ITV

Tag: NBA

  • MIB: Now on to DAS phase III & IV

    MIB: Now on to DAS phase III & IV

    MUMBAI: Within days of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) giving out its fact sheet on how digital addressable system (DAS) phase I and II have progressed, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) directed all the stakeholders also known as  ‘the task force of digitisation’ to assess its progress and chart out a road map for the coming year.

     

    The meeting saw minister Manish Tewari, secretary Bimal Julka, additional secretary Supriya Sahu, leading MSOs such as Den CEO S N Sharma, The One Alliance president Rajesh Kaul, LCOs, News Broadcasting Association (NBA) secretary Annie Joseph, Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF) secretary Shailesh Shah and Tata Sky CEO Harit Nagpal. After speaking to everyone about the issues faced in DAS phases I and II and Sahu’s presentation on the value that digitisation was creating in the country, Tewari gave the go ahead to implement the next two phases.

     

    However this time it won’t be with two deadlines but rather a one stretch implementation across the remaining parts of the country with just one deadline of 31 December 2014. Although the ministry was of the opinion that two deadlines should exist, the TRAI had voiced its opinion in 2011 that phase III and IV could be achieved simultaneously.

     

    All the stakeholders brought out the issues they had faced in the first two phases to which the minister warned them to sort out their own problems internally or this would lead to a postponement of complete national digitisation – which would not bode well for the industry.  He also told everyone to keep working in coordination even now – and iron out any wrinkles or resolve all problems so that digitisation can progress further.

     

    Tewari said that the upcoming elections may slow down the process but digitisation is here for good and there’s no stopping it now.  The IBF and NBA have been asked to once again air promos highlighting the importance of digitisation.

     

    Now that the green signal has been given, all stakeholders can now attack the rest of the country without having any boundaries. But this is the toughest part as the issues they will face in the interiors will be much higher  and more difficult to resolve than metros and towns. Phase I and II saw nearly 25 million set top boxes being seeded while phase III and IV will see about 75 million more boxes being put in place.

     

    The minister has also assured support saying that the issues in the previous phases will be addressed as they move towards the next ones. 

  • What now for TV ratings and TAM

    What now for TV ratings and TAM

    MUMBAI: When the cabinet committee on economic affairs announced that it had approved the Telecom Regulatory of India (TRAI) recommendations on TV ratings guidelines in the first week of  2014 the first question that struck everyone was – what will TAM do now?

     

    The fracas between angry broadcasters and TAM has been brewing for  several years and finally came to its boiling point last year when seven TV networks announced that they were clicking on the TAM TV rating unsubscribe button. This put a big question mark over TAM’s very existence but it managed to get out of the corner it was in by hammering out a solution which was acceptable to most subscribers. 

     

    As far as the current threat to TAM’s continuance is concerned, the Cabinet’s go ahead to the proposed regulatory framework has now to be notified. When that will happen no one knows, though speculation is that it could be sooner than later. However, what is sure is that TAM will have 30 days from notification date to comply with its guidelines and then seek a licence from the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB).  From all angles it looks like a pressure cooker-like situation that the TV ratings provider has landed itself in. 

     

    Broadcasters seem to be the happiest of the lot. NDTV group CEO Vikram Chandra – whose company sued TAM in a New York court two years ago – is cock-a-hoop with delight that the government has affirmed what industry has been voicing since nearly six to seven years: that TAM and the ratings process in India needs to be spruced up.

     

    “The introduction of firm guidelines is a positive step as everything is clear now. It shows that we should never be hesitant to change something that isn’t right,” says Chandra.

     

    Whether TAM will manage to find the capital to ramp up its peoplemeter sample to 20,000 within a month or two is something that is concerning industry. What is also a big question mark is how the MIB will view the WPP group’s 50 per cent equity in TAM (through Kantar Media Research 20 per cent, and Cavendish Square Holdings 30 per cent), as mentioned in the NDTV suit with the supreme court in New York.

     

    “Kantar and Cavendish will have to exit since their parent is WPP. TAM has been worrisome and everyone has realised it. So now it has just two options, either shape up or ship out,” says a senior news broadcaster from the News Broadcasters Association (NBA).

     

    However, a source from the IBF presents another option. “We are a democratic country so the government cannot force things on anybody. TAM has the freedom to go to the court and appeal against the guidelines,” says the source.

     

     If TAM decides to oppose the guidelines and go to court and gets a stay order, then we might see some delays in the roll out of the guidelines. This will allow it to continue to operate until a final decision is given by the court, thus buying it some time. Additionally, the industry-backed Broadcast Audience Research Council (BARC) will also get some time to get its act together with the minimum 20,000 meters.

     

    Media agencies and advertisers aren’t too happy with the way the cabinet has thrust the deadline on TAM.

     

    Says a senior media professional:  “In the beginning of cable and satellite TV in India in the nineties, we had TAM and INTAM. The latter could not sustain itself and TAM continued. Then we had TAM and aMap in the mid of the previous decade. aMap too found the going tough without full industry support and folded up. The fact is TAM has started from scratch and survived so many upheavals. It is a sad situation to be destroying something that has been existing and running for so long. ”

     

    However, she is clutching on to a thin sliver of hope that TAM and BARC could co-exist for a while until things smooth out on the ratings front. 

     

    “The time given to follow and make all the changes as per the guidelines is impractical,” says Madison World chairman & MD Sam Balsara. “It is obvious that TAM will not be able to handle it all at such a short notice.”

     

    The Indian Society of Advertisers (ISA) chairman Hemant Bakshi says that he is discussing the consequences of the cabinet’s clearance to the new ratings guidelines with major advertisers and other players to gauge the possible impact on their businesses.

     

    One scenario that everyone is dreading is that TAM fails to comply with all the requirements within the time period it is given, and the courts dismiss its appeal, if it makes one. Will it then be forced to cease operations immediately and lead to a ratings-less period for the Indian television business? This is extremely alarming for all concerned.

     

    IPG Mediabrands CEO Shashi Sinha who is also in the technical committee of BARC feels that the management of the new proposed ratings system needs to pull their socks up, and accelerate the rollout of people meters. But even then he says that “we are hoping to be on our feet and start functioning only by September/October.”

     

    That seems a long, long time away, going by how things are moving. Madison’s Balsara is quite clear on the way forward. Says he: “As an industry we need ratings, all the time! Therefore, till BARC comes up, we need an alternate. As an industry we should appeal to the ministry to relax the deadline for the implementation.”

     

    Hence, it is imperative for all concerned – whether it is the MIB led by Manish Tewari, the government, TAM, the ISA, advertising agencies, broadcasters and BARC – to choose their next steps wisely.

     

  • NBSA hauls up CNN-IBN, Aaj Tak and Sakshi TV for breach of guidelines

    NBSA hauls up CNN-IBN, Aaj Tak and Sakshi TV for breach of guidelines

    MUMBAI: Broadcasters in India have always been under pressure for not following ethical norms and standards and depicting anything they wish to. However, there are certain organisatons like the News Broadcasters Association (NBA), Indian Broadcasters Foundation (IBF) which have framed regulatory policies for their members.

     

    The News Broadcasting Standards Authority (NBSA) has come out with a series of orders regarding allegations against its member news channels. Channels Aaj Tak, CNN IBN and Sakshi TV unlike ABP News have been found to be in breach of the NBSA code of ethics.

     

    CNN-IBN

     

    Two cases were lodged against CNN-IBN regarding two separate incidences. The first complaint was filed by Mallige Medical Centre administrator R K Lal about a show titled ‘Bangalore woman incapacitated after botched surgery’ which was according to the complainant, a one sided story . The broadcaster was found to not have followed the guidelines and had failed to make adequate efforts to contact the hospital. The NBA has warned CNN-IBN and has asked it to tender an apology by airing it once on 10 January stating “CNN-IBN regrets and apologises for airing the programme titled ‘Bangalore woman incapacitated after botched surgery’ without ascertaining the version of Mallige Medical Centre on 29 to 30 March 2013 and 1 April, 6 April and 7 April 2013.” It has also ordered it to remove the video from its website and submit a proof of telecast of the apology to the NBA within seven days of telecast.

     

    The second case against the English news channel was filed by Hariharan S regarding a child rape victim’s father being identified by one of the channel’s journalists while covering the protest at India Gate on 23 December 2012. Since it was a live coverage, the channel claimed that it didn’t think of covering his face and was only thinking of public interest but it could have been more careful. They also stated that no provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act were violated by revealing the father’s name. The NBSA found it to be in breach and asked it to remove the video from its website.

     

    Aaj Tak

     

    The Hindi broadcaster from the TV Today stable also had two complaints against its programmes. Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation (IRCTC) general manager Pradip Kundu was the first complainant that its sting operation ‘Dalal Junction’ was biased as it had not tried to contact IRCTC and had carried the news piece without verifying facts. The channel was found to be in breach and was directed to tender an apology for five consecutive days from 13 January to 17 January at 6:00 pm by running an apology scroll on full screen in large font size with a voice over in slow speed. The video if uploaded on its website shall be pulled down.

     

    The second complainant was Seema Mittal for a show titled ‘Vardat’ on 7 November 2012 with repeat telecasts where she alleged that the channel had carried a news piece with incorrect details. The channel has been directed to carry the unedited version of the complainant prominently for three minutes preceded by an apology scroll similarly done as the one above. In this case Aaj Tak has been ordered to pay a fine of Rs 1 lakh to the NBA within seven days because this was a second such willful violation in family/matrimonial matters.

     

    Sakshi TV

     

    Four students of NALSAR had approached the NBSA regarding the airing of a programme titled ‘drunken girls hulchul midnight’ that involved a fight between students and journalists claiming that the channel had portrayed them in a derogatory manner. The manner in which Sakshi TV’s cameraman thrust the camera in the car to capture footage of the girls along with the complainants and airing the footage without their version was highly objectionable. Sakshi TV has been asked to cough up Rs 1 lakh along with an apology for the days 15, 16 and 17 January 2014 in both English and Telugu.

     

    The only channel that wasn’t found to be in breach of its guidelines was ABP News though a complaint was filed against it by Atul Jain regarding a programme it aired called ‘Bura Na Mano’ claiming that the channel had tried to show then railway minister Pawan Bansal as guilty in a matter under investigation by the CBI.  

  • Centre gets notice regarding broadcast media regulation

    Centre gets notice regarding broadcast media regulation

    MUMBAI: The debate regarding the need of an external body to govern broadcast media has been raging since long. It has now reached the Supreme Court via a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by NGO Mediawatch.

    The SC has taken cognisance of the PIL seeking the establishment of an independent regulatory body to overlook broadcast media and issued a notice to the centre regarding it. The News Broadcasters Association (NBA), Association of Radio Operators for India (AROI) and the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) have also been asked to submit their responses.

    The order was passed by a bench headed by chief justice P Sathasivam stating that the body is needed as the centre had failed to regulate content for the medium.

    The petition said: “For the last one and a half decades, the Ministry of I&B is perpetuating virtual anarchy in the realm of broadcast media regulation. Especially on the content regulation front, its broadcaster-appeasing and wait-and-watch policies marked by sheer ad-hocism and indifference to viewers’ interests are adversely affecting the rights of millions of broadcast media consumers. The Ministry as content regulator had failed completely in protecting the interests and basic rights of the audience. It has not constituted sufficient infrastructure and resources to ensure quick decision-making against offending channels and also not imposing deterrent penalties as provided by law.”

    The bench agreed to hear the PIL and clubbed it with a similar pending petition. The SC had on 29 November asked the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Ministry of Law and Justice, Ministry of Communications and IT as well as the Press Council of India to respond to the PIL asking for guidelines to regulate TV content.

  • Close Trai Ad cap: Broadcasters get respite from Delhi High Court

    Close Trai Ad cap: Broadcasters get respite from Delhi High Court

    MUMBAI: The Indian broadcasting community has got a respite on the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) ad cap case. The Delhi High Court today granted an interim order preventing the regulator from carrying out any coercive action against broadcasters violating the mandated 12 minute ad cap set by it.

    Broadcasters are heaving a sigh of relief as there were fears that the regulator would prosecute them for the same. Last week’s Supreme Court judgment had struck down the Telecom Dispute Settlement Appellate Tribunal’s (TDSAT) powers to adjudicate against TRAI regulations. This had nullified the efforts by the broadcasters to get a reversal in the ad cap case by TDSAT.

    The date of the next hearing is 13 March 2014. Broadcasters have to continue the weekly submission of ad duration data to the TRAI.

    The case is surely set to drag on for quite some months as compared to its briskness in TDSAT.  The broadcasters include the NBA, 9X Media, Sun TV, B4U, TV Vision, Sun TV, E24 and Pioneer Channel that had approached the HC after the case was dismissed by the TDSAT last week.

  • TRAI ad cap case: Judgement day dawns?

    TRAI ad cap case: Judgement day dawns?

    MUMBAI: Exactly a month after hearings first began in the ad cap case in the Telecom Disputes Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT), the verdict is set to be pronounced today. The TDSAT has listed it in the cause list for 11 December.

     

    The case that is being fought by broadcasters led by the News Broadcasters Association(NBA) against the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) is all set to be given a new direction.

     

    Indiantelevision.com gives you the highlights of the broadcasters vs TRAI ad cap legal slugfest and the coincidental twist that came near the end.

     

    The NBA’s main contentions were that TRAI does not have the authority to regulate content and that the agreement between the two is not of a licensor and a licensee but is rather a registration. It also said that the TRAI had not fulfilled the laying requirements before parliament thus making the regulation invalid.

     

    However, the TRAI stated that there was no rule in the TRAI act saying that merely because they hadn’t done the laying requirements, the regulation cannot be implemented. It also claimed that according to the terms of the licence and by applying section 7 of the Cable TV Networks Act it was authorised to implement the regulation to ensure the customers get quality of content on TV.

     

    After hearing the NBA, the TRAI, music channels and some other channels the TDSAT had reserved the judgement. The twist that came last week was when in a separate case of BSNL vs TRAI and others, the Supreme Court had ruled that cases in which the validity of a regulation by TRAI is challenged, cannot be heard in the TDSAT and has to be appealed against in the High Court since by law a regulation needs to be passed through parliament. This has put the fate of the ad cap regulation in a fix since officially TRAI claims it is a regulation.

     

    We wonder how the TDSAT will decide the case. Most probably, the TDSAT will dismiss it and request the petitioners to move the Hight Court after the verdict the SC gave on Friday. Had the petition been regarding the application of the regulation, the TDSAT could still have decided on it. However, the SC judgement clearly states that TDSAT cannot take a call on the very act that created it. TDSAT was formed under section 14 of the TRAI act giving it legislative and administrative powers.

     

    Section 36, under which the regulation was formed clearly underlines that if it is framed, it needs to be consistent with the terms of the TRAI act.

     

    However, after the SC ruling, the TDSAT seems to have been rendered powerless to decide on this case, even after 20 days of hearings and a long wait for the result, which will now be affected by the SC ruling.

     

    If the broadcasters are asked to move the HC, it means more time for them to deliberate on the validity of the regulation. But it is possible that they will have to follow the 12 minute ruling till the time, the HC does not say anything about it.

  • TDSAT-TRAI ad cap: NBA finishes rejoinder

    TDSAT-TRAI ad cap: NBA finishes rejoinder

    MUMBAI: It was day two of the News Broadcasters Association (NBA) submission of its rejoinders in the hearings on the proposed Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) ad cap regulation. NBA counsel Anup Bhambhani clarified that it was untrue that channels had tried to suppress documents, as everything related to teleport licence is in the public domain and hence easily accessible to the regulator. Channels had individual teleport licences while others were uplinking through Bharti Airtel or Essel Shyam which made them the licensees and not the channels.

     

    The counsel also pointed out that the TRAI had not informed the TDSAT that ads are of three types- commercial, social and programme promos. Not every ad is a paid ad and DAVP ad rates are also low.And the number of minutes of advertising does not take into consideration any of these facts; and hence is not reflected in these categories. He stated that the TRAI had gone overboard in describing the type, length and look of the adverts, in a consultation paper issued in 2012. And even though it was later dropped, it never had any mention of section 7 (11 )of the Cable TV Networks Regulation (CTN) act. Also, the proposed 10+2 regulation finally did not mention that TRAI was using section 11 of the TRAI act in order to enforce section 7 (11) of the CTN act.

     

    According to the NBA counsel, the 7 (11) argument was very ingenious in order to defend the TRAI regulation which was previously never mentioned. Assuming TRAI can regulate, the intention while framing was not keeping in mind this regulation. He pointed out that the ministry of information and broadcasting (MIB) is the authority for the news channels and not the TRAI.

     

    The NBA lawyer also clarified that the Bengal Cricket Association vs MIB and Doordarshan judgement does not apply to private broadcasters as is stated in para 79 of the case. Although the case was read against the channels, it claims that the argument that ‘airways are public property’ only applies when you are seeking a teleport licence for setting up a TV station. While thinking of granting a licence, Article 19 (1) of the Constitution that speaks about freedom of speech and expression, can be thought of but not after it has been granted.

     

    Mentioning the Sakaal papers case, the NBA counsel said that that case was contended because page numbers were restricted and similarly in the case of TV channels also ad duration is being controlled. It also stated that there is no need to prove a loss because even if there is a prospect that there may be a shutdown due to the restriction then it is a violation of Article 19.

     

    Another point argued was that when TRAI says it is laying down standards of quality under section 11 of the TRAI act, as per precedents it had itself set, it can only include technical aspects such as tariff regulation and never content. According to the NBA, duration is content.

     

    Addressing the point that the amicus curiae had made, the NBA counsel presented data supporting the fact that channels’ ad rates would need nearly 50 to 100 per cent increases, if losses due to lower air time are to be covered. To support the contention that TRAI only has recommendatory authority, the NBA lawyers pulled up SO 44 and 45 from the TRAI notifications which said “Broadcasting and cable services to be telecommunication services and showed that it is mentioned in it by the central government that TRAI only has a recommendatory function regarding duration of commercials.”

     

    SO 45E 1 b states “Without prejudice to the provisions contained in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 11 of the Act, to make recommendation regarding (b) the parameters for regulating maximum time for advertisements in pay channels as well as other channels”.

     

    Even though broadcasting has no correct definition, the NBA read from the TRAI explanatory memorandum 2012 where it mentioned broadcasting services to be ‘dissemination of signals.’

     

    Another argument was that TRAI couldn’t change a statutory law by changing ‘per hour’ to ‘clock hour’ and reporting authority as TRAI. Before coming up with the regulation TRAI didn’t even bother to serve a notice to broadcasters.

     

    TRAI’s argument that it was for the benefit of consumers that the regulation is being framed was countered by the NBA saying that viewers need choice. If they wanted channels free of ads they should be ready to pay more for the service or else they have an option to switch channels. The channels said they are happy to consider it post DAS is implemented which according to a KMPG report will make subscription and advertisements a 50:50 affair.

     

    A major point raised was the discrimination towards pay channels and bias towards the pubcaster Doordarshan which according to the NBA was also violating the regulation.

     

    Tomorrow the music channels are expected to give their rejoinders.

  • TRAI presents its ad cap arguments

    TRAI presents its ad cap arguments

    MUMBAI: After nearly a week long argument from the News Broadcasters Association (NBA) and music channels – B4U, 9XM, Mastiii and M Tunes — it was time for regional players and the big daddy – the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) to present their side of the story on the ad cap.

    Among those who presented their case today were Polimer Media and south India biggie Sun TV. The channels brought to the fore a point from February 2011 when TRAI had confirmed that “there should not be any regulation at present on advertisement on both FTA and Pay channels.”

    It had taken this position in Petition No. 34(C) of 2011 in the TDSAT filed by a society called Utsarg against TRAI and several other broadcasters and content aggregators seeking a cap on television advertising time on the ground that these advertisements interfered with viewership of television programmes. The channels questioned the reversal in TRAI’s  stance today.

    Now, it was the turn of the TRAI to send its lawyer to make its deposition.  TRAI argued that it was right in taking recourse to  both the Acts – the Cable Networks Regulation Act 1995 as well as The Indian Telegraph Act 1885 and the TRAI Act – and it was empowered under both as broadcasters are licensees under the latter. To this, the bench comprising of Justice Aftab Alam and member Kuldip Singh said that if it already has the authority under the Cable TV Act then it should not have acted on the TRAI Act.
        

    However, TRAI argued that the Cable TV Act is applicable only to cable operators and the bench in turn responded that a broadcaster does not come under it then. TRAI claimed that they were merely interpreting section 7 (11) of the Cable TV Act of 1995 which says that the authority has the power to ‘seize equipment used for operating the cable television network’ if it is found to be breaching its other sections.

    On the laying of the ad cap regulation in Parliament, TRAI’s counsel said that it had submitted it to the relevant ministry. To this, the bench responded that the law decrees that it would become applicable only after it is accepted or rejected or modified in the house. All the actions TRAI takes won’t apply with retrospective effect. Hence if TRAI  prosecutes a broadcaster before laying in parliament would not that be a violation of fundamental rights was the question?  The argument was then that in such a situation it is beyond the jurisdiction of the TDSAT and comes under the ambit of the Supreme Court.

    One of the points raised by the petitioner channels was the possible misuse of the 12 minute ad cap regulation. It said that a broadcaster could have uneven advertising slots such as one minute of advertisement in the first 30 minutes while the next half an hour could have 11 minutes. Similarly the concept of clock hour too had its flaws. Hypothetically, a broadcaster could air 11 minutes of ads from7:49 pm to 8 pm and then another 11 minutes of commercials between 8:00 pm to 8:11 pm. That would mean TV viewers would be subjected to 22 minutes of commercials in an hour of television time, thus putting paid to TRAI’s mandate to maintain quality of service. To this, the TRAI claimed that all laws can be misused but then it doesn’t stop them from being made.

    TRAI will continue its arguments tomorrow.

  • What the music channels said on the ad cap issue

    What the music channels said on the ad cap issue

    MUMBAI: After the News Broadcasters Association (NBA) presented its side of the story, it was the turn of the music channels to present their case in the Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) regarding the troublesome 12 minute ad cap regulation that is being enforced by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI).
        

    The hearing that went on for two days (Monday and Tuesday) had the music channels counsel speaking on behalf of the four music channels – 9XM, B4U, M Tunes and Mastiii. The main point raised was violation of Article 14 of the constitution of India by the TRAI. The Article states: “The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth”.
     

    According to counsel, the TRAI is violating Article 14 by putting all the channels in the same basket. There are different types of broadcasters delivering both free to air and pay channels in the genres of news, sports, music etc. It is inappropriate to be treating ‘unequals as equals’ by classifying all channels in the same category, counsel emphasized. To support his argument, he said that FTA channels don’t get subscription revenue and work on purely advertising while pay channels have the benefit of both.
     

    Apart from this, other issues raised during the hearing were similar to the ones the NBA counsel had raised such as the jurisdiction of the TRAI to come out with such a regulation, unregulated and high carriage fees and high cost of content production.
     

    There is a long list of channels that will now present their cases in front of the TDSAT bench of Justice Aftab Ahmed and member Kuldip Singh including Reliance Big Broadcasting, Sun TV Network, Raj TV, E24 Glamour, Eenadu Television and Polimer Media.
     

    After this, TRAI will defend itself. The hearing is set to continue today.
     

    This is surely one case that will take much time to resolve.

  • NBA concludes arguments, hearing to continue on Monday

    NBA concludes arguments, hearing to continue on Monday

    MUMBAI: It took four days for the News Broadcasters Association (NBA) to present its arguments in the ad cap case against the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) to the Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT). But it finally concluded presenting the news industry’s viewpoint on it in terms of existing regulation. After pointing out how the proposed ad cap was reportedly in violation of statutory and constitutional law, its lawyers today highlighted the commercial compulsions and problems that news broadcasters face.
        

    One of the major points highlighted that was drawn out is the issue of high carriage fees that is crippling the whole news industry. News broadcasters have to pay about 30 percent and sometimes even 50 per cent of their revenues as carriage fees while for the GECs it is about 20 per cent.

    “Although they might be paying the same amount as carriage fees, their revenue is higher and instead of regulating something as important as this, TRAI is trying to impose ad cap,” says a news broadcaster.

    TDSAT has asked NBA to file affidavits on Monday to demonstrate the commercial impact any changes in air time will have on their survival. This includes tabulating the revenues they generate in a non-12 minute per hour ad cap scenario and what they expect these to drop to on its imposition.
    With the NBA concluding its presentations, it will be on to the other channels and the TRAI to state their case when hearing begins from Monday – after tomorrow’s recess.