ITV

Tag: NBA

  • Day 3 of TDSAT ad cap hearings

    Day 3 of TDSAT ad cap hearings

    MUMBAI: The queue of channels waiting their turn to present their individual cases on the so-called crippling TRAI 12 minute ad cap to the Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has not really got any shorter even as the hearings got into the third day. The reason: the News Broadcasters Association’s (NBA) lawyers continued with their arguments in the presence of TDSAT’s Justice Aftab Alam and member Kuldeep Singh.  
    And with their presentation referencing statutory laws as relating to the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act and the TRAI Act 1997 completed they have now progressed to bringing in references about media freedom as written in the Article 19A of the Indian Constitution.
        

    The NBA counsel referred to the ‘Sakal Papers And Others vs The Union Of India on 25 September, 1961’ case. The Supreme Court had then affirmed that a newspaper should have the liberty to carry as many advertisements as it would want to because ‘curtailment of advertising is a curtailment of free speech as guaranteed by the Constitution of India.  

    The declaration of this case reads: ‘the state could not make a law which directly restricted one guaranteed freedom for securing the better enjoyment of another freedom. Freedom of speech could not be restricted for the purpose of regulating the commercial aspect of the activities of newspapers.’

    According to the NBA, since such a  ruling exists for print newspapers, it should also apply to the broadcast medium. However, Alam tended to disagree and opined that that the electronic medium is different from print.

    The NBA also contended that broadcasters don’t actually get a ‘license’ from the central government under The Telegraph Act 1885 but rather a ‘registration’ under the uplinking/downlinking policy guidelines. However, the justice  doubted that the broadcasters don’t get a licence, and he also felt that broadcasters don’t come under the cable TV act as the NBA is claiming.

    During the 12 November hearing, the NBA had argued that TRAI had not done the laying requirements as per section 37 of the TRAI Act which it should have in order to carry out enforcement of ad cap and prosecution of erring channels.
    The hearings are slated to continue tomorrow morning with the NBA and its lawyers presenting their arguments.  For the other channels, the wait continues.

    MUMBAI: The queue of channels waiting their turn to present their individual cases on the so-called crippling TRAI 12 minute ad cap to the Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has not really got any shorter even as the hearings got into the third day. The reason: the News Broadcasters Association’s (NBA) lawyers continued with their arguments in the presence of TDSAT’s Justice Aftab Alam and member Kuldeep Singh.  
    And with their presentation referencing statutory laws as relating to the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act and the TRAI Act 1997 completed they have now progressed to bringing in references about media freedom as written in the Article 19A of the Indian Constitution.
        

    The NBA counsel referred to the ‘Sakal Papers And Others vs The Union Of India on 25 September, 1961’ case. The Supreme Court had then affirmed that a newspaper should have the liberty to carry as many advertisements as it would want to because ‘curtailment of advertising is a curtailment of free speech as guaranteed by the Constitution of India.  

    The declaration of this case reads: ‘the state could not make a law which directly restricted one guaranteed freedom for securing the better enjoyment of another freedom. Freedom of speech could not be restricted for the purpose of regulating the commercial aspect of the activities of newspapers.’

    According to the NBA, since such a  ruling exists for print newspapers, it should also apply to the broadcast medium. However, Alam tended to disagree and opined that that the electronic medium is different from print.

    The NBA also contended that broadcasters don’t actually get a ‘license’ from the central government under The Telegraph Act 1885 but rather a ‘registration’ under the uplinking/downlinking policy guidelines. However, the justice  doubted that the broadcasters don’t get a licence, and he also felt that broadcasters don’t come under the cable TV act as the NBA is claiming.

    During the 12 November hearing, the NBA had argued that TRAI had not done the laying requirements as per section 37 of the TRAI Act which it should have in order to carry out enforcement of ad cap and prosecution of erring channels.
    The hearings are slated to continue tomorrow morning with the NBA and its lawyers presenting their arguments.  For the other channels, the wait continues.

  • TDSAT: Ad cap saga continues on Day 2

    TDSAT: Ad cap saga continues on Day 2

    MUMBAI: The hearings on TRAI’s proposed 12 minute ad cap regulation by the Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) that began yesterday look unlikely to get over in a hurry. For the past two days it is the News Broadcasters Association (NBA) which has been presenting its case to the tribunal. Today, the NBA counsel raised the point that the TRAI had not fulfilled the laying requirements to the parliament as per section 37 of the TRAI Act which says that “the Regulations made by the TRAI have to be placed before the Parliament to seek its approval. Thus, there can be no dispute that the regulations framed by the TRAI have the force of law having been made through the process of subordinate legislation provided they are consistent with the Act and Rules.”

    Any law infringing the fundamental rights of the people needs to be laid before the parliament after which it can be either annulled or amended or approved by the parliament, says a counsel. A senior broadcaster who has been following the case closely says, “If anything is a law then it has to be passed by the legislature.”
        

    Therefore, the NBA said that TRAI is crossing its line by enforcing the ad cap and prosecuting channels that aren’t following it. TDSAT Justice Aftab Alam wanted to know from TRAI if they had laid it before parliament as it’s an issue that should have been dealt in the preliminary stages itself to which TRAI did not have a substantial reply.

    In yesterday’s hearing, one of the points put forth by the NBA counsel was section 2(G) of The Cable Act of 1995 according to which advertisements are a part of content. At this, TDSAT wondered how a broadcaster can come under this act. Counsel for NBA today validated the position under this act by stating that permission for uplinking falls under the Cable Act bringing broadcasters under this Act. It also says that channels adhere to the programme code.

    Since the Cable Act comes under the jurisdiction of the Information and Broadcasting (I & B) ministry, broadcasters fall under the purview of the I & B ministry and not TRAI.

    NBA also contended yesterday that TRAI does not have the authority to regulate content and its powers are restricted only to licensing and quality of service while content regulation falls under the ambit of the I & B ministry. Neither the TRAI Act nor the Indian Telegraph Act, under which TRAI works, gives the regulator the powers to deal with content.

    The case will continue tomorrow post noon when NBA will put forth more points in front of the TDSAT.

  • TDSAT hearing on ad cap to continue tomorrow

    TDSAT hearing on ad cap to continue tomorrow

    NEW DELHI: The News Broadcasters Association (NBA) contended before the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) that the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) did not have powers to regulate advertisements since there was no provision in law giving it the power to deal with content.

    Commencing his arguments in the long-delayed petitions challenging the 12 minute ad cap sought to be imported by TRAI, senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi told TDSAT chairman Justice Aftab Alam and member Kuldip Singh that the powers of TRAI with regard to broadcasting other than standards of quality were only recommendatory and it could not make regulations or pass implementable orders.
        

    Furthermore, neither the TRAI Act nor the Indian Telegraph Act 1985 under which it functioned gave powers to TRAI to deal with content.

    He said that Section 2(G) of the Cable Television Networks (Regulations) Act 1995 was clear that advertisements fell under content.

    The hearing, which commenced today, will continue on a day-to-day basis. The main petitioners are the NBA and TV9. TDSAT had in the previous hearing (31 October) disallowed interventions by some broadcasters that included Viacom 18, Star India and Zee TV.

    At the outset, Singhvi also contended that the Supreme Court had itself held that advertisements were the cornerstone of free speech and economy since they gave the financial clout to enable free speech. The apex court had also said that anything curbing the ‘financial spine’ is an inroad into the freedom granted by Article 19(1)(a) of freedom of speech and expression. He said there could not be talk of free speech and expression without talking of the financial spine behind this.

    He said that while broadcasting was brought under the ambit of TRAI in January 2000, it was only on 9 January 2004 that an empowering notification was brought in with regard to broadcasting, but it only gave the Authority powers to make recommendations and not pass regulations.  

    TRAI on 22 March 2013 passed a notification with regard to advertisements, he added.

    The implementation with regard to content lay with the Information and Broadcasting Ministry which could do so under the 1995 Act. TRAI only had powers with regard to licensing and quality of service.

    At this stage, Justice Alam wondered if granting of license also included abiding by the rules under which the license was issued and this covered both the Broadcast and Advertising Codes.

    Singhvi said that in any case, the Uplinking and Downlinking Guidelines only referred to giving permission and not licenses. License had not been defined under the Guidelines.

    Senior TRAI counsel Rakesh Dwivedi interjected to say that the Uplinking and and Downlinking Guidelines were clear that the Broadcast and Advertising Codes had to be adhered to, adding that this had not been challenged by anyone.

    However, Singhvi said that the Codes were only mentioned under the Cable TV Networks Rules 1994. He said the Rules were brought in when the Cable TV Networks (Regulation) Ordinance was brought in 1994, which was subsequently replaced by the Act of 1995.

    Singhvi said that it could also not be said that advertisements were per se bad or pervasive as they could be very creative, adding that the only all pervasive instrument was the remote control.

    At this stage, Justice Alam expressed the view that advertisements could be very annoying when one was watching a serious programme.

    Singhvi said both the programmes and the advertisements were the lifeblood of the TV channels. He also added that there was no need to interfere as long as the advertisements did not make any incursions into Article 19(2) of the Constitution (which refers to reasonable restrictions on Fundamental Rights).

    In any case, TRAI could not arrogate to itself the power to regulate advertisements and content which fell in the domain of the union of India.

    He admitted that section 11(2) of the Telegraph Act said TRAI could perform such duties as were assigned to it by the government, but said regulating content had never formed part of this.

    In any case, he said a major part of the powers of TRAI were derived from the TRAI Act or the Indian Telegraph Act which related to telecom and not broadcasting. These powers generally related to quality of service.

    The legislature never thought it fit to pass a law giving powers relating to content to TRAI, he added.

    At another stage, the judge also wondered if the 1995 Act which applied to cable TV could be extended to broadcasters.
    Singhvi said that no broadcaster could transmit his signals without resorting to either the 1995 Act or the Uplinking and Downlinking Guidelines.

  • The puzzling case of TRAI’s ad cap

    The puzzling case of TRAI’s ad cap

    MUMBAI: The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) found some unlikely supporters on the ad cap issue last week. On the one hand, Zee Entertainment, Star India and Viacom18 approached the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) saying that they were in favour of a limit to how much advertising should be allowed per hour and that they would like to become respondents to the cases filed by other broadcasters. Among these figure the News Broadcasters Association (NBA), regional and music channels all of whom have been opposing the regulation and have sought relief from the tribunal. The other supporter of the ad cap is an NGO called MediaWatch which said the ad cap should be extended to cable TV also and that TRAI should also ensure that broadcasters don’t cross the line on audio levels of commercials and also specialised ad formats on the TV screen.

    Though the intervention filed by Zee, Star India and Viacom18 was rejected in the hearing that took place on 31 October, the tribunal has asked the networks to file a separate application, which would be heard only after the main case filed by NBA, music and regional channels, the next court hearing for which is 11 November.

    “Well! We had filed for an intervention which was postponed,” is what Star India president and general counsel – legal and regulatory affairs Deepak Jacob said when Indiantelevision.com contacted him to enquire more about the case. However, he refused to divulge any more on the matter.

    The three mainline Hindi GECs have been following the 10+2 ad cap regulation since 1 October, which was the deadline set by TRAI.

    Industry watchers are asking what is it that made the three networks come out so blatantly in support of the ad cap when fourth network Sony Entertainment has not been following the TRAI diktat at all?

    “They are in a position of strength as they have a tremendous share of viewer eyeballs,” says a media observer. “Hence, they can afford to take a hard stance in favour of the ad cap. Their belief is that advertisers have no alternative but to advertise on their channels. Their following the ad cap allowed them to jack up air time rates which more than made up for the drop in inventory. They would ideally like the status quo of lower advertising time to continue as it has benefited them and will continue to benefit them because paucity will result in better yields and rates.”

    Another media observer believes that the approaches that the leading GECs have taken will add to the chaos and confusion. “The TV broadcast industry seems to have learnt very well how to stall any disruptive regulatory changes,” says a media planner laughingly. “You have several opposing and pro-voices speaking up at the same time which tends to lead to policy paralysis.”

    She elaborates: “On the one side, the advertisers, agencies, news broadcasters, music channels and niche channels are against the TRAI ad cap. One of the major networks are also opposing it; while the other three are showing that they want it. It will be tough for anyone to decide which direction should things move. If the ad cap is on – in an election year – the news channels will take umbrage and the government cannot afford to have a negative fallout in an election year. If the ad cap is stalled for a while, that is good for everyone: the leading GECs have already got rate hikes of some sort; Sony can join in and hike rates and finally the news channels will not be faced with shriveling air time revenues. So they will be happy.”

    “We are also taking a leadership position by complying with the TRAI regulations,” says an executive with one of the three networks. “We believe the time for change on TV advertising is now and hence are supporting it.”

    What move will the telecom industry’s conscience – the TDSAT – and the regulator – TRAI- make next? Our guess is as good as any, but the ad cap game play is surely beginning to resemble a very complicated game of chess.

  • The TRAI, TDSAT and the ad cap story: Waiting for Godot?

    The TRAI, TDSAT and the ad cap story: Waiting for Godot?

    So everyone has bought themselves some more time. The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) decided to postpone till 11 November the date of hearing for the 10+2 ad cap case filed by the News Broadcasters Association (NBA), music channels as well as the regional channels on grounds of lack of information. The extra fortnight gave it more days to ruminate over what has clearly proved to be a major thorn in almost everyone’s side whether it is the government or broadcasters or agencies or advertisers.

     

    The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) started it all when under the quality of services rules it decided to force broadcasters to limit commercial air time to 12 minutes per hour a year or so ago. The decision was postponed and rolled over until mid-2013 when it decided enough is enough and passed an order which would see general entertainment channels first reduce advertising airtime to 16 minutes per hour, while the news channels were to cut it down to 20 minutes per hour from 1 July till 30 September. Following this, the GECs from 1 October had to reduce the advertising airtime to 12 minutes per hour and the news channels to 16 minutes per hour.

     

    The decision was postponed and rolled over until mid-2013 when it decided enough is enough and passed an order which would see general entertainment channels first reduce advertising airtime to 16 minutes per hour, while the news channels were to cut it down to 20 minutes per hour from 1 July till 30 September.
    _____****_____________________________________________________

    Broadcasters – especially the news one – saw red instantly and screamed as if their life was being squeezed out of them. They obviously did not think about the viewer who was at times being inundated with almost 30 minutes or more of ads on TV to watch news. They went ahead and appealed to the TDSAT that what was being called for was draconian and unacceptable. Their claim that news could not have fixed time duration such as TV shows and hence such a restrictive law would sound the death knell for them. However, syncing it with the completion of digitisation was that found favour with them.

     

    The GECs seemed unperturbed and said that they were all right with the TRAI diktat and announced that they would compensate the inventory reduction by raising per 10 second rates by 20-30 per cent. They seemed a very united bunch until one day the management at Multi Screen Media (Sony) woke up and said it would walk its own path and not reduce air time. The music channels too followed and filed an appeal with TDSAT.

     

    In the meanwhile, the Information and Broadcasting Ministry too got into the act with minister Manish Tewari stating categorically that the reduction of air time should happen as digitisation gets completed by December 2014, giving the broadcasters some much needed support. The mandarins at Shastri Bhawan were asked to evaluate how the reduction of air time would impact the TV channels.

     

    Advertisers and agencies sucked in their collective breaths and protested as loudly as they could that the broadcast industry was unilaterally trying to raise rates without any rationale despite having contracts in place and that they would not allow that.

     

    The noise continued for weeks until the hearing date came up on 31 October morning. Everyone was expecting that the TDSAT would be supportive and would rule in favour of the broadcasters. Hence, the postponement of the hearing was quite anti-climactic, though many expected it to follow that course..

     

    The GECs seemed unperturbed and said that they were all right with the TRAI diktat and announced that they would compensate the inventory reduction by raising per 10 second rates by 20-30 per cent.
    _____****_____________________________________________________

    The argument that the NBA needs more time seems a little specious, but it worked with the TDSAT. They were anyway slated to be heard on 11 November itself but their case got advanced as the number of cases went up, so for them it is back to base one.

     

    The networks – Star India, Zee TV, and Viacom18 (who had earlier stated that they would toe the TRAI line) now filed an intervention with the tribunal but have been asked to come back with a separate case.

     

    Now what after 11 November? What are the various scenarios that could play out? One, the TDSAT will turn down the appeal and tell everyone to obey the TRAI. Right now and pronto!. Two, it could postpone the hearing further, thus giving everyone more time. Third, it could decide that the reduction of air time is a good move but needs more time to be implemented. Fourth, broadcasters, advertisers and agencies could file further cases and a decision could well be put in abeyance until all the cases get sorted. The TDSAT on its part could give a ruling in one case and say that it is applicable to others, but that does not look feasible because each television channel genre has its own set of challenges.

     

    The question on everyone’s minds is whether it would give rope till 2014 December. This is something that can be debated and be seen as wishful thinking. But who knows the TDSAT may well end up playing the fairy godmother.

     

    Now, let’s say the TDSAT rules against the broadcasters, it is quite likely that they will head to the higher courts. And knowing Indian courts, it won’t be easy to reach a quick decision. Industry experts expect the air time cap to take its own course and time. That it will happen is a given, but predicting how soon is like attempting to play Russian roulette. Welcome to the world of television which has become more of a gamble in recent times.

  • Sony Six woos early morning audience with NBA treat

    Sony Six woos early morning audience with NBA treat

    MUMBAI: Indian viewers are set to see more basketball on their screens with NBA and Sony Six concretising their plans. ‘NBA Mornings on Six’ will televise up to 14 matches per week back to back every day. Flagging off on 30 October, the first match will be current champions Miami Heat facing off against the Chicago Bulls at 5:30 am IST followed by the LA Clippers against the LA Lakers at 8:00 am. A total of 300 live regular season games will be shown along with NBA All Star, Playoffs and the finals.

    The channel also plans to create basketball-centric programs including a lifestyle one that will show the game off the court along with added local content. The show will be aired once a week at primetime. Digital and social media are also being tapped through apps, games and contests.

    “This enhanced offering will give the fans a chance to watch their favorite team and stars consistently throughout the season. We are confident that our approach will open up an enormous opportunity in the ‘Breakfast’ time space for capturing viewership,” says Sony Six business head Prasana Krishnan.

    An NBA Slam Dunk app on Facebook will reward people for answering questions. A trivia contest will run across TV, digital and social media, the winner of which will get a trip to the 2014 NBA All Star as well as get featured on a show.

    NBA and Sony Six tied up earlier this year in a multi- year deal to promote the game in India. “This new, expanded programming will increase fan access to NBA basketball on multiple platforms,” says NBA India managing director Yannick Colaco.

  • Notice to I&B Ministry, NBA on allegations of paid news

    Notice to I&B Ministry, NBA on allegations of paid news

    NEW DELHI: The Allahabad High Court today issued notice to the Information and Broadcasting Ministry, the News Broadcasters Association (NBA) and the News Broadcasting Standards Authority (NBSA) in a petition relating to paid news.

     

    Justice Devi Prasad Singh and Justice Ashok Pal Singh of the Lucknow bench said that in a democratic country while freedom of expression is a basic requirement, there are problems related to paid news and other vested news if there is no forum with the government for complaints to be presented by the public.

     

    The court has asked the ministry as well as the media organisations to present their reply about social activist Dr Nutan Thakur’s complaint and the present grievance redressal mechanism for viewers against news channels, within four weeks.

     

    Thakur had previously sent her complaint relating to news channels reports about the role of Raja Bhaiya in DSP Ziaul Haq murder being one-sided, but the NBSA had concluded that no impropriety was done in broadcasting of these news items. She then approached the High Court against this decision.

  • NBA and Reliance Foundation hook up for basketball

    NBA and Reliance Foundation hook up for basketball

    MUMBAI: Earlier this year, NBA dived into the Indian sports market by introducing the first ever basketball championship called JAM for college students. Now it plans to go even deeper by making the sport attractive for young kids in order to get them engaged in it from school days through the newly launched Jr NBA.

     

    Three months ago, NBA announced its deal with Sony Six as its official broadcast partner in the country helping it promote the game on screen. It will telecast NBA matches live as well as repeats on the channel as well as its website.

     

    Now, NBA along with Reliance Foundation have signed a deal to get school kids between ages eight to sixteen years to join the game by giving them an opportunity to play under trained professionals. International coaches have been called to train local coaches from October to December this year who will in turn teach the sport to their students. The first year will see Mumbai and Kochi being targeted with five international coaches for each city. They are Ontario Lett, Vanja Cernivec, Bryan Gamroth, Billy Singleton and Sheika Ann Anbatali. Kochi will have a separate set of coaches.

     

    This year 108 schools in Mumbai have registered to be a part of this activity that will see basketball being introducing in the curriculum of the schools as well as training being provided post school hours. All of it will be absolutely free. An Indian centric manual has also been developed that will guide the local instructors on ways to train kids and know the game better. The ultimate aim is to reach a million students through 3,000 coaches in about 10 cities of the country in the next three years.

     

    According to NBA senior director basketball operations (international) Troy Justice India has a lot of scope for sport, especially basketball. “This programme will accelerate the growth and make children basketball friendly,” says Justice.

     

    The best shooters will be selected from each school and a citywide championship will be held. Apart from the sport they also plan to inculcate values such as sportsmanship, active lifestyle, health and teamwork.

     

    “This is the first time that such a comprehensive level of in-school and after-school program is being implemented in any sport in India,” says an emphatic NBA India MD Yannick Colaco. The activity will span from October 2013 to February 2014. Colaco adds that the whole programme is free for the participating schools and physical education teachers. Promotion campaigns for it are already being made. Mostly direct methods of communication will be used to reach out to students as well as parents through PTA meetings and the likes.

     

    Sony Six is also actively interacting with people on social media to get their attention. More promotional activities are lined up as per the deal. Plans for Hindi commentary for the game in the future are also being thought of.

     

    Apparently NBA JAM got an overwhelming response with over 1,000 teams wanting to participate when only 600 could be accommodated. Now it hopes to get more basketball rings into schools and more balls bouncing into the hoops.

  • More regional TV channels join the petition in TDSAT against the TRAI adcap

    More regional TV channels join the petition in TDSAT against the TRAI adcap

    NEW DELHI: Some more channels today joined the large number of news and general entertainment channels whose matters challenging the issues relating to the adcap sought to be implemented by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) will be heard by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) on 31 October.

     

    Member Kuldeep Singh of TDSAT tagged along with the other cases those by Eenadu group of Andhra Pradesh and the Sarthak Entertainment group of Odisha.

     

    While TDSAT had on 1 October listed all matters to come up on 21 October, it had deferred this date to 31 October following a mention by News Broadcasters Association (NBA) who had earlier been given the date of 11 November for hearing the petition challenging the constitutional mandate of TRAI in the matter of adcap.

     

    TDSAT had earlier accepted an assurance by TRAI not to take any coercive action against the channels.

     

    Counsel for TRAI Saket Singh had told TDSAT in an earlier hearing that an anomalous situation had been created with some channels having accepted the adcap with effect from today, 1 October. It was therefore requested that the matter be resolved once for all.

     

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

     

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

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

  • News Broadcasters case on adcap to be heard by TDSAT on 31 October

    News Broadcasters case on adcap to be heard by TDSAT on 31 October

    NEW DELHI: The petition by the News Broadcasters Association (NBA) challenging the constitutional validity of the regulations of Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) enforcing the ad cap is to come up for hearing on 31 October.

     

    The fresh date was fixed on a mention by counsel A J Bhambani for the NBA to the effect that the cases relating to general entertainment channels could not be clubbed with news broadcasters who had challenged the authority of TRAI to take decisions in the matter.

     

    Earlier on 30 August, the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) had listed the matter for 11 November.

     

    However, when some general entertainment channels including music channels approached TDSAT in various petitions, the Tribunal decided to club all the cases together and hear them on 21 October after counsel for TRAI told TDSAT during a hearing earlier this month that an anomalous situation had been created with some channels having accepted the adcap with effect from 1 October. It was therefore requested that the matter be resolved once and for all.

     

    It remains to be seen whether general entertainment channels will seek a change in date in view of the new date for the NBA case. However, counsel for some of the GECs told indiantelevision.com that TDSAT was expected to hear all matters together on 31 October.

     

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

     

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