Tag: MSOs

  • 30 MSOs got provisional licences in Oct, taking total to 1033

    30 MSOs got provisional licences in Oct, taking total to 1033

    NEW DELHI: With 30 more multi-system operators (MSOs) getting provisional registration in October, the total has risen to 1033 with just around seven weeks to go for switching off analogue signals and completion of digital addressable system for cable television around the country.

    While the total of provisional licences as on 31 October went up from 774 to 804, the number of permanent licences (10 years) remained static at 229.

    The Information and Broadcasting Ministry today released the list of 42 MSOs – as against 29 MSOs at the end of September — licences of which had been cancelled and cases closed. In addition, there are four cases — Godfather Communication Pvt. Ltd of Amritsar, Kal Cables Pvt Ltd of Chennai, Digi Cable Network (India) Pvt Ltd of Mumbai, and Intermedia Cable Communication Pvt. Ltd of Delhi — in which high courts stayed the cancellation orders in petitions filed by these MSOs.

    The number of cancellations or cases closed has gone up by 15 since 2 June this year. Most of the other cases in the list of cancelled registrations had failed to get security clearance from the home ministry. However, there are cases of many MSOs holding provisional licences not completing certain formalities relating to shareholders and so on.

    According to the latest list up to 31 October 2016, the areas of operation of four MSOs (two each in the permanent and provisional list) have been revised or corrected after 30 September 2016. Of the new licencees, two — Enyes Network Communication Private Ltd of Tamil Nadu and Satcom Satellite Network of Mumbai – have got pan-India licences.

    The other new registrations after September 2016 include the states of, or specific districts in, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Uttarakhand, Gujarat, Karnataka, and Punjab.

    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.

    In the last meeting of the DAS Task Force, it was revealed that though there were a reported 6000 MSOs in the country but only a handful of them had come forward to register.

    Also read:  MSOs finally cross 1000 as pan-India DAS deadline nears

  • MSOs finally cross 1000 as pan-India DAS deadline nears

    MSOs finally cross 1000 as pan-India DAS deadline nears

    NEW DELHI: With less than three months to go for the deadline of the final phase which will complete cable digitlization all over the country, the total number of multi-system operators has finally crossed 1000 with 774 getting provisional licences till 30 September 2016.

    The deadline is 31 December 2016.

    The number of permanent licences (up to 10 years) remains at 229 and the total therefore is 1003 MSOs.

    The Information and Broadcasting Ministry today released the list of 29 MSOs whose licences have been cancelled and cases closed. In addition, there are four cases in which some high courts have stayed the cancellation orders in petitions filed by these MSOs.

    Until 2 June this year, the number of cases closed was 27, and so the number has gone up by another two. In most of the other cases in the list of cancelled registrations, it is because of failure to get security clearance from the home ministry. However, there are cases of many MSOs holding provisional licences not completing certain formalities relating to shareholders and so on.

    Four MSOs earlier in the cancellation list have been restored licences. They include Silverline Entertainment, Eminent Cable Networks, and Skynet Digital Services which got security clearance from the Home Ministry and Tanuku Communication Network of Andhra Pradesh which has got provisional licence.

    According to the latest list up to 30 September 2016, the areas of operation of four MSOs have been revised after 30 September 2016 (three in the permanent list and one in the provisional list).

    Of the new licencees, three – Radient Digitek Network Pvt. Ltd of Rajasthan, Dabang Duniya Publication Pvt. Ltd of Madhya Pradesh, and Alfa Cable of Mumbai – have got pan-India licences, though Radient is minus Rajasthan.

    The other new registrations after June 2016 include the states of, or specific districts in, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Maharashtra, Odisha, Tamil Nadu, Uttarakhand, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Telangana, Gujarat, Karnataka, Chhatisgarh, and Andhra Pradesh Maharashtra, Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, West Bengal, Kerala, Telengana, Jammu and Kashmir, and Meghalaya.

    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.

    In the last meeting of the DAS Task Force, MIB joint secretary had said that there were six thousand MSOs in the country but only a handful of them had come forward to register.

  • MSOs finally cross 1000 as pan-India DAS deadline nears

    MSOs finally cross 1000 as pan-India DAS deadline nears

    NEW DELHI: With less than three months to go for the deadline of the final phase which will complete cable digitlization all over the country, the total number of multi-system operators has finally crossed 1000 with 774 getting provisional licences till 30 September 2016.

    The deadline is 31 December 2016.

    The number of permanent licences (up to 10 years) remains at 229 and the total therefore is 1003 MSOs.

    The Information and Broadcasting Ministry today released the list of 29 MSOs whose licences have been cancelled and cases closed. In addition, there are four cases in which some high courts have stayed the cancellation orders in petitions filed by these MSOs.

    Until 2 June this year, the number of cases closed was 27, and so the number has gone up by another two. In most of the other cases in the list of cancelled registrations, it is because of failure to get security clearance from the home ministry. However, there are cases of many MSOs holding provisional licences not completing certain formalities relating to shareholders and so on.

    Four MSOs earlier in the cancellation list have been restored licences. They include Silverline Entertainment, Eminent Cable Networks, and Skynet Digital Services which got security clearance from the Home Ministry and Tanuku Communication Network of Andhra Pradesh which has got provisional licence.

    According to the latest list up to 30 September 2016, the areas of operation of four MSOs have been revised after 30 September 2016 (three in the permanent list and one in the provisional list).

    Of the new licencees, three – Radient Digitek Network Pvt. Ltd of Rajasthan, Dabang Duniya Publication Pvt. Ltd of Madhya Pradesh, and Alfa Cable of Mumbai – have got pan-India licences, though Radient is minus Rajasthan.

    The other new registrations after June 2016 include the states of, or specific districts in, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Maharashtra, Odisha, Tamil Nadu, Uttarakhand, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Telangana, Gujarat, Karnataka, Chhatisgarh, and Andhra Pradesh Maharashtra, Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, West Bengal, Kerala, Telengana, Jammu and Kashmir, and Meghalaya.

    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.

    In the last meeting of the DAS Task Force, MIB joint secretary had said that there were six thousand MSOs in the country but only a handful of them had come forward to register.

  • TRAI expects stakeholders to work towards infrastructure sharing

    TRAI expects stakeholders to work towards infrastructure sharing

    NEW DELHI: India is witnessing a huge growth in the television sector and is on the threshold of complete digitization. The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India has asked stakeholders as to whether they feel the need for infrastructure sharing – irrespective of whether it is cable TV and HITS operators, DTH operators, or CAS and SMS. 

    Stakeholders have been asked to send in their comment by 21 October, 2016, with counter-comments on 4 November 2016. At the outset, TRAI says the country now has 864 private television channels apart from six private DTH players and two HITS players and a large number of MSOs and LCOs and infrastructure sharing may help the industry to grow. 

    “There appears to be a distinct possibility for sharing of distribution infrastructure among multiple DPOs for its optimal utilization. It may result in reduction in capital expenditure and operating expenditure for distributors,” says the regulator.

    Infrastructure includes satellite transponder, earth station, Head-end, Hybrid Fibre Coaxial (HFC) network, conditional access system (CAS) and subscriber management system (SMS) used for delivery of the TV broadcasting services to the subscribers.

    Each multi-channel distribution platform retransmits large number of satellite TV channels. Of these large number of satellite TV channels retransmitted by each operator, many are common across the distribution platforms in a relevant market. Therefore, retransmission of such common channels independently on each distribution platform ends up duplicating the infrastructure.

    In the light of this, TRAI has asked the stakeholders to consider certain points:

    Infrastructure sharing among Cable TV and HITS operators

    (1) Is there a need to enable infrastructure sharing among MSOs and HITS operators, or among MSOs? It is important to note that no mandate for such infrastructure sharing is being proposed.

    (2) Which model is preferred for sharing of infrastructure among MSOs and HITS operators, or among MSOs?

    Infrastructure sharing among DTH operators

    (3) Is there a need to enable infrastructure sharing among DTH operators?

    Relevant issues in sharing of infrastructure

    (4) What specific amendments are required in the cable TV Act and the Rules made there under to enable sharing of infrastructure among MSOs themselves?  

    (5) What specific amendments are required in the MSO registration conditions and HITS licensing guidelines in order to enable sharing of infrastructure among MSOs and HITS operators? 

    (6) What specific amendments are required in the guidelines for obtaining license for providing DTH broadcasting service to enable sharing of infrastructure among DTH operators? 

     (7) Do you envisage any requirement for amendment in the policy framework for satellite communication in India to enable sharing of infrastructure among MSOs and HITS operators, and among DTH operators? If yes, then what specific amendments would be required? 

    (8) Do you envisage any requirement for amendments in the NOCC guidelines and WPC license conditions relating to satellite communications to enable sharing of infrastructure among MSOs and HITS operators, and among DTH operators? If yes, then what specific amendments would be required?

    (9) Do you envisage any requirement for amendments in any other policy guidelines to enable sharing of infrastructure among MSOs and HITS operators, among MSOs, and among DTH operators?

     (10) What mechanisms could be put in place for disconnection of signals of TV channels of defaulting operator without affecting the operations of the other associated operators with that network after implementation of sharing of infrastructure among MSOs and HITS operators, among MSOs, and among DTH operators?

    (11) Is there any requirement for tripartite agreement to enable sharing of infrastructure among MSOs and HITS operators, among MSOs, and among DTH operators? Kindly elucidate with justification.

    (12) What techniques could be put in place for identification of pirates after implementation of sharing of infrastructure among MSOs and HITS operators, among MSOs, and among DTH operators?

    (13) Is there any need for further strengthening of anti-piracy measures already in place to enable sharing of infrastructure among MSOs and HITS operators, among MSOs, and among DTH operators?

    (14) Is there a requirement to ensure geographically targeted advertisements in the distribution networks? If yes, then what could be the possible methods for enabling geographically targeted advertisements in shared infrastructure set up?

    (15) Whether it is possible for the network operator to run the scrolls and logo on the specific STBs population on request of either the broadcaster or the service delivery operator after implementation of sharing of infrastructure among MSOs and HITS operators, among MSOs, and among DTH operators?

    (16) Whether implementation of infrastructure sharing affects the differentiation and personalization of the TV broadcasting services and EPG? If yes, then how those constraints can be addressed?

    (17) Whether, in your opinion, satellite capacity is a limiting factor for sharing of infrastructure? If yes, then what could be the solutions to address the issue?

    Sharing of CAS and SMS

    (18) Is there a need to permit sharing of SMS and CAS? 

     (19) If yes, then what additional measures need to taken to ensure that SMS data remain accessible to the tax assessment authorities and Authorized officers as defined in the Cable TV Act for the purpose of monitoring the compliance with relevant the Rules and the Regulations?

    (20) Whether sharing of CAS can in any way compromise the requirement of encryption as envisaged in the Cable TV Act and The rules and the regulations. 

  • TRAI expects stakeholders to work towards infrastructure sharing

    TRAI expects stakeholders to work towards infrastructure sharing

    NEW DELHI: India is witnessing a huge growth in the television sector and is on the threshold of complete digitization. The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India has asked stakeholders as to whether they feel the need for infrastructure sharing – irrespective of whether it is cable TV and HITS operators, DTH operators, or CAS and SMS. 

    Stakeholders have been asked to send in their comment by 21 October, 2016, with counter-comments on 4 November 2016. At the outset, TRAI says the country now has 864 private television channels apart from six private DTH players and two HITS players and a large number of MSOs and LCOs and infrastructure sharing may help the industry to grow. 

    “There appears to be a distinct possibility for sharing of distribution infrastructure among multiple DPOs for its optimal utilization. It may result in reduction in capital expenditure and operating expenditure for distributors,” says the regulator.

    Infrastructure includes satellite transponder, earth station, Head-end, Hybrid Fibre Coaxial (HFC) network, conditional access system (CAS) and subscriber management system (SMS) used for delivery of the TV broadcasting services to the subscribers.

    Each multi-channel distribution platform retransmits large number of satellite TV channels. Of these large number of satellite TV channels retransmitted by each operator, many are common across the distribution platforms in a relevant market. Therefore, retransmission of such common channels independently on each distribution platform ends up duplicating the infrastructure.

    In the light of this, TRAI has asked the stakeholders to consider certain points:

    Infrastructure sharing among Cable TV and HITS operators

    (1) Is there a need to enable infrastructure sharing among MSOs and HITS operators, or among MSOs? It is important to note that no mandate for such infrastructure sharing is being proposed.

    (2) Which model is preferred for sharing of infrastructure among MSOs and HITS operators, or among MSOs?

    Infrastructure sharing among DTH operators

    (3) Is there a need to enable infrastructure sharing among DTH operators?

    Relevant issues in sharing of infrastructure

    (4) What specific amendments are required in the cable TV Act and the Rules made there under to enable sharing of infrastructure among MSOs themselves?  

    (5) What specific amendments are required in the MSO registration conditions and HITS licensing guidelines in order to enable sharing of infrastructure among MSOs and HITS operators? 

    (6) What specific amendments are required in the guidelines for obtaining license for providing DTH broadcasting service to enable sharing of infrastructure among DTH operators? 

     (7) Do you envisage any requirement for amendment in the policy framework for satellite communication in India to enable sharing of infrastructure among MSOs and HITS operators, and among DTH operators? If yes, then what specific amendments would be required? 

    (8) Do you envisage any requirement for amendments in the NOCC guidelines and WPC license conditions relating to satellite communications to enable sharing of infrastructure among MSOs and HITS operators, and among DTH operators? If yes, then what specific amendments would be required?

    (9) Do you envisage any requirement for amendments in any other policy guidelines to enable sharing of infrastructure among MSOs and HITS operators, among MSOs, and among DTH operators?

     (10) What mechanisms could be put in place for disconnection of signals of TV channels of defaulting operator without affecting the operations of the other associated operators with that network after implementation of sharing of infrastructure among MSOs and HITS operators, among MSOs, and among DTH operators?

    (11) Is there any requirement for tripartite agreement to enable sharing of infrastructure among MSOs and HITS operators, among MSOs, and among DTH operators? Kindly elucidate with justification.

    (12) What techniques could be put in place for identification of pirates after implementation of sharing of infrastructure among MSOs and HITS operators, among MSOs, and among DTH operators?

    (13) Is there any need for further strengthening of anti-piracy measures already in place to enable sharing of infrastructure among MSOs and HITS operators, among MSOs, and among DTH operators?

    (14) Is there a requirement to ensure geographically targeted advertisements in the distribution networks? If yes, then what could be the possible methods for enabling geographically targeted advertisements in shared infrastructure set up?

    (15) Whether it is possible for the network operator to run the scrolls and logo on the specific STBs population on request of either the broadcaster or the service delivery operator after implementation of sharing of infrastructure among MSOs and HITS operators, among MSOs, and among DTH operators?

    (16) Whether implementation of infrastructure sharing affects the differentiation and personalization of the TV broadcasting services and EPG? If yes, then how those constraints can be addressed?

    (17) Whether, in your opinion, satellite capacity is a limiting factor for sharing of infrastructure? If yes, then what could be the solutions to address the issue?

    Sharing of CAS and SMS

    (18) Is there a need to permit sharing of SMS and CAS? 

     (19) If yes, then what additional measures need to taken to ensure that SMS data remain accessible to the tax assessment authorities and Authorized officers as defined in the Cable TV Act for the purpose of monitoring the compliance with relevant the Rules and the Regulations?

    (20) Whether sharing of CAS can in any way compromise the requirement of encryption as envisaged in the Cable TV Act and The rules and the regulations. 

  • DAS effect: MIB registered MSOs’ list nears 1,000

    DAS effect: MIB registered MSOs’ list nears 1,000

    NEW DELHI: Although the government is adamant about extending the deadline of the final phase of digital addressable system, the couutry which claims to have more than 60,000 cable operators is finally nearing a total of 1000 multi-system operators who provide signals to them.

    The total of MSOs went up to 966 by 28 July 2016, with 26 MSOs gettomg the green signal as provisional licencees after 28 June 2016. The number of permanent licencees (up to ten years) remains at 229.

    The Information and Broadcasting Ministry had cancelled the licences of 27 MSOs and closed their cases by 2 June 2016. In most of the other cases in the list of cancelled registrations, it is because of failure to get security clearance from the Home ministry. However, there are cases of many MSOs holding provisional licences for failing to complete certain formalities relating to shareholders and so on.

    According to the latest list upto 28 July 2016, the area of operation of three MSOs including one permanent licensee have been revised after 28 June, one of which – Radiant Digitek Network Pvt. Ltd of Kota – which already had a permanent licence for has now got licence to operate pan-India on a provisional licence. .

    The other new registrations include the states of, or specific districts in, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Uttarakhand, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal, Kerala, and Andhra Pradesh.

    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.

  • DAS effect: MIB registered MSOs’ list nears 1,000

    DAS effect: MIB registered MSOs’ list nears 1,000

    NEW DELHI: Although the government is adamant about extending the deadline of the final phase of digital addressable system, the couutry which claims to have more than 60,000 cable operators is finally nearing a total of 1000 multi-system operators who provide signals to them.

    The total of MSOs went up to 966 by 28 July 2016, with 26 MSOs gettomg the green signal as provisional licencees after 28 June 2016. The number of permanent licencees (up to ten years) remains at 229.

    The Information and Broadcasting Ministry had cancelled the licences of 27 MSOs and closed their cases by 2 June 2016. In most of the other cases in the list of cancelled registrations, it is because of failure to get security clearance from the Home ministry. However, there are cases of many MSOs holding provisional licences for failing to complete certain formalities relating to shareholders and so on.

    According to the latest list upto 28 July 2016, the area of operation of three MSOs including one permanent licensee have been revised after 28 June, one of which – Radiant Digitek Network Pvt. Ltd of Kota – which already had a permanent licence for has now got licence to operate pan-India on a provisional licence. .

    The other new registrations include the states of, or specific districts in, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Uttarakhand, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal, Kerala, and Andhra Pradesh.

    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.

  • MSO number touches 940 with forty more getting clearance in June 2016

    MSO number touches 940 with forty more getting clearance in June 2016

    NEW DELHI: As the country marches towards the deadline of the final phase which will complete cable digitlization all over the country, as many as forty multi-system operators have received provisional licences in June and taken the total to 711.

    Early this month, the government announced the cancellation of the permanent licence of one more MSO and the number of permanent licencees (up to ten years) fell by one to 229.

    The Information and Broadcasting Ministry had cancelled the licences of 27 MSOs and closed their cases by 2 June. In most of the other cases in the list of cancelled registrations, it is because of failure to get security clearance from the Home ministry. However, there are cases of many MSOs holding provisional licences not completing certain formalities relating to shareholders and so on.

    According to the latest list upto 28 June 2016, the area of operation of four MSOs have been revised after 2 June, one of which – Thamizhaga Cable TV Communication Pvt. Ltd, Chennai – has now got licence to operate pan-India barring the metros of Delhi, Mumbai and Kolkata. Chennai is in any case under stay following a court order after the first phase.

    Of the new licencees, three – Fastway Media Cable Network Pvt. Ltd of Delhi, Metro Trade Links of Bhopal, and Megbela Infitel Cable & Broadband Private Limited from New Delhi have got pan India licences.

    The other new registrations include the states of, or specific districts in, Arunachal Pradesh, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Maharashtra, Odisha, Tamil Nadu, Uttarakhand, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Telangana, Gujarat, Karnataka, Chhatisgarh, and Andhra Pradesh.

    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.

  • MSO number touches 940 with forty more getting clearance in June 2016

    MSO number touches 940 with forty more getting clearance in June 2016

    NEW DELHI: As the country marches towards the deadline of the final phase which will complete cable digitlization all over the country, as many as forty multi-system operators have received provisional licences in June and taken the total to 711.

    Early this month, the government announced the cancellation of the permanent licence of one more MSO and the number of permanent licencees (up to ten years) fell by one to 229.

    The Information and Broadcasting Ministry had cancelled the licences of 27 MSOs and closed their cases by 2 June. In most of the other cases in the list of cancelled registrations, it is because of failure to get security clearance from the Home ministry. However, there are cases of many MSOs holding provisional licences not completing certain formalities relating to shareholders and so on.

    According to the latest list upto 28 June 2016, the area of operation of four MSOs have been revised after 2 June, one of which – Thamizhaga Cable TV Communication Pvt. Ltd, Chennai – has now got licence to operate pan-India barring the metros of Delhi, Mumbai and Kolkata. Chennai is in any case under stay following a court order after the first phase.

    Of the new licencees, three – Fastway Media Cable Network Pvt. Ltd of Delhi, Metro Trade Links of Bhopal, and Megbela Infitel Cable & Broadband Private Limited from New Delhi have got pan India licences.

    The other new registrations include the states of, or specific districts in, Arunachal Pradesh, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Maharashtra, Odisha, Tamil Nadu, Uttarakhand, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Telangana, Gujarat, Karnataka, Chhatisgarh, and Andhra Pradesh.

    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.

  • Govt claims almost 100 percent STB seeding in DAS III areas despite cases

    Govt claims almost 100 percent STB seeding in DAS III areas despite cases

    NEW DELHI: Despite the challenge to digital addressable systems in many courts in the country, the government has claimed almost 100 per cent achievement in phase III areas with seeding of about 41 million (4.1 crore) set top boxes.   

    The claim was made by Information and Broadcasting joint secretary R Jaya in the 15th meeting of the Task Force on implementation of phases III and IV of DAS of cable television networks on 30 May 2016 under the chairpersonship of l&B secretary Ajay Mittal.

    In the last meeting on 16 February 2016, it had been disclosed that around 90.44 percent success had been achieved in DAS phase III. During the meeting it was informed that the seeding of STBs by multi system operators increased from 6.91 million to 12.43 million between 31 December 2015 and 15 February 2016.

    But she admitted that seeding had slowed down due to court cases. She also said the figure given by her may include some reporting of seeding in phase lV

    A total of 42 court cases have been filed for extension in the deadline of phase lll in various courts in the country with the 2-month extension by the Telangana and Andhra Pradesh High Court. Other courts followed suit on the grounds that this order was extendable to other areas. This led to the centre moving the Supreme Court which passed an order of transfer of all cases for extension filed in various courts and any new cases on similar prayer to the Delhi High Court for adjudication.

    Seventeen cases have so far been transferred by various courts to the Delhi High Court out of which the High Court had dismissed three cases and another three cases were being heard that same day. A case filed by one Headend-in-the-sky player on the same matter was also being heard in the Delhi High Court on that day (30 May 2016).

    Jaya said more MSOs’ had been given registration since the last meeting of the Task Force taking the total to 870. She said that MSOs’ and broadcasters should now concentrate on phase lV areas and prioritize signing of interconnect agreements for these areas.

    She also asked stakeholders to plan and start launching of publicity awareness campaigns for mandatory digitisation in phase lV areas which is to be completed by 31 December 2016.

    Earlier, Mittal said DAS was a win-win situation for all and so all sectors should cooperate. He said the meeting of the Task Force could not be held since February 2016 due to various administrative reasons.

    He said the consumers deserve better quality reception and other benefits from digitisation. He hoped that all stakeholders would make concerted efforts to digitise the remaining areas under the fourth and last phase of digitisation.

    He said the ministry had planned to hold a fresh round of several regional workshops at various places in the country in the coming months as had been done for the last phase. .

    Advisor (DAS) Yogendra Pal said the ministry has asked all registered MSOs’, DTH & HITS operators’ to enter the seeding data in the MIS system developed by the ministry for collection of data for all the four phases instead of phase lll which they had been doing until now, and update it once in a week. He added that MIS system has suitably been modified for this purpose and 35 operators have already entered seeding data for Phase lV.

    He said that only about 1,000 applications had been received till date in the ministry for MSO registration against the expected number of about 6,000 applications. He requested the members to advise those MSOs’ who are yet to apply for DAS registration to do the same. He mentioned that the ministry had requested the broadcasters to check up with all MSOs’ with whom they have interconnect agreements if they have taken MSO registration for phase lV areas and advise them to do so immediately.

    The members were told that the TV household requirements as per census 2011 data would be provided though this would be district wise and not rural area wise.

    A representative of a Consumer Forum said though digitisation has not adversely affected anybody, much that was expected from the consumer point of view is still awaited.

    A local cable operator from Maharashtra regretted that before implementation of DAS, LCOs’ were entrepreneurs and after its implementation they have become employees of MSOs’. He also said that LCOs’ have been voicing their concerns from the time of the first phase but without being heard.

    The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India regulation on revenue sharing between MSOs’ and LCOs’ is an issue that is still unresolved. He added that MSOs’ are not entering into proper interconnect agreements with LCOs’. He remarked that digitisation under phase lV may not be easy as all national MSOs’ may not be able to cover all areas.

    But a representative of GTPL mentioned that MSOs’ and LCOs’ are separate entities. They sign agreements with each other as principals. Each entity has its defined role in providing the service. He said the government should consider giving some incentives for digitization in phase lV areas. He added that TRAI had also recommended some incentives in its recommendations which were not accepted by the government.

    At this, Mittal said any incentives sought for by any group or sector should get passed on to the people.

    A representative of Hathway said LCOs’ can also become MSOs’. He said MSOs’ have no issues with regard to interconnect agreements with LCOs’. He said on the directive of Bombay High Court, TRAI had prescribed a standard interconnect agreement form after due process of consultations. This form serves as a template for all such agreements.

    He suggested that broadcasters should offer special rates for phase lll and phase lV markets.

    A Siti Cable representative said digitisation had benefitted people as they get greater channel choice and better signal quality. He said extension of deadline granted by various courts for phase lll of digitisation had badly affected the pace of digitization. He added that the MSOs’ are losing out on huge inventory of set top boxes which they are not able to deploy in the field. With regard to phase lV of digitisation, he said the headends installed by them for phase lll will cater to phase lV areas as well.

    A DTH representative said as a result of the extension in deadline granted by various courts, they had to retrench some of their employees whom they had deployed in the field.

    An LCO from Assam complained that one MSO in Assam had served a legal notice to LCOs’ for migrating to another MSO, and consumers had also been served with legal notice for return of set top box bought by them from the MSO through outright purchase. He said the authorized officers in the state of Assam do not take action against MSOs’ who are violating the cable network rules and regulations.

    The TRAI representative admitted that while regulations prescribe three modes of purchase for STBs – outright purchase, hire purchase, and rental mode, standard plans have been prescribed under rental mode only and no price for outright purchase has been prescribed by TRAI.

    Referring to the Assam LCO, he said this would not have arisen if the interconnect agreements entered by MSOs’ with LCOs’ had been clear on every issue.

    He said TRAI had recently started a fresh review of all regulations and consultation process on the same is on. He added that TDSAT earlier used to pass interim orders but had of late it passed orders that were final.

    Mittal hoped that the review of the DAS Regulations undertaken by TRAI is completed quickly and the various grievances of the stakeholders regarding the extant regulations are addressed. He also remarked that there appeared to be lack of trust between the MSOs’ and LCOs’ and TRAI should look at this.

    An LCO from Maharashtra complained that the state government entertainment officers are sealing the control rooms of MSOs’ for non-payment of Entertainment Tax.

    But he was told that only the authorized officers, as defined in the Cable TV Act and Rules framed thereunder, are authorized to take any action for violations of the various provisions of the Act.

    The Advisor said one state government had complained to the ministry that MSOs’ are not giving them access to their SMS system to verify the lists of subscribers. He said that MSOs’ should provide the SMS report to the state governments as and when asked by them.

    An Odisha government representative said the state government has set up coordination committees at state and district level to implement cable TV digitisation in the state. He added that the nodal officers in the state are also checking the MIS data on regular basis. The state nodal officer from the state of Telengana mentioned that 20 MSOs’ operating in the state had not so far entered data in the MIS system. Jaya said that it was heartening to know that state governments are also monitoring the seeding of data by MSOs’ in their states. She mentioned that the MIS system deployed by ministry sends an alert to an MSO in case he does not update his data.

    She said that the regional units set up by the ministry for remain in touch with MSOs’ to ensure that MSOs’ follow the rules.

    A point was raised that LCOs’ are asked by the Head Post Offices to obtain NOC certificate from the state government for issue as well as renewal of their LCO registration. It was suggested that LCO registration be granted for 5 years instead of period of one year as per existing rules. Mittal agreed to consider this.