star India Private Limited were brought in. Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) was also a party in the two petitions of 2014.

     
    The first petition 10 July, 2014, NSTPL raised some questions regarding RIO and wanted the Tribunal to declare Clause 3.2 of The Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconnection Regulation 2004, as amended from time to time should mandate that all distributors be offered the same rate per subscriber per month which is the rate specified in the broadcaster’s RIO, unless the conditions of Clause 3.6 of Interconnection Regulation are fulfilled.

     
    It also wanted declaration in terms of Clause 3.6 of Interconnect Regulation to the effect that any discounted volume related scheme must be disclosed in a transparent manner, so as to enable the similarly placed distributors to avail of the same.
     

    It demanded that Media Pro be directed to disclose the volume related schemes at which it offers TV channel signals to distributors that are similarly placed with NSTPL and permit NSTPL to avail of such schemes.
     

    The second petition on 12 December, 2014 was against Taj and TRAI, which impugned the disconnection measures that had been initiated by Taj against NSTPL on account of alleged defaults like non-payment of certain amounts of subscription fees.