ITV

Tag: TDSAT

  • TDSAT directs 65 Rajasthan LCOs to make payment to Hathway

    TDSAT directs 65 Rajasthan LCOs to make payment to Hathway

    NEW DELHI: Accepting the request on behalf of 65 Rajasthan cable operators about their dues to Hathway Cable & Datacom Ltd. Jaipur, the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has said that these payments are ad hoc in nature and without prejudice to the rights and contentions of either side and will abide by the final decision in the petition.

     

    The petition had been filed by Rajasthan Cable Operators Foundation, Jaipur, on behalf of the local cable operators (LCOs).

     

    Following a previous order and as an ad hoc arrangement, Hathway counsel Jayant K  Mehta gave a computation with regard to the monthly subscription fee payable for the months of August and September 2015 by each of the 65 LCOs being represented in this petition.

     

    Foundation counsel G S Oberoi said the LCOs will “certainly” make payment on the basis of the computation given on behalf of Hathway. 

     

    However, he submitted that the payment of the dues for the aforesaid two months may be split up into two instalments. He said half of the dues for the two months will be paid by the LCOs along with the payment for the month of December and the balance along with the payment for the month January 2016. 

     

    The Tribunal listed the matter on 22 December before the Assistant Registrar for getting the pleadings completed, framing of issues and taking evidences.

  • TDSAT asks MSM not to disconnect signals to Manthan if dues paid

    TDSAT asks MSM not to disconnect signals to Manthan if dues paid

     
    NEW DELHI: MSM Media Distribution Pvt. Ltd has been directed not to disconnect the signals to Manthan Broadband Services Pvt. Ltd if the latter makes payments under a formula worked out by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT).
                                   
    TDSAT asked Manthan to make the payment to the respondent for the outstanding dues as under: 
    (a) Rs 1.5 crore by 25 December
    (b) Rs 1.5 crore – 15 days thereafter
    (c) The balance amount after adjusting TDS amount by 31 January, 2016. 
     
    TDSAT members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava in their judgment said in terms of the regulations, three months period after expiry of the existing agreement is permitted to enable the parties to negotiate and arrive at a fresh agreement. During this period, the terms of the old agreement are applicable but when the fresh agreement is signed, the same have to abide by the terms of the new agreement. 
     
    Since the parties have not been able to come to any agreement even after three months, the Tribunal felt that Manthan must clear the outstanding amount of subscription dues as per old agreement if it wishes to continue with the signals of MSM. 
     
    With regard to the credit period, the Tribunal noted that not only is the agreement not in subsistence but dues have also accumulated over a period of time. 
     
    Further, since the subscription fee and placement charges are governed by two separate agreements, which are not even subsisting as on date, the Tribunal said Manthan cannot insist on adjustment of placement fees against the dues of license fee. 
     
     
    It had been submitted during the hearing that in terms of the notices issued under regulation 6(i) of DAS Regulations 2012, Manthan has to pay MSM for subscription fees as under: 
    MSM O/s for Kolkata as per notice dated 29.10.2015 Rs 4,04,53,536/- 
    MSM O/s for Ranchi as per notice dated 5.11.2015 Rs 55,60,609/- 
    TV Today O/s for Ranchi as per notice dated 5.11.2015 Rs 1,12,395/-
    TV Today O/s for Kolkata as per invoice dated 1.10.2015 Rs 8,20,680/-
     
    Manthan counsel Navin Chawla submitted that under the understanding between the parties, his client was getting a credit period of two months for payment of subscription dues. He further submitted that under the invoices issued by Manthan, MSM owes a sum of Rs 4.73 crore as on October 2015 towards placement charges of the channels of the respondent. After netting off the placement charges, Chawla had claimed that it was MSM who had to pay an amount of Rs 1.58 crore to Manthan. 
     
    Chawla referred to minutes of meeting between the parties held on 11 – 13 August in which MSM admitted placement charges of Rs 2.97 crore till July, 2015. However, MSM counsel Ramji Srinivasan submitted that there is no netting off clause in the subscription agreement for adjusting subscription fees against placement charges and in any case the agreement for placement had expired on 31 March, 2015 and therefore, Manthan cannot claim any placement charges in the absence of any such agreement. He further submitted that the minutes of meeting of August was part of a negotiation process and cannot be relied upon in the absence of a concluded agreement. 
     
    The Tribunal noted that the subscription agreement between the parties expired on 31 March, 2015 by efflux of time and no fresh agreement has been signed till date. 
  • HITS to be treated at par with pan-India MSOs; TDSAT advises TRAI to frame consolidated Broadcasting Code

    HITS to be treated at par with pan-India MSOs; TDSAT advises TRAI to frame consolidated Broadcasting Code

    NEW DELHI: In a judgment expected to have far reaching consequences on the Indian broadcasting industry, the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) today said that headend-in-the-sky (HITS) players should be treated on the same level as pan-India multi-system operators (MSOs) for commercial purposes.
     

    In a judgment on a petition filed by the Noida Software Technology Park Ltd (NSTPL) against Media Pro and others, the Tribunal said its judgment would come into effect from 31 March, 2016 by which time the relevant reference interconnect offers will be revised wherever necessary.

    The Tribunal said, “It is difficult to see a HITS operator as different from a pan-India MSO and in our considered view a HITS operator, in regard to the commercial terms for an interconnect arrangement has to be taken at par with a pan-India MSO and must, therefore, receive the same treatment.”

    Expectedly, the judgment will also help Hinduja Group’s HITS platform NXT Digital, which entered into the fray earlier this year.

    TDSAT chairman Justice Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said both Star and Taj, as well as the other broadcasters who have joined the proceedings as intervenors are directed to issue fresh RIOs in compliance with the Interconnect Regulations, as explained in the judgment within one month from the date this order becomes operational and effective. It will be then open to NSTPL to execute fresh interconnect agreements with Star and Taj, and with any other broadcasters on the basis of their respective RIOs or on negotiated terms within the limits.

     
    Star and Taj will have to execute fresh interconnect agreements with the petitioner within two weeks from the date of issuance of their fresh RIOs. The agreement with Star would relate back to 30 October, 2015 and with Taj to 30 June, 2015. The issuance of the fresh RIOs by the broadcasters will also give right to other distributors of channels with whom the broadcasters may be in interconnect agreement to have their agreements modified in terms of clause 13.2A.7.
     

    NSTPL had executed an RIO based agreement with Media Pro. At that time, it did not complain before the Tribunal that it was being forced into the RIO based agreement even though it had ample opportunity to do so as the Media Pro application was pending before the Tribunal. Later on, after Media Pro ceased to be an agent of the broadcasters, NSTPL, even after filing the present petition, signed RIO based agreements both with Star and Taj. The agreement with Star was for the period upto 30 July, 2015 and the two agreements with Taj were upto 31 March, 2015.
     

    NSTPL must, therefore, be held bound by those agreements till the periods of those agreements and further, three months beyond that in terms of clause 8 of the Interconnect agreement. After those dates (29 October in case of Star and 30 June in case of Taj) the arrangement will be governed by the fresh agreements.

    The Tribunal said the non-discrimination obligation, which TRAI acknowledges as the pivot of those regulations, appears inconsistent with a regime where parties are allowed full latitude to mutually negotiate their agreements and also not disclose the commercial terms of the agreement to other market participants.
     

    There is the obligation to frame a meaningful RIO in which all bouquet and a la carte rates are specified, and there is also some room for mutual negotiation (even on rates) within certain specified parameters. This will achieve the objective of introducing a transparent non-discriminatory regime whereby distributors can obtain access to content, while still retaining some latitude to mutually negotiate the terms and conditions of access. It will also make the nexus between a la carte and bouquet rates, which the regulator thought fit to introduce, applicable to all mutually negotiated agreements. Negotiations must be within the parameters to those mandatory.

     
    At the same time, TDSAT said it was conscious that the present judgment may unsettle the way in which various parties in the broadcasting sector have entered into existing agreements. “We are further conscious that while the TRAI has taken a position broadly in line with our conclusions in this case, that has not always been the case. As the Amicus Curiae and the counsel for the Petitioner have pointed out, the positions taken by TRAI in the past have not always been fully consistent. In particular, we note the observation of TRAI in Consultation Paper No.15 / 2008 that in view of the confidentiality restrictions, the automatic implementation of non-discrimination clause in Interconnect Regulation is practically difficult,” it said.
     

    Thus, as far back as 2008, TRAI was aware that the non-discrimination clause – which, in these proceedings, it has sought to place on a very high pedestal – was effectively inoperative. And yet, matters in the broadcasting sector have been allowed to lie where they are by TRAI.
     

    TDSAT said it had on past occasions as well, made similar suggestions with the hope of nudging the Regulator to take proactive steps to reduce the scope of disputes arising out of the Regulations. At the same time, the fact that regulatory intervention may be the ideal way forward cannot and should not be an excuse for this Tribunal to shirk the interpretative issues that have come before us. This is particularly so when there appears to be regulatory inertia.
     

    This was the reason for suspending the operation of this judgment till 31 March, 2016. The judgment shall take effect on 1 April, 2016. “While we are aware that this is not a common procedure, we are of the view that it is appropriate in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, since the effect of this judgment may be to unsettle a number of existing agreements and necessitate re-negotiation,” the Tribunal said.
     

    In the meanwhile it will be open to TRAI to undertake a comprehensive restructuring of the Regulations, which would hopefully clarify many of the issues that arise in these proceedings. “We make it clear that this Tribunal is issuing no such direction to TRAI. The delayed operation of the judgment is only to afford an opportunity to TRAI to consider the matter and act in the intervening period, if appropriate,” it further added.
     

    As a greater part of the country would come under the DAS regime with effect from 1 January, 2016 the Tribunal said it would be advisable that TRAI should try to frame a consolidated Broadcasting Code instead of the large number of Regulations dealing with different aspects of the service and each having undergone numerous amendments. In order to make a serious effort in that direction, TRAI would be required to get hold of all the negotiated interconnect agreements between the broadcasters and the distributors of channels, which the broadcasters are in any event obliged to submit to TRAI. The Regulator may even feel the need to take a re-look at the tariff orders framed by it.

     
    Needless to add that in case TRAI issues any fresh Regulations before 1 April, 2016, the petitioner and the broadcasters would be obliged to execute agreements on that basis. In case, however, no fresh Regulations are issued by TRAI, this judgment and order will come into effect from the aforesaid date and the parties would be obliged to follow the directions give above.

    Suspension of this judgment is in the larger interest of the broadcasting sector. But this leaves open the question of the petitioner’s liability to pay licence fees to the broadcasters Star and Taj for their signals received by it during the pendency of the petitions before the Tribunal and further until execution of fresh agreements in terms of this judgment or in terms of fresh Regulations, if any, framed by TRAI. And since it will not be fair that the broadcasters should continue to supply signals to the petitioner without any payment for the next several months, some interim arrangement under which the petitioner should make payment of licence fees to the two broadcasters until after execution of fresh agreements accounts are finally reconciled. For this purpose, the petition against the broadcasters was de-tagged from this judgment and kept pending.
     

    Star has already filed an application in Petition No. 314 (C) of 2015 claiming the dues of licence fees from the petitioner. Petition No. 526 (C) of 2015 is directed to be tagged with Petition No. 314 (C) of 2015. In these two petitions, the Tribunal proposes to determine the Petitioner’s liability to pay the license fees to Star and Taj on an ad hoc basis and as an interim measure until the execution of the agreements with the two broadcasters, and when the accounts of the two sides may be reconciled to determine any final liability of the Petitioner or Respondents to make any further payments.
     

    It also made clear that all future deals between broadcasters and MSO/HITS players will be bound by the RIO agreements.

     
    While the case was initially filed against Media Pro in mid-2014, NSTPL had subsequently in December last year filed another petition against Star India and Taj TV.
     

    Since the issues in both petitions were similar and any judgment would affect the broadcasting sector as a whole, TDSAT had on 30 July this year issued a public notice asking all stakeholders to present their case on the issues involved.
     

    In an earlier case in 2013 between NSTPL and Media Pro Enterprise India Pvt. Ltd. TDSAT had on 12 September, 2013 directed Media Pro to provide signals of its TV channels to NSTPL.
     

    Later, NSTPL moved the Tribunal against Media Pro in which Taj Television Ltd and Star India Private Limited were brought in. Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) was also a party in the two petitions of 2014.

     
    The first petition 10 July, 2014, NSTPL raised some questions regarding RIO and wanted the Tribunal to declare Clause 3.2 of The Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconnection Regulation 2004, as amended from time to time should mandate that all distributors be offered the same rate per subscriber per month which is the rate specified in the broadcaster’s RIO, unless the conditions of Clause 3.6 of Interconnection Regulation are fulfilled.

     
    It also wanted declaration in terms of Clause 3.6 of Interconnect Regulation to the effect that any discounted volume related scheme must be disclosed in a transparent manner, so as to enable the similarly placed distributors to avail of the same.
     

    It demanded that Media Pro be directed to disclose the volume related schemes at which it offers TV channel signals to distributors that are similarly placed with NSTPL and permit NSTPL to avail of such schemes.
     

    The second petition on 12 December, 2014 was against Taj and TRAI, which impugned the disconnection measures that had been initiated by Taj against NSTPL on account of alleged defaults like non-payment of certain amounts of subscription fees.

  • TDSAT appoints advocate commissioner to examine subscription claims of Chirala MSO

    TDSAT appoints advocate commissioner to examine subscription claims of Chirala MSO

    NEW DELHI: An Advocate Commissioner has been appointed by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) to carry out a sample survey of the SLRs of Chirala Cable Network, which is seeking signals of Taj TV, Eenadu TV, Maa TV and Sun Distribution Services.

     

    The Tribunal said Advocate Commissioner Tushar Singh would go on a date duly intimated to all concerned to Chirala town and its rural areas where the multi system operator (MSO) claims it has subscribers. All the parties may nominate their representative to accompany the Advocate Commissioner in course of the survey. 

     

    Singh will go to all panchayat areas named in the SLR submitted by the petitioner. In each area he will visit at least 10 houses named in the SLR and 10 houses outside the SLR to verify whether any one of them are the petitioner’s subscribers or they are taking their signals from some other MSO/LCO. 

     

    Listing the matter for 4 January, the Advocate Commissioner was asked to submit a report within three weeks and he will be paid, apart from actual expenses, an honorarium of Rs 30,000 per day.

     

    The order came on a petition by the MSO wanting the signals of the four respondents against whom it has filed these four petitions. The petitioner is operating in Chirala town and adjoining rural areas. The controversy between the parties is mainly in regard to the petitioner’s SLR in rural areas, adjoining Chirala town.

     

    The Tribunal noted that Chirala town falls under Phase III of the DAS regime and the rural areas adjoining it come under Phase IV. In Chirala town, the petitioner is getting Sun’s signals through A.C.T Digital. 

     

    During the proceedings, the petitioner filed two or three SLRs, which on verification by Sun are said to have been found incorrect. According to Sun, the petitioner does not have any subscriber in the rural areas around Chirala town and it is making an attempt to penetrate the rural areas on the basis of incorrect SLRs “which would make it very difficult for the broadcasters to raise their invoices.”

     

    The Tribunal also noted that the petitioner had once again filed a fat affidavit giving its latest SLRs according to which it has 3219 subscribers of which 1138 are in Chirala town and the rest in the rural areas.

     

    The ascertainment that the correct SLRs that should form the basis for determining the licence fee payable by the petitioner to the broadcasters is an issue of facts, which may be determined on the basis of evidences led by the parties.

  • TDSAT permits LCO to seek TV signals directly from distributor

    TDSAT permits LCO to seek TV signals directly from distributor

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has said that SRE Digital Cable Communications is entitled in law to ask Sun TV for supply of signals directly despite the fact that it has been receiving these signals from another multi system operator (MSO).

     

    TDSAT chairman Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said however that this is subject to the operator satisfying the conditions mandated in the Regulations.

     

    Listing the matter for 21 December, the Tribunal said, “It will be open to Sun Distribution Services Pvt Ltd to make an inspection of the LCO’s system and to be satisfied that it is compliant with the regulatory norms.”

     

    On the next date, the LCO’s counsel Sujeet Kumar Mishra will also produce the invoices of A.C.T. Digital with the materials showing that payments are duly made against those invoices.

          

    The Tribunal also noted that the area in which the petitioner is operating is to come under the DAS regime in the third phase from 1 January, 2016. “It is, therefore, reasonable to assume that the petitioner would have a digital head-end in place. As a matter of fact, Mr. Mishra states that such is the position and the petitioner is capable of retransmitting any signals, including those received from SUN in digital mode.”

     

    However, it said that Sun could not be denied the request to examine the systems.

     

    In pursuance of the order passed on 29 October, Sun counsel Abhishek Malhotra filed an affidavit stating that the petitioner is receiving Sun’s signals from A.C.T. Digital. 

     

    Mishra admitted to the Tribunal that the petitioner had been receiving Sun’s signals from A.C.T. Digital from the month of November 2015. “Evidently, the earlier statements made on behalf of the petitioner were not correct,” the Tribunal noted.

  • TDSAT issues bailable arrest warrants against two directors of Sahara India TV Network

    TDSAT issues bailable arrest warrants against two directors of Sahara India TV Network

    New Delhi: In a power rarely exercised by it, the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal has issued a bailable warrant of arrest against Sahara India TV Network Directors Govind Tiwari and Devendra Kumar Srivastava in a case of non-payment of dues to multi-system operator Delhi Distribution Company.  

     

    Listing the matter for 22 December, Chairman Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said: “From the earlier orders, it appears that the Directors of the company are willfully flouting the directions of this Tribunal. The Tribunal is, therefore, left with no option but to secure their presence through coercive measures.” 

     

    It was also noted that neither the details of moveable and immoveable properties of the company were filed nor any payment being made towards the discharge of the decree. 

     

    Sahara India counsel Pankaj Agarwal who was present said he had been instructed that he would be handed over the cheque to be handed over to the MSO but was later told no cheque was being sent.

     

    The TDSAT office was directed to issue bailable warrants of arrest on the addresses being furnished by MSO Counsel Vibhav Srivastava to ensure their personal appearance on the next date fixed in the matter.

  • Durgapur MSO assures Star India and TDSAT it would rectify errors in its head-end

    Durgapur MSO assures Star India and TDSAT it would rectify errors in its head-end

    New Delhi: Durgapur-based multi-system operator Akash Tori Infocom Services Pvt Ltd has assured the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal  (TDSAT) that it will rectify the errors in its system pointed out by Star India.
     
    Chairman Justice Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava adjourned the matter to 11 December for further hearing after hearing counsel for both sides.
     
    TDSAT had on 4 November directed the MSO to make it convenient for Star India to examine its headends in Durgapur. Accordingly, Star India had conducted a technical audit. Some shortcomings were found and this was conveyed to the MSO by Star India in a letter.
     
    Akash Tori counsel Radhika Gupta admitted that shortcomings have been found in relation to set top boxes.
     
    Star India counsel Arjun Natarajan said the audit had revealed that Akash Tori’s Subscriber Management System (SMS) is not integrated with CAS for activation/deactivation of STB, which are not possible from SMS. Furthermore, the basic addressable features in STB, like channel encryption, package activation/deactivation are not available. Natarajan also said fingerprinting and OSD or messaging is not happening in STBs.
     
    Star India asked Akash Tori to rectify the shortcomings and after rectification, it said Akash Tori may either approach Star India for a re-audit, or go for an audit by Broadcast Engineering Consultants (India) Ltd.
     
    Ms Gupta said she would seek instructions from her client in this regard and take appropriate steps. The MSO had filed a petition seeking Star’s signals in digital mode on RIO terms. 
     
    In the earlier hearing on 4 November, TDSAT was informed by Akash Tori counsel Radhika Gupta that the MSO had not yet received some set top boxes it had ordered.
     
    When the matter had first come up on 19 October, the Tribunal had noted that Akash Tori was a ‘fledgling multi-system operator’ and ‘Star India cannot have any objection to give its signals on RIO terms to it, permitting Star to examine the headend of the MSO.
  • TDSAT sends team to Punjab to ascertain alleged links between Fastway & Apna Cable

    TDSAT sends team to Punjab to ascertain alleged links between Fastway & Apna Cable

    NEW DELHI: A team of three Advocate Commissioners has been appointed by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) to go to Talwandi Sabo in Punjab to examine allegations as to whether Fastway Transmission Pvt. Ltd is using an entity by the name of Apna Cable to transmit signals in the area of the Malwa Cable Operator Sangarsh Committee.

     

    The allegation by the 12 cable operators, who are members of the Committee, is that Apna Cable is transmitting signals in analogue mode and is operating in digital mode.

     

    The team will also examine whether Apna Cable has its own head-end and cable network or if it is using the “leased lines” taken from Fastway or is otherwise using the network, systems or equipment of Fastway. It will also look into whether Apna Cable is engaged in laying down any cables in that area and being helped by Fastway in doing so.

     

    The commissioners will also find out all the channels that Apna Cable is giving to its subscribers and which of those channels are being received from Fastway and which channels it is getting directly from different broadcasters on the basis of agreements with them. 

     

    The commissioners will also find out by engaging with subscribers of both Apna Cable and the petitioner LCOs the amounts of monthly subscription fee they are charging from their respective subscribers and whether Apna Cable has issued pamphlets or it is making any public announcements that the subscribers should take the Fastway channels from Apna Cable at much lower rates than those realised by the petitioner LCOs.

     

    The Advocate Commissioners – Nasir Husain, Vibhav Srivastava and Ravi S S Chauhan – have been asked to go to the area by the end of this week and the matter has been listed for 23 November.

     

    TDSAT chairman Justice Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava also directed that Apna Cable be issued notice and added to the list of respondents.

     

    The Tribunal noted that there appeared to be “some seriously disputed facts on the ground.”

     

    In pursuance of the previous order passed on 14 October, Deenadayalan had been appointed as the Advocate Commission but could not proceed beyond Bhatinda becase of serious social disturbance and was advised to come back. 

     

    Fastway counsel Navin Chawla denied the allegations about Apna Cable and said there was no link between his client and the LCO.

     

    The petitioners alleged that Apna Cable is only a front name and the entire work of cable-laying is being done at the instance of and using the resources of Fastway. It is alleged that Apna Cables is receiving signals from Fastway and re-transmitting those signals in the petitioners’ area of operation in analogue mode. It is further alleged that Apna Cable is issuing pamphlets and making public announcements that the subscribers should take their signals from Apna Cable as it would give them Fastway signals at a much cheaper rate. According to the petitioners, Apna Cable is an entity simply set up by Fastway as a ploy to drive them out of business.

     

    According to Chawla, Apna Cable had its own independent head-end and it has interconnect agreements with a few broadcasters whose signals it might be transmitting on the basis of the agreements with them. But during arguments, he said a little later that Fastway has given leased lines to Apna Cable and it might also be giving some local free-to-air channels like the live telecast from the Golden Temple to Apna Cable. The Tribunal noted that “admittedly Fastway is not giving any of its local free-to-air channels, like the live telecast from the Golden Temple to any of the LCOs represented in this petition.”

     

    The Commissioners will first try to find out if the supply of signals to the 12 LCOs (whose description is given in the affidavit filed on 14.09.2015) was disrupted for several days in the middle of October 2015. For this purpose, the team of Commissioners may examine the networks of the petitioner LCOs as also the local system of the respondent. They may also interview and engage with the subscribers of the 12 LCOs to find out whether or not they were receiving signals through the petitioner’s network during the past month or even now.

     

    Each member of the Advocate Commissioners’ team will be paid, apart from actual expenses, honorarium at the rate of Rs 20,000 per day. The payment will be made by the two sides in the ratio of 75 per cent by the respondent and 25 per cent by the petitioners. 

     

    The Tribunal rejected objections by Chawla to the respective shares and insists that the payment must be made in equal shares.

  • Interconnect agreements mandatory for provision of signals: TRAI

    Interconnect agreements mandatory for provision of signals: TRAI

    NEW DELHI: Following several cases in this regard before the Telecom Disputes Settlement & Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT), the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) today proposed that no signals can be provided to multi system operators (MSOs) or cable operators after the expiry of the Interconnect Agreement.

     

    The draft Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconnection (Digital Addressable Cable Television Systems) (Sixth Amendment) Regulations 2015 says that: “It shall also be mandatory for the broadcaster to enter into written interconnection agreement with the multi system operator for retransmission of the pay channel(s) even if nil subscription fee is charged by the broadcaster or paid by the cable operator.”

     

    All stakeholders have been asked to respond with their comments by 20 November with counter-comments by 27 November.

     

    The draft says that it will be mandatory for the service providers to enter into new agreements 21 days prior to the date of expiry of the existing agreement “to ensure that inconvenience is not caused to the consumers by sudden disconnections of signals due to failure of the service providers to enter into new interconnection agreements.”

     

    Furthermore, broadcasters or MSOs, as the case may be, will give notice to the MSO or the linked local cable operator (LCO), as the case may be, to enter into the new agreement 60 days prior to the date of expiry of the existing interconnection agreement.

     

    In case the service providers fail to enter into new interconnection agreement, the MSO or the linked LCO, will have to inform the consumer the disconnection of signals 15 days prior to the date of expiry of the agreement.

     

    TRAI said it had been observed from the Interconnection details submitted by the service providers that signals of TV channels are being provided by several broadcasters to MSOs and MSOs to LCOs even in the absence of interconnection agreement in writing.

     

    This continuation of retransmission of signal without valid interconnection agreement on the pretext of continued mutual negotiations often results into disputes and sometimes abrupt disconnection, which affects the quality of service to the consumers.

     

    Another area of concern brought to the notice of the Authority was regarding the effective date of applicability of new agreements: that is, whether the new agreement shall apply from the date of entering into the new agreement or it shall apply from the date of expiry of earlier agreement. It not only results in complaints but also disputes between service providers.

     

    Therefore, TRAI has reviewed the present regulations, which provide scope for mutual negotiations even after expiry of the agreement has been reviewed so that no signal can be provided after expiry of the interconnection agreement between the service providers.

  • TDSAT warns Digicable for pirating GTPL Hathway signals in Ahmedabad

    TDSAT warns Digicable for pirating GTPL Hathway signals in Ahmedabad

    NEW DELHI: Digicable Network (India) Ltd of Mumbai was today warned by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) against piracy in Ahmedabad of the signals of GTPL Hathway Pvt Ltd of Gujarat.

     

    Disposing the petition with an order, TDSAT chairman Justice Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and BB Srivastava also warned Digicable to be ready to face legal consequences if it persisted in such piracy.

     

    Digicable counsel Diggy Pathak sought to say that Digicable was attempting to expand in Ahmedabad and had carried the signals on a trial basis, something the Tribunal took strong exception to.

     

    GTPL counsel Jayant Mehta said that his client had informed all the concerned broadcasters and also referred to losses because of this piracy.

     

    The Tribunal also took note of submissions by Star India counsel Arjun Natarajan, counsel Kunal Tandon for both IndiaCast UTV Media Distribution and Multi Screen Media, Mumbai and Upender Thakur for Taj TV said they had begun internal inquiry after being informed of this piracy.

     

    At one stage during arguments, Justice Alam expressed annoyance about increasing piracy and wondered if the TDSAT should now set up an investigation wing as well.