ITV

Tag: tariff orders

  • Madras HC to hear Star India’s rejoinder in TRAI challenge today

    NEW DELHI: Following the completion of arguments of the All-India Digital Cable Federation and Videocon d2h, the Madras High Court will today commence hearing a rejoinder by the petitioners — Star India and Vijay TV.

    Concluding his arguments in the petition by Star India and Vijay TV challenging the jurisdiction of TRAI to issue tariff orders on the ground that the subject of content fell under the Copyright Act, counsel for AIDCF A R L Sundaresan explained how the Telecom Regulatory and Copyright Law do not infringe upon each other. AIDCF had intervened in the matter.

    AIDCF also explained the flow of revenue and the breakup, and what is carriage, network capacity fee, distribution fee etc. It told the court how the money would be divided amongst different stakeholders including broadcasters under the new tariff regulations. The concept of carriage fee, distribution fee and network capacity fees were explained with help of charts.

    Videoco d2h counsel Vijay Raman said the petition militates against the right of stakeholders to do business as guaranteed in Article 19 (1) of the Constitution. The new tariff order had asked broadcasters to declare their minimum retail price per channel to consumers and give ‘a la carte’ price for pay channels. This would give greater choice to the consumer.

    Earlier last week, TRAI counsel Saket Singh had said that, prior to the tariff order, the broadcaster would sell distribution right to the multi-system operators at wholesale price level, and MSOs would accordingly sell to the consumers. Thus, the consumer had no direct link with the pricing.

    The new tariff had taken away the power of distributors in terms of pricing and that has been given to the broadcaster. Hence, they are the master of their channel and can price the consumer, accordingly. The consumer also got the right to refuse to pay for channels he did not watch. Singh also explained the concept of carriage fee.

    Although the Supreme Court had, in early May, while staying the tariff order directed the Madras High Court to complete hearing within four weeks, the high court had commenced the hearing in the last week of June. The hearing had commenced with the pleadings of counsel for the petitioners.

    Meanwhile, TRAI TV reference interconnect offer (RIO) and Quality of service order (QoS) came into effect from 2 May following the order of the High Court.

    In the hearing in April-end, it had said Section 3 of the Tariff order and all other consequences of such implementation/enforcement would be subject to the outcome of the main petition.

    Apart from the Tariff order which had originally been issued on 10 October last year, the regulator also issued the DAS Interconnect Regulations which had been issued on 14 October last year, and the Standards of Quality of Service and Consumer Protection (Digital Addressable Systems) Regulations which had been issued on 10 October last year.

    The orders can be seen at:
    http://trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/Tariff_Order_English_3%20March_20…
    http://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/QOS_Regulation_03_03_2017.pdf
    http://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/Interconnection_Regulation_03…

    Also Read :Decks cleared for TRAI tariff order implementation as HC declines stay (updated)

    Star India case questioning TRAI jurisdiction over content postponed

  • TRAI tariff order withdrawal: Star India joins ZEEL in appeal

    TRAI tariff order withdrawal: Star India joins ZEEL in appeal

    NEW DELHI: Star India Pvt Ltd has been impleaded as a party in two appeals challenging the withdrawal by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India of two inflation-linked Tariff Amendment Orders issued by it in 2014 and set aside by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal.

    Observing that the adjudication in the matter will affect the whole sector especially broadcasters and distributors, Tribunal Member B B Srivastava said in his order of 28 September 2016 gave Star one week to file its affidavit and asked TRAI to reply within ten days of that.

    The Tribunal listed for 9 November 2016 the further hearing of the two appeals filed by Zee Entertainment Enterprise Ltd against the withdrawal of the TRAI tariff orders of 9 May this year.

    Earlier, Star counsel Gopal Jain said the Secvtion 8A of the Civil Procedure Code was clear that any party or parties that may be affected by a court decision could be impleaded and heard.

    However, TRAI counsel Kirtiman Singh said that Section 14A (3) of the TRAI Act provides a period of thirty days for filing an appeal. But he noted that a proviso says that the Tribunal can take note if there is sufficient reason for this.

    Observing that there is healthy growth in the industry with rise in revenues outstripping the increasing inflation over the years, TRAI had decided that two inflation-linked Tariff Amendment Orders issued by it in 2014 and set aside by the Tribunal are not required at present.

    Earlier, the Supreme Court had on an appeal from the Indian Broadcasting Foundation and another party also upheld the TDSAT order setting aside the amendments in two tariff orders which had sought to put an inflation-linked hike of 27.5 per cent on addressable and non-addressable systems.

    Holding the Telecommunication (Broadcasting & Cable) Services (Second) Tariff (Eleventh Amendment) Order 2014 of March 2014 and ‘The Telecommunication (Broadcasting & Cable) Services (Second) Tariff (Thirteenth Amendment) Order 2014 of December that year were ‘untenable’, the Tribunal had said it thought TRAI “will be well advised to have a fresh look at the various tariff orders in a holistic manner and come out with a comprehensive tariff order in supersession of all the earlier tariff orders.”

    In its directives withdrawing the orders, TRAI said: “During analysisof relevant data and the impact of various factors on the issue ofinflation linked hikes in tariff ceilings at the wholesale levels”, it had observed that the “annual revenues that actually accrued to the broadcasters had surpassed the estimated revenues that should have accrued to them after taking into account the year-on-year inflation as calculated using the GDP deflator. The compounded annual growth rate of the revenues accruing year-on-year to the broadcasters has also witnessed a positive growth. More importantly, this growth has kept well ahead of the estimate revenues compensated for the year-on-year change in the inflation using the GDP deflator.”

    The tariff hike had been challenged by Home Cable Network and the Centre for Transforming India, with Lucknow 9 Cable Network, Good Media News India Pvt Ltd, Sikkim Digital Network and Cable Combine Communication Siliguri as intervenors. Later, Indian Broadcasting Federation (IBF) supported the order as intervener while the other interveners who were Direct to Home (DTH) operators, Multi System Operators (MSOs), Association of Cable Operators/Cable Operators opposed the order on the same grounds as the Appellants.

  • TRAI tariff order withdrawal: Star India joins ZEEL in appeal

    TRAI tariff order withdrawal: Star India joins ZEEL in appeal

    NEW DELHI: Star India Pvt Ltd has been impleaded as a party in two appeals challenging the withdrawal by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India of two inflation-linked Tariff Amendment Orders issued by it in 2014 and set aside by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal.

    Observing that the adjudication in the matter will affect the whole sector especially broadcasters and distributors, Tribunal Member B B Srivastava said in his order of 28 September 2016 gave Star one week to file its affidavit and asked TRAI to reply within ten days of that.

    The Tribunal listed for 9 November 2016 the further hearing of the two appeals filed by Zee Entertainment Enterprise Ltd against the withdrawal of the TRAI tariff orders of 9 May this year.

    Earlier, Star counsel Gopal Jain said the Secvtion 8A of the Civil Procedure Code was clear that any party or parties that may be affected by a court decision could be impleaded and heard.

    However, TRAI counsel Kirtiman Singh said that Section 14A (3) of the TRAI Act provides a period of thirty days for filing an appeal. But he noted that a proviso says that the Tribunal can take note if there is sufficient reason for this.

    Observing that there is healthy growth in the industry with rise in revenues outstripping the increasing inflation over the years, TRAI had decided that two inflation-linked Tariff Amendment Orders issued by it in 2014 and set aside by the Tribunal are not required at present.

    Earlier, the Supreme Court had on an appeal from the Indian Broadcasting Foundation and another party also upheld the TDSAT order setting aside the amendments in two tariff orders which had sought to put an inflation-linked hike of 27.5 per cent on addressable and non-addressable systems.

    Holding the Telecommunication (Broadcasting & Cable) Services (Second) Tariff (Eleventh Amendment) Order 2014 of March 2014 and ‘The Telecommunication (Broadcasting & Cable) Services (Second) Tariff (Thirteenth Amendment) Order 2014 of December that year were ‘untenable’, the Tribunal had said it thought TRAI “will be well advised to have a fresh look at the various tariff orders in a holistic manner and come out with a comprehensive tariff order in supersession of all the earlier tariff orders.”

    In its directives withdrawing the orders, TRAI said: “During analysisof relevant data and the impact of various factors on the issue ofinflation linked hikes in tariff ceilings at the wholesale levels”, it had observed that the “annual revenues that actually accrued to the broadcasters had surpassed the estimated revenues that should have accrued to them after taking into account the year-on-year inflation as calculated using the GDP deflator. The compounded annual growth rate of the revenues accruing year-on-year to the broadcasters has also witnessed a positive growth. More importantly, this growth has kept well ahead of the estimate revenues compensated for the year-on-year change in the inflation using the GDP deflator.”

    The tariff hike had been challenged by Home Cable Network and the Centre for Transforming India, with Lucknow 9 Cable Network, Good Media News India Pvt Ltd, Sikkim Digital Network and Cable Combine Communication Siliguri as intervenors. Later, Indian Broadcasting Federation (IBF) supported the order as intervener while the other interveners who were Direct to Home (DTH) operators, Multi System Operators (MSOs), Association of Cable Operators/Cable Operators opposed the order on the same grounds as the Appellants.

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

    Tariff orders in case of DTH operators set aside by TDSAT

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

     

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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