Tag: MSO

Fifteen cases for extension of Phase III DAS, Rathore says digitization nearly over in most parts

New Delhi: Parliament was told today that cases had been filed or were still pending in around fifteen cities or states seeking extension of the deadline of 31 December 2015 on the ground of shortage of set top boxes with regard to Phase III of Digitization Addressable System.

Minister of State for Information and Broadcasting Rajyavardhan Rathore told the Rajya Sabha that courts in these places had either granted extension of two months or dismissed the petitions with the directions not to disconnect the cable TV network operated by the petitioners and allowed them to operate in analogue system for two to three months

These included Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Nashik, Orissa, Chandigarh, Allahabad, Indore, Kerala, Chhattisgarh, Jaipur, Karnataka, Guwahati, Kolkata and Shimla etc.

In its order, the Bombay high court had said: “Since the Andhra Pradesh high court and Sikkim high court have passed an order of status quo, in view of the observations made by the apex court in the case Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of India [(2004) 6 Supreme Court Cases 254] and more particularly, paragraph 22 of the said order, the question of grant of interim order does not arise in this case.”

The Hyderabad high court in the Telangana and Andhra Pradesh cases further extended the stay for 4 weeks beyond 29 February.

The minister said that the Government was defending all the cases and had also filed a transfer petition in the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, Rathore said digitization has almost been completed in the states of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Meghalaya, Bihar, Goa, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Kerala, Karnataka, Jammu & Kashmir, Maharashtra, Nagaland, Punjab, Sikkim, Uttrakhand, West Bengal and Andaman & Nicobar according to information received from stakeholders.

The data provided by the multi system operators (MSOs), direct to home (DTH) and HITS operators shows that digitisation in Andhra Pradesh, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Odisha, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, and Dadra and Nagar Haveli is nearing completion. In other states and Union Territories it is yet to be fully achieved.

He said that public awareness campaigns were launched in print and electronic media to ensure timely completion.

Since involvement of state governments was crucial for the implementation of digitization, 13 orientation workshops for state and district level nodal officers were held at both central and regional levels. Twelve regional units were established for coordination. Toll free helpline was made operational. A management information system (MIS) was developed wherein MSOs, DTH and HITS operators were entering the details of area wise seeding of STBs at least once a week.

A total of 727 MSOs had been issued registration till 21 February and regular monitoring of progress was made.

Referring to earlier phases, he said it had been completed in Delhi, Kolkata, and Mumbai had been completed on 31 October 2012, except in Chennai since some court cases are pending there.

Phase-II of the cable TV digitization which covered 38 cities having the population more than 10 lakh has been completed by 31 March 2013 except in Coimbatore where some court cases are pending.

March 8, 2016
TDSAT asks Canara Stars for guarantee with regard to arrears to Star India

New Delhi: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal has said it may take appropriate action if Canara Star fails to furnish the required guarantee as sought by Star India in their long-pending dispute.

Meanwhile, Chairman Justice Aftab Alam and member Kuldip Singh listed the matter for 9 March. The Tribunal took note of the fact that Canara Star had given a payment schedule to Star India which was represented by Counsel Arjun Natarajan. Earlier last month, the Tribunal had given time in two different hearings to Canara Star to furnish the guarantee.

In the hearing in the third week of December last year, the Tribunal had asked Canara Star to intimate Star India whether it admits the SMS reports submitted by the broadcaster for the period 2014 to January 2015.

The common order by the Tribunal on three petitions including one by Star India against Canara Star claiming recovery dues of about Rs 3 crore pertaining to the MSO’s operations in DAS area of Bangalore said this was subject to the two parties failing to arrive at a final settlement.

The directive had come after being informed by Canara Star counsel Tushar Singh that the parties had failed to resolve the dispute, though Star India counsel Kunal Tandon and Arjun Natarajan had told the Tribunal that no attempts had been made by Canara Star to resolve the dispute.

The Tribunal had also asked Canara to produce its bank statements and materials to show payments made by it towards invoices raised by Star India based on Canara’s SMS reports.

Canara, which has allegedly sold off its business to another MSO called All Digital, was to produce its deed of transfer of establishment to All Digital which was made a party in the petition filed by Star India.

The other two petitions are by Canara Star challenging disconnection notices issues by Star India for analogue areas of Kumta and Bhatkal.

March 4, 2016
TDSAT asks Canara Stars for guarantee with regard to arrears to Star India

New Delhi: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal has said it may take appropriate action if Canara Star fails to furnish the required guarantee as sought by Star India in their long-pending dispute.

Meanwhile, Chairman Justice Aftab Alam and member Kuldip Singh listed the matter for 9 March. The Tribunal took note of the fact that Canara Star had given a payment schedule to Star India which was represented by Counsel Arjun Natarajan. Earlier last month, the Tribunal had given time in two different hearings to Canara Star to furnish the guarantee.

In the hearing in the third week of December last year, the Tribunal had asked Canara Star to intimate Star India whether it admits the SMS reports submitted by the broadcaster for the period 2014 to January 2015.

The common order by the Tribunal on three petitions including one by Star India against Canara Star claiming recovery dues of about Rs 3 crore pertaining to the MSO’s operations in DAS area of Bangalore said this was subject to the two parties failing to arrive at a final settlement.

The directive had come after being informed by Canara Star counsel Tushar Singh that the parties had failed to resolve the dispute, though Star India counsel Kunal Tandon and Arjun Natarajan had told the Tribunal that no attempts had been made by Canara Star to resolve the dispute.

The Tribunal had also asked Canara to produce its bank statements and materials to show payments made by it towards invoices raised by Star India based on Canara’s SMS reports.

Canara, which has allegedly sold off its business to another MSO called All Digital, was to produce its deed of transfer of establishment to All Digital which was made a party in the petition filed by Star India.

The other two petitions are by Canara Star challenging disconnection notices issues by Star India for analogue areas of Kumta and Bhatkal.

March 4, 2016
Total number of MSO provisional licence holders rises to 522, taking total to over 750

NEW DELHI: Even as the Government got a fillip with the Supreme Court saying that Bombay High Court order did not imply a pan-India stay of digital addressable systems, 26 more multi-system operators got registration in the third week last month and took the total number to 753 including 231 which have permanent (ten-year licences) by 26 February.

The last list issued on 17 February had put the total at 727 including the 231 which have permanent (ten-year) licences. The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) had by 12 January cancelled the licences of 26 MSOs and closed their cases. According to the list issued today, the areas of operation of some of the MSOs have been revised or amended.

The new licencees have all got state-wise licences and none has got a pan-India licence. These are from Gujarat, Assam, Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka, Rajasthan, Uttarakhand, Maharashtra, Utar Pradesh, Chhatisgarh, Telangana, Odisha, Andhra Pradesh, and West Bengal.

With the Home Ministry directive about doing away with security clearances for MSOs not being communicated in writing to the MIB, the pace remains slow.

The permanent licence issued to Kal Cable of Chennai had been cancelled on 20 August, 2014 but this cancellation was set aside by Madras High Court on 5 September the same year. However, Kal Cable’s name continues to be in the cancelled list – presumably because the cases are still pending.

Sources said many MSOs holding provisional licences had not completed certain formalities relating to shareholders and so on.

March 3, 2016
Total number of MSO provisional licence holders rises to 522, taking total to over 750

NEW DELHI: Even as the Government got a fillip with the Supreme Court saying that Bombay High Court order did not imply a pan-India stay of digital addressable systems, 26 more multi-system operators got registration in the third week last month and took the total number to 753 including 231 which have permanent (ten-year licences) by 26 February.

The last list issued on 17 February had put the total at 727 including the 231 which have permanent (ten-year) licences. The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) had by 12 January cancelled the licences of 26 MSOs and closed their cases. According to the list issued today, the areas of operation of some of the MSOs have been revised or amended.

The new licencees have all got state-wise licences and none has got a pan-India licence. These are from Gujarat, Assam, Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka, Rajasthan, Uttarakhand, Maharashtra, Utar Pradesh, Chhatisgarh, Telangana, Odisha, Andhra Pradesh, and West Bengal.

With the Home Ministry directive about doing away with security clearances for MSOs not being communicated in writing to the MIB, the pace remains slow.

The permanent licence issued to Kal Cable of Chennai had been cancelled on 20 August, 2014 but this cancellation was set aside by Madras High Court on 5 September the same year. However, Kal Cable’s name continues to be in the cancelled list – presumably because the cases are still pending.

Sources said many MSOs holding provisional licences had not completed certain formalities relating to shareholders and so on.

March 3, 2016
TDSAT dismisses LCO petition, asks TRAI why there is only one MSO in Malway in Punjab

New Delhi: Even as it dismissed a petition by Malwa Cable Operators seeking cable TV signals, the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal asked the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India to ‘ponder over and address’ why there were no other multisystem operators in the area.

It said the rejection of the petition by the Malwa Cable Operators Sangarsh Committee seeking signals from Fastway Transmission Pvt. Ltd was ‘not due to any lacuna in the law’.

“It is because there is no one other than the respondent to whom these LCOs may go for supply of signals. How and why such a situation has arisen is a question for the regulator to ponder over and to address,” chairman Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said in their judgment yesterday.

They said: “On a careful consideration of the submissions made before us, we come to the conclusion that no reliefs can be granted to the petitioner by the Tribunal”.

Apart from relying on its own previous judgments, the Tribunal noted that the MSO had made clear that it was not supplying signals in analogue mode to any LCO in the State of Punjab and that it was willing to supply signals to the petitioner LCOs “as per its rate card on the basis of which alone it is supplying signals to other LCOs in the state.”

The Tribunal also took note of an earlier allegation by the LCOs that Fastway had set up a dummy operator which was supplying signals in the area of operation of the petitioner LCOs in analogue mode and on much cheaper rates.

Referring to arguments raised by lawyers from both sides on the must provide and non-discrimination clauses, the Tribunal said: “In our view, the two principles of ‘must provide’ and ‘on-discrimination’ as the basis of interconnection cannot operate separately but are inseparable. All that those principles mean is that a distributor cannot refuse to supply signals to a LCO and it must supply signals to the LCO seeking signals from it in the same mode and on the same terms and at the same rate at which it might be giving its signals to another LCO, comparable to the one seeking the signals. As long as the distributor does not supply signals to anyone except in DAS mode, the principle of “must provide” cannot be invoked to compel it to supply signals to anyone in analogue mode”.

Counsel Abhishek Malhotra had during arguments referred to clause 3 of the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconnection Regulations 2004 and submitted that the scheme of interconnection envisaged by the regulations was based on the twin principles of ‘must provide’ and ‘non-discrimination’. He submitted that as one of the principles of interconnection was ‘must provide’ the respondent was obliged to supply signals to the petitioner LCOs and they would be free to retransmit the signals in their area of operation in analogue mode as that area was yet to come under the DAS regime.

The Tribunal noted that it was on a consideration of the recommendations made by TRAI that the Central Government issued the notification dated 11 November 2011 (later amended on 11 September 2014) introducing digitisation of cable TV systems in four phases over a period of four and a half years. “As noted above, the language of the notification is such that it would be unlawful to make transmission in analogue mode in any part of the country that has come under the DAS regime as per the schedule given in the notification. But it is not unlawful to make transmission through digital addressable system in any part of the country that is yet to come under the DAS regime”, the Tribunal said.

Referring to arguments by Fastway counsel Naveen Chawla, the Tribunal said there was nothing to show that Fastway had committed any breach of any regulations or tariff orders framed by TRAI in either making the packages of channels or in fixing the rates of those packages. Moreover, the language of the notification issued under Section 4A of the CTN(R) Act and the relevant provisions of TRAI regulation is quite plain and to give them any other meaning on the plea of hardship caused to the LCOs would be doing violence to the plain language of the notification and the regulations.

LCO counsel Vineet Bhagat had submitted that the scheme of digitisation was a phased scheme and it would be unreasonable and unjust to thrust upon the poor LCOs the digital addressable system of transmission even before the date of its enforcement under the Government notification.

March 2, 2016
TDSAT dismisses LCO petition, asks TRAI why there is only one MSO in Malway in Punjab

New Delhi: Even as it dismissed a petition by Malwa Cable Operators seeking cable TV signals, the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal asked the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India to ‘ponder over and address’ why there were no other multisystem operators in the area.

It said the rejection of the petition by the Malwa Cable Operators Sangarsh Committee seeking signals from Fastway Transmission Pvt. Ltd was ‘not due to any lacuna in the law’.

“It is because there is no one other than the respondent to whom these LCOs may go for supply of signals. How and why such a situation has arisen is a question for the regulator to ponder over and to address,” chairman Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said in their judgment yesterday.

They said: “On a careful consideration of the submissions made before us, we come to the conclusion that no reliefs can be granted to the petitioner by the Tribunal”.

Apart from relying on its own previous judgments, the Tribunal noted that the MSO had made clear that it was not supplying signals in analogue mode to any LCO in the State of Punjab and that it was willing to supply signals to the petitioner LCOs “as per its rate card on the basis of which alone it is supplying signals to other LCOs in the state.”

The Tribunal also took note of an earlier allegation by the LCOs that Fastway had set up a dummy operator which was supplying signals in the area of operation of the petitioner LCOs in analogue mode and on much cheaper rates.

Referring to arguments raised by lawyers from both sides on the must provide and non-discrimination clauses, the Tribunal said: “In our view, the two principles of ‘must provide’ and ‘on-discrimination’ as the basis of interconnection cannot operate separately but are inseparable. All that those principles mean is that a distributor cannot refuse to supply signals to a LCO and it must supply signals to the LCO seeking signals from it in the same mode and on the same terms and at the same rate at which it might be giving its signals to another LCO, comparable to the one seeking the signals. As long as the distributor does not supply signals to anyone except in DAS mode, the principle of “must provide” cannot be invoked to compel it to supply signals to anyone in analogue mode”.

Counsel Abhishek Malhotra had during arguments referred to clause 3 of the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconnection Regulations 2004 and submitted that the scheme of interconnection envisaged by the regulations was based on the twin principles of ‘must provide’ and ‘non-discrimination’. He submitted that as one of the principles of interconnection was ‘must provide’ the respondent was obliged to supply signals to the petitioner LCOs and they would be free to retransmit the signals in their area of operation in analogue mode as that area was yet to come under the DAS regime.

The Tribunal noted that it was on a consideration of the recommendations made by TRAI that the Central Government issued the notification dated 11 November 2011 (later amended on 11 September 2014) introducing digitisation of cable TV systems in four phases over a period of four and a half years. “As noted above, the language of the notification is such that it would be unlawful to make transmission in analogue mode in any part of the country that has come under the DAS regime as per the schedule given in the notification. But it is not unlawful to make transmission through digital addressable system in any part of the country that is yet to come under the DAS regime”, the Tribunal said.

Referring to arguments by Fastway counsel Naveen Chawla, the Tribunal said there was nothing to show that Fastway had committed any breach of any regulations or tariff orders framed by TRAI in either making the packages of channels or in fixing the rates of those packages. Moreover, the language of the notification issued under Section 4A of the CTN(R) Act and the relevant provisions of TRAI regulation is quite plain and to give them any other meaning on the plea of hardship caused to the LCOs would be doing violence to the plain language of the notification and the regulations.

LCO counsel Vineet Bhagat had submitted that the scheme of digitisation was a phased scheme and it would be unreasonable and unjust to thrust upon the poor LCOs the digital addressable system of transmission even before the date of its enforcement under the Government notification.

March 2, 2016
TDSAT to hear Mumbai MSO’s review against BECIL report on dispute with Star India

NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has agreed to hear a review application by the Mumbai multi system operator (MSO) Home Systems Pvt Ltd on the report of the Broadcast Engineering Consultants (India) Ltd (BECIL) relating to a case between the petitioner and Star India.

However, TDSAT chairman Justice Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said that Home Systems must make payment to Star India in terms of the previous order.

The payment will be subject to the final result of the review application, the Tribunal said while fixing the date for 4 March.

In its order, the Tribunal noted that, “Through the device of this review application, a fresh hearing is practically sought to be made on Home System’s objection to the BECIL reports.”

Though the Tribunal saw no reason to alter or modify its order of 21 January, it accepted the plea by Home Systems counsel J K Mehta to get more instructions in the matter. Mehta also stated that Hone Systems was willing to make payment to Star India in terms of the previous order “but it would not like to carry the stigma of the Tribunal’s observation that its operations were in contravention of statutory norms.”

While noting that it was not averse to hearing Mehta further “as we will not like any injustice to be caused by our order as the petitioner appears to be highly concerned about its credibility,” the Tribunal expressed the hope that BECIL counsel Rajiv Sharma would also be presented in the next hearing along with the author of the supplementary report of BECIL of 6 November last.

February 25, 2016
TDSAT to hear Mumbai MSO’s review against BECIL report on dispute with Star India

NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has agreed to hear a review application by the Mumbai multi system operator (MSO) Home Systems Pvt Ltd on the report of the Broadcast Engineering Consultants (India) Ltd (BECIL) relating to a case between the petitioner and Star India.

However, TDSAT chairman Justice Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said that Home Systems must make payment to Star India in terms of the previous order.

The payment will be subject to the final result of the review application, the Tribunal said while fixing the date for 4 March.

In its order, the Tribunal noted that, “Through the device of this review application, a fresh hearing is practically sought to be made on Home System’s objection to the BECIL reports.”

Though the Tribunal saw no reason to alter or modify its order of 21 January, it accepted the plea by Home Systems counsel J K Mehta to get more instructions in the matter. Mehta also stated that Hone Systems was willing to make payment to Star India in terms of the previous order “but it would not like to carry the stigma of the Tribunal’s observation that its operations were in contravention of statutory norms.”

While noting that it was not averse to hearing Mehta further “as we will not like any injustice to be caused by our order as the petitioner appears to be highly concerned about its credibility,” the Tribunal expressed the hope that BECIL counsel Rajiv Sharma would also be presented in the next hearing along with the author of the supplementary report of BECIL of 6 November last.

February 25, 2016
TDSAT directs Karnataka MSO to pay monthly subscription pending dispute with Star India

NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has directed Karnataka based multi system operator (MSO) V4 Media to make payment of the monthly subscription fee at the rate of the last invoice raised by Star India until settlement of their dispute.

TDSAT chairman Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava listed the matter for 2 March and asked V4 Media counsel V Subrahmaniam to file the position about ownership pattern of the MSO.

Earlier, the parties had been negotiating for entering into a fresh agreement. According to Subrahmaniam, the negotiation was not making any headway because Star India insisted on a 10 per cent increase in the subscriber base over the last agreement.

V4 Media, however was unable to accept the demand and according to Subrahmaniam, there was no actual increase in the MSO’s subscriber base.

Subrahmaniam also informed there was a split in the partnership firm V4 Media and after the split, the two sides also split up the earlier subscriber base.

She submitted that she would file the deed under which the partnership was reconstituted and the current SLR of the V4 Media following the reconstitution at Star India’s Mangalore office. On receipt of this, Star would then inform the Tribunal about its stand in the matter.

February 24, 2016