ITV

Tag: IBF

  • BARC India to TRAI and MIB: Tweak legislation to make data tamper-proof

    BARC India to TRAI and MIB: Tweak legislation to make data tamper-proof

    NEW DELHI: India’s audience measurement company BARC India has urged broadcast regulator TRAI and Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) to bring in legislations making TV viewership data tamper-proof and stipulate stringent penalties for offenders.

    “Provisions need to be added in relevant regulations to not only dis-incentivize `viewership malpractices’ but also allow for punitive action against those indulging in such activities,” Broadcast Audience Research Council of India (BARC India) has said.

    In addition, it has also suggested the government and regulator to explore whether digital set-top-boxes and smart TV sets could be mandated by law to be made return path data (RPD)-enabled, moves that could enhance data robustness.

    BARC India is of the opinion that guidelines for uplinking and downlinking of TV channels, issued by MIB, could be “suitably amended to recognize and codify” efforts by TV channels to infiltrate or tamper with data collection processes.

    “A limited number of unscrupulous elements exist in the sector (a carryover from the past) who seek to infiltrate security of BARC India’s sample (panel homes), and unfairly influence their viewership habits. Their goal (and business) is to skew final viewership data in favour of some channels, using unfair means that BARC India defines as `viewership malpractice’,” the measurement body, a joint venture amongst IBF, AAAI and AISA, has said, highlighting it was grappling with legacy issues.

    Over the last 12 months several instances have come to light where TV channels were found to be allegedly attempting to tamper and influence audience data and indulging in other malpractices to boost viewership or TV ratings points, as it’s popularly described in India. In some cases, BARC India undertook counter-measures resulting in alleged offenders taking legal recourse. In some other instances, the regulator had to issue warnings in an effort to do damage control.

    “In terms of specifics, MIB’s channel licensing norms can stipulate that any broadcaster found to be indulging in unfair means to influence its viewership through acts of viewership malpractice can face… actions,” BARC India has suggested in its submission to TRAI’s consultation paper on `Ease of Doing Business in Broadcasting Sector’, adding a “fair system that evaluates complaints and adjudicates on them may also be included” in the regulations.

    Amongst the moves that the government and sector regulator could take, as suggested by BARC India, include measures like errant company facing viewership data blackout for a limited period, telecast ban for a limited period and revoking of license depending on the seriousness of the offense. “A regulatory framework that helps prevent distortions and fraudulent activities in the eco-system would be highly desirable, and valuable to all sections of the industry,” it has said in its submission.

    Why is BARC India pushing for legislative protection?  Pointing out that “incorrect, false and misleading audience ratings can lead to incorrect content decisions”, the measurement organization said, “There are no sections in IPC with reference to which BARC India can file police complaint and this emboldens those involved in such (fraudulent) activities.”

    In addition to seeking legal protection for data generation process, BARC India has also highlighted to TRAI the technological steps that can be taken — and is being explored by it.

    Use of return path data to complement the present TV currency is one such option. RPD involves capturing TV viewing data of homes with addressable set-top-boxes (DTH and digital cable) by enabling “return path” flow of data. “Once enabled, this would allow capture of TV viewership data from several lakh homes, as opposed to the 50,000 sample mandated at present. Additionally, this larger sample would allow more accurate capture of viewership of niche audiences and genres/channels with small viewing base (such as regional language channels and genres like infotainment, etc.),” BARC India has said.

    However, there’s a slight hitch. In the absence of technical standards presently, a large number of STBs in India is not enabled for RPD owing to inadequacies in hardware and software systems.

    BARC India, which is presently in discussions with some DTH and digital cable service providers for return path data collation, has submitted that mandating manufacture and sale of RPD-enabled STBs in India would go a long way in further improving TV viewership measurement system in the country.

    In this context, the organization has also urged TRAI to examine whether RPD-enabled smart TV sets could be mandated in India considering their rising sales as such a move could further add to the robustness in data collection.

    ALSO READ :

    BARC India suspends three errant channels’ review

    HC stays India News ratings suspension; BARC hints at continuing crusade

    News channel controversy: BARC India fires riposte to NBA

    BARC India in talks with DTH ops, MSOs for RPD to boost robustness

  • TV content: Madras HC seeks Centre’s clarification on regulatory mechanism

    TV content: Madras HC seeks Centre’s clarification on regulatory mechanism

    NEW DELHI: Joining issues with a petition presently being heard by the Supreme Court on a similar matter, the Madras High Court yesterday directed the federal government to clarify on the existing regulatory setup governing contents aired by television channels in India.

    The first bench comprising Chief Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice M Sunder gave this direction to assistant solicitor general Su Srinivasan, who appeared for the central government, during the hearing of a public interest litigation (PIL) to stop telecast of Tamil reality show ‘Bigg Boss’, hosted by actor Kamal Haasan on Vijay TV, part of Star India, according to a report filed by PTI from Chennai.

    The matter has been posted for further hearing on August 18, 2017.

    Earlier, senior counsel P S Raman, who appeared on behalf of the actor and anchor of the TV show, submitted that there were two bodies to regulate the channels. One was the Broadcasting Content Complaints Council (BCCC), a self-regulatory body headed by a retired Supreme Court judge and the other was ministry of information and broadcasting (MIB), the PTI report quoted Raman as telling the local high court.

    BCCC is a self-regulatory body set up by the Indian Broadcasting Foundation, an industry organisation that has a large number of TV channels as its members. Though there’s no formal content regulatory body in India on the lines of American FCC or the UK’s Ofcom or Singapore’s MDA, IBF’s self regulatory body takes up complaints relating to TV content. Separately, the content code, part of India’s Cable TV Act (enforced by MIB) outlines broad guidelines for TV content.

    The PTI report stated that petitioner Saravanan has alleged that in the reality show Haasan played with emotions and behaviour of female contestants, which he termed vulgar and obscene. He further submitted that to protect Tamil culture and tradition and in the interest and welfare of the general public, the telecast of the show must be stalled immediately.

    “The dress code and behaviour of female contestants on the show are very vulgar and obscene making my family members and me uncomfortable in watching the programme. Also, the reference to ‘cheri’ (slum) behavior, made by a participant to describe the behaviour of another contestant, greatly hurt downtrodden people,” the petitioner said.

    Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is hearing a similar case and has enquired from the central government whether it has a proper mechanism in place to regulate TV content.

    Outgoing film certification (CBFC) chief Pahlaj Nihalani, dubbed nationalist and ultra-conservative by a section of content producers and audience alike, in a media interview had urged the government to extend CBFC’s jurisdiction to oversee television shows too.

    ALSO READ:

    Govt formalising TV & radio complaints’ redressal mechanism

    SC to MIB: Get mechanism to deal with complaints on TV, radio shows

    Awarded adman Prasoon Joshi is new CBFC chief, Pahlaj Nihalani exits

  • Orders reserved by Madras HC on TRAI jurisdiction case

    Orders reserved by Madras HC on TRAI jurisdiction case

    NEW DELHI: The Madras High Court today reserved orders on the Star India-Vijay TV challenge to the jurisdiction of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India to issue tariff orders.

    The court received a compliance report from its registry that all parties had filed their written submissions.

    Earlier last week, the Authority had said it would file its written submissions only after scrutinizing those of the broadcasters, after which the broadcasters had been directed to serve their submissions to TRAI the same day (27 July) .

    Thus submissions have been filed by the petitioners Star India and Vijay TV, respondent TRAI, and intervenors All India Digital Cable Federation (AIDCF) and Videocon d2h.

    Arguments on the hearing which commenced late last month had concluded on 19 July and all parties had been asked to file written submissions.

    Star India and Vijay TV’s challenge to the jurisdiction of TRAI to issue tariff orders is on the ground that content comes under the Copyright Act.

    In the hearing on 19 July 2017, the Court had refused to accept an affidavit by the Indian Broadcasting Foundation  (IBF).

    Although the Supreme Court had in early May while staying the tariff order directed the Madras High Court to complete hearing within four weeks, the High Court had commenced hearing only in the last week of June.

    Meanwhile, TRAI TV reference interconnect offer (RIO) and Quality of service order (QoS) came into effect from 2 May following the order of the High Court. (However, the Tariff order comes into effect only from 2 September 2017.)

    Apart from the Tariff order which had originally been issued on 10 October last year, the regulator also issued the DAS Interconnect Regulations which had been issued on 14 October last year, and the Standards of Quality of Service and Consumer Protection (Digital Addressable Systems) Regulations which had been issued on 10 October last year.

    The orders can be seen at:

    http://trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/Tariff_Order_English_3%20March_2017.pdf
    http://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/QOS_Regulation_03_03_2017.pdf
    http://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/Interconnection_Regulation_03_mar_2917.pdf 

    Also Read:

    Decks cleared for TRAI tariff order implementation as HC declines stay (updated)

    TRAI jurisdiction case listed for 31 July to peruse compliance report

  • Modify or shift ‘double entendre’ progs, cautions broadcasting council

    NEW DELHI: Action was taken in 18 cases relating to telecast of content of indecency/obscenity/vulgarity in the last three years, the Parliament has been told. This included some general advisories issues by government. The punishment in most cases was a warning or the running of an apology scroll.

    Minister of state for information and broadcastng Rajyavardhan Rathore revealed that there had been no action in 2017.   

    The minister said apart from action taken by government, the Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF) had set up a Broadcasting Content Complaints Council (BCCC) to examine the complaints relating to content of television programmes.

    The council had informed the ministry that they have received complaints against usage of double meaning dialogues of sexual nature that might not be suitable for children. In such instances, BCCC has passed directions on case to case basis, either asking the channels to modify/ edit the content, not to repeat the episode, shift it to a late night slot or run an apology scroll on the channel.

    To ensure that the channels do not cross the thin line between comedy and vulgarity, the Council has also issued an advisory on 27 December 2012 to IBF’s member channels to use friendly banters without being derisive to any community, religion and individual.

    Also Read :

    Healthcare products lead in ASCI norms breach, 143 complaints upheld

    No plans to regulate TV content through CBFC: MIB

  • No BRR implication on b’caster & DPO link flawed: Vijay TV, IBF affidavit rejected

    No BRR implication on b’caster & DPO link flawed: Vijay TV, IBF affidavit rejected

    NEW DELHI: Even as arguments concluded in the Star India and Vijay TV case challenging the jurisdiction of Telecom Regulatory Authority of India to issue tariff orders on the ground that content came under the Copyright Act, the Madras High Court directed all parties to submit written statements by 27 July 2017.

    The Court refused to accept an affidavit by the Indian Broadcasting Foundation which had neither a notary stamp nor a date. Earlier, in his arguments, TRAI counsel Saket Singh had said that IBF represented a mere 20 per cent of the broadcasters in the country. In fact, the bench expressed its annoyance at the manner in which the affidavit had been presented.

    If the written submissions are accepted by the court, it will reserve its judgment in the matter.

    Vijay TV counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi, while presenting his rejoinder, also furnished a number of new arguments, and therefore the court wanted all these to be put into written submissions. Singhvi said that the dichotomy between copyright works and their compilations were false, and TRAIs assertion that a TV channel was a separate product was not ‘protectable.’ He said that public interest would not confer non-existent jurisdiction on TRAI.

    In any event, TRAI will continue to regulate carriage and the broadcasters business.

    Singhvi said that TRAI seemed to assert that broadcast reproduction rights did not have had anything to do with a channel but was merely a compilation of copyright works. That understanding was flawed. The impression that TRAI was not regulating content but only the manner of offering of the TV channel was completely flawed since price, manner of offering and market place were inextricably linked.

    Singhvi contended that TRAI was indulging in disguised encroachment. It might have jurisdiction on transmission but cannot extend to other sectors.

    He said the reliance on the 2009 Delhi HC judgement of Star vs Trai was completely misleading. The principles of ‘res judicata’ and ‘constructive res judicata’ would not confer jurisdiction on TRAI  to regulate content.

    In any event, the issue raised in the instant writ had never been dealt before any court/ tribunal, thus the earlier judgements could not operate as res judicata / constructive res judicata. Similarly, the reliance on NSTPL judgment was completely misplaced. He said acquiescence / estoppel / concession in law was not binding.

    TRAI’s reliance on TRAI vs BSNL decision of TDSAT to assert Star was stopped from challenging the regulations was completely misleading.

    On his points as rejoinder, he said TRAI and intervenors suggestion that broadcast came into existence only after TV channel signal reaches the set-top box and thus there was no BRR (broadcast reproduction right) implication in the arrangement between the broadcaster and the DPO was completely flawed.

    Broadcast comes into existence from the moment the TV channel is uplinked.

    TRAI’s argument that the Copyright Act only protects individual programmes as works, and a TV channel being a ‘distinct and different product’ is not protected as a whole under the Act is completely flawed, he said, adding that a TV channel is protected as a broadcast  under the Act. The owner of TV channel is granted a substantive right known as the BRR.

    The distinction between driver/ non- driver and popular/ non popular channel- while the impinged regulation and Tariff order claim to be content agnostic. TRAI has taken every effort to rely on content to justify and defend them.

    TRAI does not have the power to administer the programme code and advertising code under the Cable Networks (Regulation) Act 1995. TRAI’s role as authority under that Act is very limited. It is recognised as an authority only for the limited period of digitisation as governed under section 4A.

    The impunged regulation and Tariff directly affects subscription and advertisement revenue of broadcaster which in turn impacts the expenses that can go into curating and programming of Tv channel which in turn directly affects the price at which programmes can be acquired which is nothing but control of pricing of copyright works and content.

    Sampling of content is the norm. Bundling of content is beneficial to promote public interest. TRAI’s impugned regulations will impact the diversity and Prularity of views.

    Although the Supreme Court had in early May while staying the tariff order directed the Madras High Court to complete hearing within four weeks, the High Court had commenced the in the last week of June.

    Meanwhile, TRAI TV reference interconnect offer (RIO) and Quality of service order (QoS) came into effect from 2 May following the order of the High Court.

    Apart from the Tariff order which had originally been issued on 10 October last year, the regulator also issued the DAS Interconnect Regulations which had been issued on 14 October last year, and the Standards of Quality of Service and Consumer Protection (Digital Addressable Systems) Regulations which had been issued on 10 October last year.

    The orders can be seen at:

    AlsO Read :

    TRAI can only regulate transmission, not broadcast material: Star tells Mds HC

    Decks cleared for TRAI tariff order implementation as HC declines stay (updated)

    Star India case questioning TRAI jurisdiction over content postponed

     

  • Smuggled STBs & Indian DTH may be used, IBF advises Nepal to defer Clean Feed

    MUMBAI: Nepal had recently issued a clean feed policy. However, owing to unviable business proposition, it is felt that distribution channels may face discontinuation leading to rampant piracy all over Nepal. It was highlighted that in-cable operators may resort to using Indian DTH connections to re-distribute the signals. Viewers too may start buying Set-Top Boxes (STBs) and Viewing Cards of Indian DTH operators without knowing that the same may have been smuggled into Nepal. IBF has appealed that “the Government of Nepal ought to defer implementation of a “Clean Feed” policy until implementation of digitization so as to evaluate best ways to take advantage of the same as is being done by other countries.

    In the recent past, Government of Nepal issued clean feed policy pursuant to which downlinking licenses of foreign broadcasters is sought to be permitted only if foreign channels being distributed in Nepal do not contain any advertisements (“Clean Feed Policy”). The Clean Feed Policy is sought to be implemented by Government of Nepal from 16 July, 2017.

    To apprise the Government of Nepal on the possible fallouts of the proposed policy and its likely impact on the economic development of Nepal – particularly from the point of view of loss in revenue and employment in the Country, Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF) has had a series of discussions with Nepal Government officials. During the discussions, broadcast fraternity of India conveyed the technical and economic unviability of the proposed Clean Feed Policy in Nepal. Broadcasters also conveyed that consumers and various distribution platforms in Nepal would be adversely effected in case the proposed policy is implemented on the designated date.

    (a) It was highlighted to the Government of Nepal that any such policy ought to be framed only after holding transparent and holistic consultations involving all stakeholders in an environment where digitalization of distribution networks in Nepal has been completed and issues relating to implementation of anti-piracy laws have been put in place, as is not the case presently.

    (b) Launch of clean feed would inter-alia entail separate playout, uplink and downlink costs. Nepal being an emerging market with very low ‘Average Revenue Per User’ (“ARPU”), such exorbitant costs to create clean feeds are not justifiable from a business viability point of view.

    (c) Due to unviable business proposition, it is felt that distribution channels may face discontinuation leading into rampant piracy all over Nepal. It was highlighted that in cable operators may resort to using Indian DTH connections to re-distribute the signals. Further, in such a situation, viewers too may start buying Set-Top Boxes (STBs) and Viewing Cards of Indian DTH operators without knowing that the same may have been smuggled into Nepal.

    (d) The demand for ‘clean feed’ is at variance with and may be counter-productive to Government of Nepal’s laudable initiative for implementation of digitalization of distribution networks. This is so because digitization is a cost intensive exercise and any discontinuation of channels on account of implementation of Clean Feed Policy ought to have an adverse impact on revenues of cable operators (thereby affecting their ability to invest monies for digitization). It was submitted that such impact can have a cascading effect on survival of distribution platforms thereby, as a chain reaction affecting employment locally and also distribution / reach of local Nepalese channels.

    (e) Government of Nepal should first allow implementation of digitization before proceeding to evaluate need for introduction of a Clean Feed Policy. It was highlighted that digitization with addressability is a potent tool to keep in check on unaccounted cash transactions, which may not only cause losses to distribution platforms and broadcasters but, also to the Government exchequer in the form of lost taxes.

    (f) Proper and effective implementation of digitization will give an insight to broadcasters on type of content being consumed, and as a consequence, they will be able to evaluate consumer choice better. From Government’s point of view, digitization will also afford a line of sight on content being distributed in Nepal, revenues being generated by distribution platforms and consequential license fees / taxes that they are paying. Such license fees / taxes can be utilized by the Government inter-alia towards cross-subsidizing expenses of Nepalese broadcasters or other initiatives.

    Girish Srivastava, Secretary General of IBF, appealed that “the Government of Nepal ought to defer implementation of a “Clean Feed” policy until implementation of digitization so as to evaluate best ways to take advantage of the same as is being done by other countries. Meanwhile, with the renewal of channel licenses due on 15 July 2017 – we would request the Ministry of Information and Communication (MOIC) to allow existing/new channels to be distributed without the Clean feed condition – with the understanding that the license shall not be withdrawn for at least till the next term is due”. Adding further to his request, Srivastava stated that “entire Indian broadcasting fraternity attaches a great degree of significance to the existing deep cultural, linguistic, social, economic ties between the two nations and its commitment to further the same in times to come”.

  • LCN issue: Viacom18’s Sudhanshu Vats lauds TRAI, validates trust in BARC

    MUMBAI: Industry observers were quite puzzled as to why India’s TV viewership monitoring agency – Broadcast Audience Research Council (BARC) – kept relatively mum during the entire multiple-LCN- placement-generating-unnatural-ratings fight between the English news channels and debutant the Arnab Goswami backed Republic TV. A couple of the English news channels went to court, hauled BARC, Telecom Regulatory Authority (TRAI) and the newcomer before the judge, and even stripped their signals of the viewership monitoring audio watermark.

    Each of them sent out a flurry of private messages to all and sundry, stating their point. BARC sent out only one official statement, during the entire spat.

    Was it shirking its responsibility?

    “No,” stated BARC executives in private conversation. “Our job is to simply monitor television viewing and report honestly with what we have. No matter what each player does on the distribution front. The regulator has to take action.”

    And the regulator TRAI did take action a few days ago by sending out a note warning distribution platforms against going the multiple LCN way for any channel, and ensuring that genre placement is adhered to.

    The move has drawn plaudits from BARC chairman Sudhanshu Vats (he is also the vice-president of the Indian Broadcasting Foundation and Group CEO of Viacom 18).

    “The recent note from TRAI on the LCN issue (titled ‘Listing of TV Channels on Electronic Programme Guide) is a welcome step in the right direction,” says Vats. “It provides all market players with much-needed clarity and clearly spells out the regulator’s view on the issue. Once again TRAI has taken the ‘consumer lens’ and ensured that she remains at the center of the discourse.”

    The BARC chairman further says: “As the dust settles on the matter, three key truths have been proven. The first pertains to BARC and its methods to measure what India watches. In that context, it is safe to say that watermarking is a modern, robust technology that has held the industry in good stead. In record time, BARC has earned a fair share of its currency of trust and all its stakeholders are committed to its mission, including the IBF which backs it in entirety. To be frank, it was wrong to drag BARC into the issue in the first place. The second truth requires us to introspect as an industry.

    It is unfortunate that some members have taken issue with the use of multiple LCNs when many have themselves set the precedent for it – either as a promotional or as a defensive tactic. While this should now abate given the recent direction from TRAI, moving forward, all market players must create consensus internally rather than squander away the valuable time of the courts.”

    He further cautions that the industry should work together to ensure that its shared credibility should not be dented, especially by the players’ own actions. He further explained that the multiscreen future is going to bring up its own challenges and everyone needs to prepare for it.

    “Total Audience Measurement’ (i.e. measurement of content consumption across devices including handheld, desktop, TV etc.) will become the norm. In such an environment, all content players will look at innovative ways to increase their reach and sampling while focusing on delivering winning content. This is the new normal that we all need to prepare for, ” says Vats. “I’ve always thought of our industry as a large family with members who often quarrel but eventually come together. This time will be no different.”

  • BARC India to halt analogue measurement from July, up overall data collection

    NEW DELHI: India’s audience measurement company Broadcast Audience Research Council of India (BARC India) will stop reporting on analogue TV homes’ data from 1 July 2017 with the exception of one State and will add homes with new boxes to augment data collection.

    “We will also stop reporting all analogue homes across the country with the exception of Tamil Nadu from 1July 2017,” BARC India CEO Partho Dasgupta told indiantelevision.com, adding that hopefully the South Indian state too would soon come within the ambit of normal measurement process.

    The move to stop collecting and make available analogue home audience data seems to be aimed at nudging distribution platforms to stop analogue signals and a big hint to TV channels that in a digitized India it was best to go the digital way.

    Dasgupta, who was interacting with indiantelevision.com in an exclusive interview on the occasion of BARC India’s second anniversary, while dwelling on temporary hiccups, said, “With the current digitization mandate for Tamil Nadu, hopefully, analoguereporting will also stop soon there too. All this may lead to some interim flux, but in the long term will improve robustness of our viewership data.”

    The Tamil Nadu-Government run Arasu Cable TV Corporation (TACTV) was granted provisional digital license by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) in April 2017 to operate as a multi-system operator in the state. The late clearance was based on a rider that the MSO switches off analogue signals in the entire state within three months.

    As part of a wide-ranging interview, Dasgupta informed that BARC India’s annual exercise, which is also part of a government mandate, will also see new meter homes (called BAR-o-meters) added this calendar year.

    “This year we will see our (pan-India measurement) panel expanding from 20,000 to 30,000 reporting homes,” Dasgupta said, adding, “Combined with the newly added homes, we will also be seeding some new homes as part of our regular churn policy.”

    The government while giving clearance to BARC India, a joint venture amongst IBF, AAAI and the Indian Society of Advertisers, had made it clear that the number of homes used for data collection should reach 50,000 within a five-year period. BARC India’s predecessor was TAM India, a joint venture between global companies Nielsen and WPP-owned Kantar Media.

    Confirming an earlier indiantelevision.com new story on BARC exploring avenues to collaborate with Indian DTH platforms for return path data (RPD) to augment data collection, Dasgupta said, “We are trying to innovate (with) panel expansion by tying up directly with key DTH and digital cable operators to enable return path (audience) data.”       

    Without disclosing a time-frame for such data-boosting tie-ups with DTH ops, Dasgupta explained, “Our tie-up with DTH operators and MSOs for RPD is an attempt (to bring about more robustness). This will not only increase the number of sample panel homes, but will also make infiltration efforts ineffective. We will innovate more on the meter technology front.”

    Stay tuned for the full interview of Dasgupta, which will be on air soon.

    ALSO READ:

    BARC India in talks with DTH ops, MSOs for RPD to boost robustness

    Arasu gets provisional MSO licence subject to analogue switch-off in three months

    BARC EKAM: Learning online behaviour & ROI from specific campaigns will be easier, industry says

     

  • BARC India formally sets up independent council to probe viewership malpractices complaints

    MUMBAI: BARC India has set up an independent disciplinary council to further strengthen transparency and credibility of its measurement system.

    The six-member BARC India Disciplinary Council (BDC) will investigate and address complaints related to viewership malpractices and tampering of BARC India’s measurement system.

    The BDC will be headed by Punjab & Haryana High Court’s former chief justice Mukul Mudgal and has former Mumbai police commissioner and DGP Maharashtra D Shivanandan and independent technical expert Paritosh Joshi as its members. Viacom18 group general counsel and company secretary Sujeet Jain, GroupM South Asia CEO CVL Srinivas and GCPL AVP corporate legal Pankaj Phadnis are the other members, representing the three stakeholder bodies – IBF, AAAI and ISA.

    BARC India has already set up a vigilance team to probe viewership malpractices complaints, as well as investigate abnormal viewership data recorded from BARC India panel households. The new council will independently examine vigilance team reports, and where culpability is clearly established, it will be empowered to order punitive action appropriate to level of offence. The action could range from written warning and a fine for first level offence, to suspension of viewership data for three months, leading up to termination of BARC India’s contract with the subscriber.

    Alongside setting up of the high-level BDC, BARC India has re-drafted terms of the contract it signs with its subscribers. This has been done to address limitations in the current End User License Agreements (EULA) and strengthen legal provisions that will allow the BDC to act against viewership malpractices. The updated EULA will soon be circulated to all BARC India subscribers, and they would be required to sign them.

    “The BDC is a step forward in our commitment to ensuring transparency, and eradicating this long existing malpractice of panel tampering. We hope to build further credibility in our processes and systems under guidance of Justice Mudgal. The independent council will also benefit from the advice of a seasoned law enforcement expert like Shivanandan, and the continued support of industry stakeholders,” said BARC India CEO Partho Dasgupta.

  • Star & Vijay TV amend plea, TRAI asked by Madras HC to file response

    NEW DELHI: The Madras High Court today decided to hear on 24 March the case by  Star India and Vijay TV alleging that the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India tariff and other orders allegedly were in conflict with Copyright Act 1957.

    This development came after the HC allowed an amended application from petitioners to be filed, which, according to industry sources, broadly states that TRAI regulations involving tariff, etc are bad in law.

    Following the Supreme Court directive of 16 February 2017 on an appeal permitting TRAI to issue its tariff and other orders even as the case would continue in the High Court, both the broadcasters had filed an amended petition. The court also directed TRAI to file its reply by Wednesday next.

    TRAI had issued three regulations, including one on tariff on 16 January 2017, the day the Supreme Court gave its clearance.

    The broadcasters had sought to argue that the TRAI orders are in conflict with the Copyright Act 1957. As a result of that court order and pending the full hearing of the case, TRAI would not be able to pass any guideline for issues such as broadcast tariff, broadcast interconnect, and quality of services. The temporary stay by Madras HC was over-ruled by SC later.

    It is also expected that a final judgment on the case could come about by 3 April 2017 in the Madras HC, if not before that date.

    Last year, TRAI had issued draft guidelines on tariff interconnect and quality of service, and TRAI chairman RS Sharma had then told indiantelevision.com that the regulator would come out with its final recommedation by the end of 2016.

    It may be recalled that the Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF) had also said in reaction to the TRAI drafts that the exercise was in direct conflict with the provisions of the Indian Copyright Act.

    The comments had been stated in a submission to the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconnection (Addressable Systems) Regulations 2016; the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable Services) (Eighth) (Addressable Systems) Tariff Order 2016; and the Standards of Quality of Service) and Consumer Protection (Digital Addressable Systems) Regulations 2016.

    The All India Digital Cable Federation (AIDCF), which had made itself party to the case after being allowed by the Madras High Court, till the time of writing this report had not yet made up its mind whether to further join issues with petitoners’ amended application in Madras High Court.

    Also read

    Maintain status quo on broadcast guidelines, Madras HC tells TRAI