ITV

Tag: Kuldip Singh

  • TDSAT to hear IBF case on tariff on 12 December

    TDSAT to hear IBF case on tariff on 12 December

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has adjourned to 12 December the petition by the Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF), Viacom 18 and MSM India challenging the tariff order amendment of 16 July that was passed by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI).

     

    Chairman Aftab Alam and member Kuldip Singh adjourned the matter as TRAI has still not filed its reply on the matter.

     

    Earlier when the case had come up in August, TDSAT had adjourned the hearing in view of Star India’s case challenging the TRAI order dated 18 July in the Delhi High Court.

     
    The Federation of Hotel and Restaurants Association of India (FHRAI) had then asked for a refund from broadcasters for deals signed before the order came into existence. However the IBF counsel stated that the order only talks of deals taking place in the new regime and the deals for which the FHRAI was asking for refunds were done in advance.

     
    Considering the Delhi HC order and also IBF’s proposition that in a 2012 judgment, the TDSAT had itself said that when an arrangement is ongoing between parties and a tariff order is issued, it is not applicable with retrospective effect, unless mentioned in the order.

     
    The court had in the earlier hearing also asked both parties to ensure all their pleadings were in place by 28 October so that a final verdict could be given on 18 November, which now has been postponed to 12 December.

     

  • TDSAT wants to know who maintains monthly log of activation of a channel

    TDSAT wants to know who maintains monthly log of activation of a channel

    NEW DELHI: Who is meant to maintain the monthly log of the activations of a particular channel: the multi system operator (MSO) or manufacturer, vendor or the supplier of the system?

     
    The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has asked the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) and the Broadcast Engineering Consultants India Limited (BECIL) for certain clarifications on the role of a MSO in the matter of maintaining monthly log of the activations of a particular channel.

     
    Listing the matter for 1 December, chairman justice Aftab Alam and member Kuldip Singh said BECIL will also clarify its finding on the point as to whether the system was not capable of generating the monthly log of activations on a particular channel or on a particular package or the system was not capable to do so without the matter being referred to its provider, that is to say, its manufacturer or supplier.

     
    The issue arose in a case of Den Networks against Sun Distribution Services wherein BECIL had carried out an audit of Den and given a report.

     
    Den submitted that though the provision of monthly log of the activations on a particular channel or on a particular package is indeed an obligation of the MSO, the use of the word ‘system provider’ makes it clear that the capability to provide monthly log of the activations on a particular channel or on a particular package should only lie with the manufacturer, vendor or the supplier of the system and the petitioner, which is an MSO, using the system can only obtain it from its vendor or ‘supplier’ of the system.

     
    TDSAT did not accept this submission and said, “Normally, the system in use in the hands of the MSO should itself be capable of providing monthly log of the activations on a particular channel or on the particular package without the matter being referred every time to the vendor, manufacturer or the supplier of the system.”

     
    The comments from TRAI and BECIL should reach the TDSAT within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

     

  • Tariff orders in case of DTH operators set aside by TDSAT

    Tariff orders in case of DTH operators set aside by TDSAT

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has set aside the tariff orders drawn up by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) in the case of direct-to-home operators.

     

    The judgment follows two separate petitions filed by Dish TV and Bharat Business Channel, in which TDSAT chairman Aftab Alam and member Kuldip Singh clarified that it will be open to TRAI to issue a fresh tariff order after taking into consideration the inputs provided by the appellants and addressing the issues raised by them.

     

    The Tariff Order had been issued by TRAI on 27 May 2013 under the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act 1997 read with notification of 9 January 2004.

     
    The petitioners have alleged that TRAI has no jurisdiction to fix the tariff for the supply of set top boxes (STBs) and there is basis for arriving at the price of STBs. Furthermore, it was alleged that even if TRAI had such powers to fix the tariff or rental for STBs, it has not been exercised lawfully, reasonably and in a non-arbitrary manner and after considering the relevant matters which are required to be considered in price fixation.

     
    Clause 4 of the impugned Tariff Order prescribes tariff for supply and installation of customer premises equipment.

     
    The stand of TRAI is that the operators are offering the services in a bundled form and can spread its costs on the bundled services which include the programming service. TRAI said ‘In view of this fact, the expenditure side of the hardware (CPE) cannot be seen in isolation of the pricing of the bundled service which includes programming service.”

     
    The Tribunal said there was an apparent contradiction in this stand and the main objective of the tariff order which is commercial interoperability. In other words, if a subscriber is not satisfied with the service of an operator or wants to change the operator due to any reason, it is not stuck with the cost of the CPE, it can return the CPE and get its security back at any time.

     
    “In our opinion, one way to address this issue can be to permit the DTH operators to supply recovered/refurbished CPE under the standard tariff order and the subscribers may not insist on new CPE if they want this tariff. However, we may clarify that this is just one example and the respondent is free to address the various issues as it may deem fit. Though all these issues have been raised by the appellants, in our view the same have not been satisfactorily addressed TRAI.”

     
    In view of the above, we find that some elements of cost have not been taken into account and issues raised by the appellants have not been fully addressed by TRAI.

  • BECIL asked to audit Den Networks’ systems following dispute with Sun Distribution Services

    BECIL asked to audit Den Networks’ systems following dispute with Sun Distribution Services

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) today directed the Broadcasting Engineering Consultants India Ltd (BECIL) to undertake an audit of the systems of Den Networks following a dispute with Sun Distribution Services.

     

    TDSAT chairman Aftab Alam and member Kuldip Singh said that KPMG engaged by Sun had undertaken an audit of Den’s head-end in Delhi following an earlier order of the Tribunal, but the report of the auditing agency cast some doubts with regard to the working of Den’s system. 

     

    The Tribunal therefore said: ‘Without going into the details of that report, we think it would be fit and proper to have an audit of the petitioner’s system made by BECIL as provided under the provison to clause 3.4 of the Telecommunication (Broadcasting & Cable Services) Interconnection (Digital Addressable Cable Television Systems) Regulations 2012. ‘

     

    The Tribunal also noted that Den ‘undeniably failed to submit any subscribers’ reports whatsoever’ to Sun, with regard to its various channels for the period November 2012 to July 2013. It also noted that Sun’s counsel had said Den was supplying all its channels without any restriction to all the set top boxes seeded by it to its subscribers, the number of which would run into several lakhs.

     

    After July 2013, the petitioner has been submitting on a monthly basis certain figures relating to the subscribers’ base of the respondent’s different channels, but those too do not conform to the statutory requirements concerning the monthly subscriber management system (SMS) reports, counsel said.

     

    Listing the matter for 29 August, TDSAT listed the issues that BECIL may examine during its audit:

    – Whether or not the CAS and the SMS systems at the petitioner’s head-end are properly integrated and whether or not, it is possible to verify the SMS figures with reference to the data generated from the CAS system.

    – Whether it is technologically possible to find out the true subscriber base for the different channels of the respondent for the period November 2012 to July 2013 by retrieving the relevant data from the petitioner’s CAS system or by any other means.

    – In case it is not possible to find out the true subscriber base for the different channels of the respondent for the period November 2012 to July 2013 with reference to the data retrievable from CAS, what process BECIL might suggest for arriving at a reasonable estimate of the subscriber base for the respondent’s different channels for the period November 2012 to July 2013?

    – Whether or not it is possible to verify the correctness of the subscribers’ figures supplied by the petitioner to the respondent for the period August 2013 to June 2014 with reference to the data retrievable from the petitioner’s CAS system or by any other means. 

    – In case those figures are not verifiable with reference to the data retrievable from the petitioner’s CAS system, what should be the approach for verifying their correctness?

     

    Having regard to nature of the controversy, the BECIL is requested to complete the audit and submit its report within two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.  Needless to say that Den shall accord full cooperation to BECIL in conduct of the audit and shall also bear the entire cost of the audit. 

     

  • TDSAT & Ad cap: TRAI continues arguments

    TDSAT & Ad cap: TRAI continues arguments

    MUMBAI: Continuing to present its side to the Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT), the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) put forth its arguments to the bench consisting of Justice Aftab Alam and member Kuldip Singh.

    It started off continuing on yesterday’s argument trail saying that the law does not state that if the laying requirements are not fulfilled then it becomes void. That is, TRAI cannot execute its regulation on channels. That broadcasters are covered by both the Cable TV Networks Act and the TRAI act is a parliamentary mandate and there is nothing illegal in what it is doing. There are several precedents where a subject matter could be covered by more than one statute,  TRAI counsel  Rakesh Dwivedi stated.

    TRAI also claimed that it has a clear parliamentary mandate exercised through the central government to regulate advertisements. It contested the broadcasters’ arguments that TRAI has just a recommendatory role, by highlighting that it has an additional function under section 11 (1) (a) of the TRAI  Act and that does not mean its plenary functions under section (11) (1) (b) are taken away. Therefore, apart from its recommendatory function under (a), its powers also remain under (b). Both the sub clauses complement each other and there is no clash, the counsel stated.

    Reiterating that it has the authority, it said that what it is aiming to do is in perfect accordance with the powers the ministry and it has under section 7 (11) of the Cable TV Act. Likewise, the counsel, said it is not as if the government is seeking to have a higher allowance for advertising air time and is in disagreement with the limit of 12 minutes that the TRAI is seeking to impose.

    To support its argument, the counsel also read out various preceding judgments. According to the TRAI, broadcasters are licensees under the Telegraph Act and so the regulator has full power to ensure compliance within the licence term.
    Singh asked if TRAI can direct Google on the duration and number of ads it can run. To this, the TRAI counsel replied by saying: ‘I am the regulator and I will decide who, when and how much to regulate.

    Coming to the point raised yesterday about a statement TRAI had made in 2004 that “there should not be any regulation at present on advertisement on both FTA and Pay channels” it said that much water had flown under the bridge since it made its statement and the situation was different today. So, it can deem it appropriate to regulate since an expert opinion at one point of time does not mean that it will stay forever, the counsel stated.

  • Ad cap petitions adjourned till 11 November

    Ad cap petitions adjourned till 11 November

    NEW DELHI: The case challenging the adcap regulations sought to be implemented on television channels was today adjourned to 11 November by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal.

    TDSAT Chairman Justice Aftab Alam and member Kuldip Singh also rejected the interventions filed by Zee, Star and Viacom18, with the Tribunal asking them to file separate applications.

    The News Broadcasters Association had moved TDSAT challenging the constitutional validity of the regulations of Telecom Regulatory Authority of India enforcing the ad cap.

    Several other broadcasters – mostly general entertainment channels – had later moved TDSAT, but the Tribunal had in 30 August accepted the argument by NBA that the cases of the general entertainment channels could not be clubbed with the petition of NBA.

     The news channels are seeking relief from the 10+2 ad cap regulation prescribed by TRAI.

    Senior Counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi on behalf of the NBA sought time as the pleadings were not ready.

    Some regional channels from Kerala also wanted to intervene as petitioners, but TDSAT said their matter would be heard after the main hearing.

    Channels that sought to move to the court today included 9X, B4U, TV Vision and Pioneer Channel Factory of Mumbai, Sun TV Network of Chennai, E24 Glamour, Polimer Media, Reliance Big Network, Eenadu TV, Sarthak Entertainment and Raj TV.

    Later, some general entertainment channels including music channels had also approached TDSAT in various petitions and the Tribunal had decided to hear these matters after the NBA matter.

    Counsel for TRAI said that an anomalous situation had been created with some channels having accepted the adcap with effect from 1 October. It was therefore requested that the matter be resolved once for all.

    Meanwhile, TRAI had been forbidden on 30 August from taking any ‘coercive action’ against news channels who are not abiding by the agreement relating to advertisement time on news channels.

    The Tribunal also said that while the news channels will maintain weekly records of the advertising time per hour on a weekly basis, they will not be required to submit this to the regulator as being done at present and will only submit these to TDSAT at the hearing of the case.

    Counsel for the NBA A J Bhambani had said on 30 August that a delegation of the Indian Broadcasting Foundation had submitted a formula to the regulator but that did not preclude the broadcasters from challenging the validity of the Regulations. He also said that this was only a compromise reached between the broadcasters and the regulator and could not form the basis of penal action since it was not a regulation or legal provision. He had added that there were many members who were common to both the IBF and the NBA, and therefore the IBF had submitted a ‘proposal’ on 29 May this year, which the TRAI accepted. But this could not be construed as a regulation.

    Even otherwise, he argued that TRAI was only empowered by its own Act to make ‘recommendations’ on issues like advertisements and not bring about or enforce regulations and resort to prosecution.

    When the law was invoked by the Authority in May 2012, it was disputed by television broadcasters which had also challenged the jurisdiction of TRAI in this regard before the Tribunal.

  • Ad cap petitions adjourned till 11 November

    Ad cap petitions adjourned till 11 November

    NEW DELHI: The case challenging the adcap regulations sought to be implemented on television channels was today adjourned to 11 November by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal.

     

    TDSAT Chairman Justice Aftab Alam and member Kuldip Singh also rejected the interventions filed by Zee, Star and Viacom18, with the Tribunal asking them to file separate applications.

     

    The News Broadcasters Association had moved TDSAT challenging the constitutional validity of the regulations of Telecom Regulatory Authority of India enforcing the ad cap.

     

    Several other broadcasters – mostly general entertainment channels – had later moved TDSAT, but the Tribunal had in 30 August accepted the argument by NBA that the cases of the general entertainment channels could not be clubbed with the petition of NBA.

     

     The news channels are seeking relief from the 10+2 ad cap regulation prescribed by TRAI.

     

    Senior Counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi on behalf of the NBA sought time as the pleadings were not ready.

     

    Some regional channels from Kerala also wanted to intervene as petitioners, but TDSAT said their matter would be heard after the main hearing.

     

    Channels that sought to move to the court today included 9X, B4U, TV Vision and Pioneer Channel Factory of Mumbai, Sun TV Network of Chennai, E24 Glamour, Polimer Media, Reliance Big Network, Eenadu TV, Sarthak Entertainment and Raj TV.

     

    Later, some general entertainment channels including music channels had also approached TDSAT in various petitions and the Tribunal had decided to hear these matters after the NBA matter.

     

    Counsel for TRAI said that an anomalous situation had been created with some channels having accepted the adcap with effect from 1 October. It was therefore requested that the matter be resolved once for all.

     

    Meanwhile, TRAI had been forbidden on 30 August from taking any ‘coercive action’ against news channels who are not abiding by the agreement relating to advertisement time on news channels.

     

    The Tribunal also said that while the news channels will maintain weekly records of the advertising time per hour on a weekly basis, they will not be required to submit this to the regulator as being done at present and will only submit these to TDSAT at the hearing of the case.

     

    Counsel for the NBA A J Bhambani had said on 30 August that a delegation of the Indian Broadcasting Foundation had submitted a formula to the regulator but that did not preclude the broadcasters from challenging the validity of the Regulations. He also said that this was only a compromise reached between the broadcasters and the regulator and could not form the basis of penal action since it was not a regulation or legal provision. He had added that there were many members who were common to both the IBF and the NBA, and therefore the IBF had submitted a ‘proposal’ on 29 May this year, which the TRAI accepted. But this could not be construed as a regulation.

     

    Even otherwise, he argued that TRAI was only empowered by its own Act to make ‘recommendations’ on issues like advertisements and not bring about or enforce regulations and resort to prosecution.

     

    When the law was invoked by the Authority in May 2012, it was disputed by television broadcasters which had also challenged the jurisdiction of TRAI in this regard before the Tribunal.

  • TRAI directed not to implement ad cap for music channels

    TRAI directed not to implement ad cap for music channels

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) was today directed not to take any coercive action against four music television channels with regards to ad cap.

    Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) member Kuldip Singh after hearing counsel Kunal Tandon directed the matter to come up for further hearing on 21 October.

    The petitions were filed on behalf of Mastiii (owned by TV Vision, Mumbai), B4U, 9X Media, M Tunes HD and Music Xpress.

    Earlier, TDSAT had accepted a similar petition by the News Broadcasters Association (NBA) which challenged the constitutional validity of the regulations of TRAI enforcing the ad cap. That petition has been listed for hearing on 11 November.

    The Tribunal said while the channels will maintain weekly records of the advertising time per hour on a weekly basis, they will not be required to submit this to the regulator. Unlike the current practice, the records will only be submitted to TDSAT at the time of the hearing of the case.

    At that time, Counsel A J Bhambani for the NBA had said that a delegation of the Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF) had submitted a formula to the regulator but that did not preclude the broadcasters from challenging the validity of the regulations.

    He also said that this was only a compromise reached between the broadcasters and the regulator and could not form the basis of penal action since it was not a regulation or legal provision.

  • TDSAT stays TRAIs action against ad cap

    TDSAT stays TRAIs action against ad cap

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) has been left toothless by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT). In an order passed today, the regulator has been forbidden from taking any ‘coercive action’ against news channels for not abiding by the agreement relating to ad cap.

    The petition filed by the News Broadcasters Association (NBA) challenges the constitutional validity of the regulations of TRAI enforcing the ad cap. The petition has been listed for a hearing on 11 November and will be presided by TDSAT chairman Justice Aftab Alam and member Kuldip Singh.

    The tribunal added that while the news channels will maintain weekly records of the advertising time per hour on a weekly basis, they will not be required to submit this to the regulator. Unlike the current practice, the records will only be submitted to TDSAT at the time of the hearing of the case.

    Counsel A J Bhambani for the NBA said that a delegation of the Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF) had submitted a formula to the regulator but that did not preclude the broadcasters from challenging the validity of the regulations.

    He also said that this was only a compromise reached between the broadcasters and the regulator and could not form the basis of penal action since it was not a regulation or legal provision.

    Speaking after TRAI Counsel Saket Singh had presented his arguments, Bhambani said there were many members who were common to both the IBF and the NBA, and therefore the IBF had submitted a ‘proposal’ on 29 May 2013, which the TRAI accepted. But this could not be construed as a regulation.

    But TRAI had begun prosecutions on the basis of this proposal and not on the basis of any law, he stressed.  He said that TRAI had in fact submitted on 11 June before TDSAT that no action would be taken.

    Even otherwise, he said that TRAI was only empowered by its own act to make ‘recommendations’ on issues like advertisements and not bring about or enforce regulations and resort to prosecution.

    When Singh sought to interrupt to say that 20 of the 24 members of NBA were following the formula, Bhambani pointed out that one news channel had recently been forced to retrench a large number of staff.

    Earlier, Singh stressed that the proposal submitted by IBF had been worked out by a group that had the NBA president as one of its members.

    He also stressed that action had been taken only against those broadcasters who had violated the agreed formula more than 20 times.

    He said the proposal had made it clear that with effect from 29 May, the ad time per hour would not be more than 30 minutes. From 1 July, this would be reduced to 20 minutes per hour while GECs will cut this down to 16 minutes. This will be in force until 30 September, following which the 12-minute rule will be enforced from 1 October. TRAI had agreed as it felt this was the best way forward, Singh added.

    However, Justice Alam said that the proposal could be treated as a law and acted upon for prosecution of television channels. Furthermore, it could not preclude the channels from challenging the constitutional validity of the regulations.

    Referring to a point made by Singh, Justice Alam also said it would be unfair to ask for commitments from the channels when they were challenging the validity of the law and TRAI’s status quo in the matter. “This is arm-twisting,” he observed.

    When Singh sought to stress that the channels were violating their own agreement, Justice Alam said “We feel we will test the constitutional validity of your order.”

    He added that TDSAT felt that before taking any action against the channels, TRAI would have either informed the tribunal or at least given a warning to the channels.

    Referring to Singh stressing that the GECs were abiding by the agreement, Justice Alam said there was need to draw a line between news channels and GECs.

    Singh also proposed that TRAI would withdraw the complaints if the channels gave an undertaking before the tribunal about adherence.

    Meanwhile, in its order yesterday on a mention by the NBA counsel, TDSAT said, “Even while the appeals are pending, 14 complaints have been filed by the TRAI against different broadcasters for violation of the standards of quality service (Duration of Advertisements in Television Channels) (Amendment) Regulations 2013 that came into force on 22 March 2013.”

    TDSAT further noted that Singh had admitted that “Not only the complaints have been filed but as a matter of fact, cognizance was taken in those complaints at 2 p.m. today.”

    TDSAT had listed the matter for today and observed, “In view of the fact that the validity of the regulation is under consideration before the tribunal and having regard to the manner in which the matter has been proceeding, we are somewhat surprised at the sudden and drastic action taken by the TRAI.”

    “When we expressed our displeasure over the way the matter has been sought to be precipitated, Singh requested that the matter be taken up tomorrow at 2:30 p.m. so that he may get proper instructions in the matter.  We suggest that Singh should get instructions as to whether the TRAI is willing to withdraw the complaints filed during the pendency of the appeals before the tribunal or at least till an interim order is passed on the issue after hearing both sides.”

    When the law was invoked by the authority in May 2012, it was disputed by television broadcasters which had also challenged the jurisdiction of TRAI in this regard before TDSAT.

    With the news channels having obtained a stay from the TDSAT against any coercive action by TRAI, it remains to be seen how the IBF representing GECs will react and whether it will move TDSAT or any other court for similar stay.

  • Bertelsmann arm acquires majority stake in Networkplay

    Bertelsmann arm acquires majority stake in Networkplay

    MUMBAI: The publishing division of European media conglomerate Bertelsmann AG Gruner + Jahr has acquired a majority stake in Indian digital advertising network Networkplay.

    Digital advertising agency Webchutney, incubated by Networkplay in 2008, was funded by Capital18, the venture capital arm of the Network18 group.

    Gruner + Jahr India CEO Kuldip Singh will join the board at Networkplay shortly. He will also be the CFO of Networkplay.

    The agency has presence on Internet, mobile and DTH platforms and partnerships with advertisers and publishers.

    Since inception, Networkplay has been involved in creating effective and scalable advertising solutions across all digital platforms. Over the last three and a half years, the company has grown to reach an execution capability of over four billion impressions per month across 500 publishers and 350 advertisers.

    Networkplay has also brought global event franchises such as ad:tech and iMedia Summits to India, in partnership with dmg::events, a leading international events company that manages over 80 events in over 25 countries.

    Webchutney founder and CEO Sidharth Rao said, “Ram and his team have built an amazing business from an idea a few years ago. We are very proud and delighted to have believed in Networkplay‘s vision from the first day. A partnership with a leading global company, Gruner + Jahr, will propel Networkplay on a stronger, higher growth path.”

    Gruner + Jahr is a media group and its Electronic Media Sales (EMS) division is a leader in the digital advertising space in Europe. G+J recently acquired majority stake in MaXposure Media and this is their second strategic investment in India.

    BMR Advisors was the exclusive advisor to Capital18 and Webchutney on this transaction.