ITV

Tag: TDSAT

  • DoT challenges TDSAT judgment on 3G roaming services in Supreme Court

    DoT challenges TDSAT judgment on 3G roaming services in Supreme Court

    NEW DELHI: The Department of Telecom has moved the Supreme Court challenging tribunal TDSAT’s judgment that allowed Airtel, Idea and Vodafone to offer 3G services under a roaming arrangement in areas where not all of them own 3G spectrum.

     

    “Legal opinion has favoured challenging TDSAT judgement dated 29 April on 3G intra-circle roaming. DoT has sent petition to Supreme Court registry around a week ago for appeal against the judgement,” an official source told.

     

    The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal had overturned a government ban on offering 3G mobile services beyond their licensed zones through roaming pacts, saying that it was in national interest to allow better utilisation of scarce radio frequency.

     

    The three operators – Airtel, Vodafone and Idea Cellular – benefitted from this judgment as they were facing a penalty of Rs 1,200 crore for entering into pacts with each other to offer 3G services in regions where they did not win spectrum in the 2010 auction.

     

    Airtel had won the 3G spectrum in 13 out of 22 telecom service areas for Rs 12,295.46; Vodafone in 9 for Rs 11,617.86 and Idea Cellular in 11 circles for Rs 5,768.59 crore.

     

    DoT issued notices to Airtel, Vodafone and Idea on 23 December 2011 asking them to stop 3G ICR within 24 hours and report compliance but the order was challenged by them.

     

    Tata Teleservices and Aircel too had signed 3G ICR but immediately called off their agreement after DoT issued notice to them.

     

    Following the TDSAT judgement, Airtel, Vodafone and Idea have extended service under their 3G ICR at pan-India level except Odisha.

     

    Reliance Communications also entered in similar agreement with Tata Teleservices to provide 3G services in Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Kerala and UP-East telecom Circles.

  • Star India commits to renew agreements with MSOs only on basis of RIO, hearing concludes

    Star India commits to renew agreements with MSOs only on basis of RIO, hearing concludes

    NEW DELHI: Judgment was reserved today by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) in the ‘deep-rooted’ dispute between Hathway and Taj TV, after the hearing that commenced on 25 August and continued on a day-to-day basis.

     

    Before the Tribunal reserved its order, Star India filed an affidavit in which it said it would ‘henceforth’ enter into agreements under the Reference Interconnect Order on a year-to-year basis with all multi-system operators.

     

    It said the RIO would commence three months after the expiry of the erstwhile agreement and would only be on the basis of a published RIO.

     

    It also said it will sign any new agreement on cost per subscriber basis with MSOs operating at national level.

     

    However, it listed eight MSOs working at regional or state level with which it already has CPS agreements and said these will continue for the term for which they are valid and thus last the full term.

     

    The eight MSOs are Inspire Infotech of Delhi, Novabase Digital Entertainment of Delhi, E-Infrastructure and Entertainment, Bangalore, Satellite Channels, Poona Cables Systems and Services of Pune, Sky Channel of Delhi, Home Cable Networks of Chittore District in Andhra Pradesh and City TV of Coimbatore.

     

    In reply to certain queries by the Tribunal in reference to the statement made in paragraph-3 of the affidavit, Star India counsel Saikrishna on instructions received from duly authorised officers present in court stated that in DAS notified areas, any new interconnect agreement with any MSOs operating under a national license or a regional/local license would only be on the basis of the RIO of M/s Star India Pvt. Ltd. and it would not enter into any interconnect agreement in the DAS areas with anyone on fixed fee or on CPS basis for a period of one year.

     

    Primarily, the Tribunal would have to decide on two matters: the first is an interpretation of the date of renewal under Clause 5(16) of the Telecom (Digital Addressable Systems) Interconnect Regulations relating to renewal of agreements, and the other is about the rates according to the arguments put forth by the various parties.

     

    Earlier, counsel Tejveer Singh Bhatia who had been asked by TDSAT chairman Aftab Alam and member Kuldip Singh to assist the Tribunal in clarifying certain issues said the Regulations were clear that if certain channels were provided to one MSO, they had to be provided to any other MSO that asked for them. However, this did not mean that the terms would be the same for all MSOs.

     

    Furthermore, even if channels were put in bouquets, the rates could not be the same as some were regional channels meant for specific areas and others were national channels and the charges would depend on eyeballs. Hence, the negotiation may differ from region to region. But this also meant creation of RIO agreements for every region depending on number of eyeballs.

     

    He also claimed that the Interconnect Regulations allowed him to change the terms and conditions from time to time.

     

    But he was categorical that a RIO could not be thrust upon him as it was only an offer. Clause 5(10) provides the remedy in case the broadcaster turns down a RIO agreement.

     

    He said that the ‘must carry; clause did not mean automatically that the broadcaster will be paid for every channel he beams. It would depend to the number of channels that the subscriber decides to take.

     

    During the hearing, the Tribunal heard various counsel on behalf of Taj TV and Zee TV, Star India, Hathway, Bhaskar (MSO) from Jabalpur and Scod, an MSO from Mumbai and Navi Mumbai.

     

    When listing the case for 25 August, the Tribunal had said: “Unfortunately, the dispute between the two sides is playing out in highly aggressive way and one may add in a rather unpleasant manner. It seems to be affecting a large number of people in viewing their favourite TV channels. The disputants themselves are approaching the Tribunal on a weekly basis complaining against the actions of each other and seeking some interim directions of the Tribunal consuming a lot of time on arguments on miscellaneous applications.”

     

    The Tribunal noted that both sides had assured that they would avoid issuing the offensive advertisements against each other.

     

    In the order last month, the Tribunal directed Taj TV to file their respective replies in petitions nos.319(C) of 2014 and 47(C) of 2014 and asked Hathway to file its rejoinder.

     

    The Tribunal noted that the dispute has arisen at a stage when the earlier fixed fee agreement between the parties has come to end and they are unable to come to agreed terms for a fresh agreement and under the circumstances the MSO has no option but to take the broadcasters’ channels on their RIO terms.

  • Star and Zee not conspiring to drive Hathway out of business: Star India counsel Rakesh Dwivedi

    Star and Zee not conspiring to drive Hathway out of business: Star India counsel Rakesh Dwivedi

    NEW DELHI: Admitting that Star India and Zee Turner had created MediaPro, Star counsel Rakesh Dwivedi said that the arrangement had been dismantled and “MediaPro is dead in the sense that it is no longer an authorised agent of Star India.”

     

    Arguing before the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal in the cases linked to Taj TV signals for Turner and Zee TV and Star India signals to Hathway and other multi-system operators, Dwivedi said that Star had no stake in Den Networks or Zee and had no problems with Siticable.

     

    Referring to the Regulations which refer to being non-discriminatory and reasonable, he said the petitioners (Hathway and the other MSOs) had not been able to show how Star India was discriminatory.

     

    In any case, he said Star India was treating all MSOs at par, adding that there was no challenge to the reasonableness of the Reference Interconnect Offer agreement. He said it was also incorrect to say that the RIO was not in consonance with market rates.

     

    He also pointed out that on the one hand Star India had been accused of only offering packages and not giving the channels on a la carte, the petitioners themselves then bundled some channels into various packages.

     

    He quoted both the Regulations of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India and the Competition Commission of India to show that MSOs hold a more dominant position in the cable industry.  

     

    Dwivedi also said that the previous agreement with MediaPro cannot form the basis of the agreement with Hathway or other MSOs as “they proceed on different methodologies.”

     

    He again denied the charge that Star and Zee were conspiring with other MSOs to drive the petitioner MSOs out of business.   

  • Regulations skewed against broadcasters: Star India counsel Dwivedi

    Regulations skewed against broadcasters: Star India counsel Dwivedi

    NEW DELHI: Noting that the Telecommunications (Broadcasting and Cable) Interconnection (Digital Addressable System) Regulations 2012 ‘are skewed’ against the broadcaster in every respect’, Star counsel Rakesh Dwivedi said today that there are provisions only for ‘must provide’ and not ‘must carry’.

     

    Thus, the broadcaster does not get paid by a multisystem operator (MSO) for providing the channels, but only when a subscriber wants to take it from the MSO.

     

    Furthermore, Clause 5 is clear that no broadcaster can compel a MSO to provide his channel to the subscriber and gives an option to the subscriber to choose the channel he wants, Dwivedi said in the ongoing hearing before the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal in the cases linked to Taj TV signals for Turner and Zee TV.

     

    The Regulations also say that if a broadcaster insisted on a placement of his channel, it would amount to unreasonable terms. The same applied to creation of bouquets by the broadcaster.  

     

    Referring to the charge that the RIO does not mention bouquet, Dwivedi said there is no question of a bouquet, adding that there would be no point in creating bouquets if the MSO has the right to unbundle it.

     

    Furthermore, offering all the channels of the broadcaster does not amount to a bouquet, because even the dictionaries define ‘bouquet’ as an assortment out of which the subscriber can choose.

     

    Even in the case of MediaPro, Dwivedi said no bouquets had been offered and if MediaPro on its own offered any channels in the form of bouquets, it said so.

     

    Referring to the arguments advanced on behalf of the MSOs, he said there was no reference to being reasonable in clause five which was confined to mutual negotiations and this reference was only with reference to the Reference Interconnect Offer.

     

    He said that it was also necessary to understand that an RIO was only an offer and not an agreement or contract and therefore ‘cannot be judged on the anvil’.

     

    Even otherwise, the MSOs had not challenged the RIO but that it should have been brought in only after negotiations fail. 

     

    At the outset, Dwivedi said the charge against Star and Zee was that they were conspiring with other MSOs because of the closeness to Den and to drive the petitioner MSOs out of business. He also denied the contentions made by the petitioner MSOs that certain other MSOs were being given greater discounts.

  • Broadcaster or distributor has to give reasons for differential rates for different MSOs: Naveen Chawla

    Broadcaster or distributor has to give reasons for differential rates for different MSOs: Naveen Chawla

    NEW DELHI: While stressing that negotiated settlements had also been provided for in the regulations other than an agreement under the Reference Interconnect Order (RIO), two multi system operators (MSOs) apart from Hathway Cable & Datacom contended today that Star had failed to give reasons for having different rates for them as compared to Den or Siticable.

     

    Naveen Chawla, counsel for MSO Bhaskar, which operates in Jabalpur and Scoda which operates in Navi Mumbai and Mumbai, said his contention was for a reasonable and non-discriminatory rates and he was not challenging the concept of RIO.

     

    He said according to Clauses 3(1) and 3(2) of the Telecommunications (Broadcasting and Cable) Interconnection (Digital Addressable System) Regulations 2012 were clear that any agreement has to be reasonable and non-discriminatory and all MSOs will be treated equally.  In fact, the provision 3(2) clearly indicated that an RIO that is discriminatory and unreasonable is not acceptable.

     

    ‘Reasonable’ can mean the rate provided by law or the rate that is negotiated with a client in keeping with market forces.  Thus, RIO itself has to be reasonable and in relation to market conditions, Chawla said in the ongoing hearing before the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) in the cases linked to Star signals for Turner and Zee TV.

     

    A RIO may be a la carte or bouquet, but has to be linked to the subscriber, he said. He also said it was the responsibility of the broadcaster and not the MSO under Clause 3(3) to provide RIO agreements or to give reasons within 60 days for any demands.

     

    Clause 4 was clear that it was the broadcaster who had to submit the RIO or agreement to the authorities and also publish it on its website.

     

    Stressing that his main contention was that the RIO agreement given to him by Star was unreasonable and discriminatory, he said TDSAT had in 2006 held that there should be parity in the rates charged and broadcasters have to give reasons in case the rates are different.

     

    Meanwhile, Chawla quoted from a judgment of TDSAT of August 2005 in which the Tribunal had said that an MSO cannot be an agent of the broadcaster and thus not a competitor to other MSOs, and this view had been upheld by the Supreme Court in 2007. He quoted other judgments to say that broadcasters cannot create exclusivity or monopoly of particular MSOs as that would be discriminatory.

     

    He said the only way to judge whether an agreement was not discriminatory or unreasonable was to go by the previous judgment between the parties.

  • Hathway being asked to pay more by broadcasters as against other MSOs: Kathpalia

    Hathway being asked to pay more by broadcasters as against other MSOs: Kathpalia

    NEW DELHI: Even as it said that an agreement under the Reference Interconnect Order (RIO) should be for both ala carte and bouquets, Hathway today questioned why multisystem operators like Den and Siticable were being given greater discounts by Taj TV for distribution of their channels.

     

    Hathway counsel Arun Kathpalia said that the DAS Regulations of 2012 also provided for negotiations that were non-discriminatory, transparent and on reasonable terms and did not merely insist on an RIO.   

     

    In the ongoing hearing before the Tribunal in the cases linked to Taj TV signals for Turner and Zee TV, Kathpalia said the Regulation says that the broadcaster or distributor ‘may’ seek inter-connection but also provides for mutual agreement within 60 days of request.

     

    In any case, RIO is not confined to ala carte or bouquets but refers only to commercial terms, whereas Taj TV was offering Hathway RIO only on ala carte. He said under the RIO regime, both ala carte and bouquets can be offered and these have to be mentioned.

     

    He also said that the Regulations are clear that RIO can come into play only when there is no first agreement, while the issue here was about renewal.  

     

    He regretted that despite being the largest MSO, it was being offered the smallest discounts by Taj TV and the broadcasters. While Den and Siticable were being charged Rs 30.50 per subscriber, Hathway was being charged Rs 35.

     

    He alleged that at one stage, Star had wanted the sports channel to be on RIO but the general entertainment channels to be on negotiable terms. “There should be a level playing field,” he said. There was no consistency of relevant factors, he claimed.

     

    Hathway had wanted that the starting point for negotiations should be the old agreement, whereas Taj TV insisted that the old agreement was only a promotional offer but this was not true, Kathpalia said.

     

    At one stage, he said that every carrier including DTH was at a loss with the exception of Den.

  • MIB warns MSOs against disconnection signals to LCOs

    MIB warns MSOs against disconnection signals to LCOs

    MUMBAI: The Government today warned multi-system operators against disconnecting signals of local cable operators without due notice specifying reasons and said any violation of this would viewed seriously and action against erring MSOs.

     

    The directive comes even as more than twenty cases are pending before the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) relating to disconnection of signals by distributors to MSOs or MSOs to LCOs.

     

    The Information and Broadcasting Ministry said Chapter V of Standards of Quality of Service (Digital Addressable Cable Systems) Regulations 2012 issued by Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) is clear that ‘no multi system operator (MSO) shall disconnect the signals of a TV channel of a linked local cable operator, without giving three weeks’ notice to such local cable operator, clearly specifying the reasons for the proposed disconnection.’

     

    The Regulation further says notice of disconnection of signals of TV channels is also required to be published in two leading local newspapers of the State in which the service provider is providing the services, out of which one notice shall be published in the newspaper in the local language of the area.

     

    The Ministry said it had been brought to its notice that some MSOs are disconnecting signals to cable subscribers without giving any notice in violation of the Regulation.

     

    The Ministry said this is also in violation of the undertaking given by MSOs in form 2 of their application which states: ‘We shall ensure that my/our cable television network shall be run in accordance with the provisions of the Cable Television Network (Regulations) Act 1995 and the rules made thereunder, regulations, orders, guidelines or the directions issued by the Central Government or the Authority from time to time.’

  • ‘Super Regulator’ to replace TRAI, TDSAT

    ‘Super Regulator’ to replace TRAI, TDSAT

    MUMBAI: After scrapping the planning commission, the Modi government is thinking about clipping the wings of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI).

     

    According to a CNBC TV-18 story, the government is planning on a new super regulator for the communications sector. To be called Communications Commission, it will not only retain powers that TRAI enjoys, but also look into other matters concerning other regulators as well like Censor Board, some clearances from Ministry Of Environment, Competition Commission of India and the Department of Telecommunications.

     

    Moreover, the bill will also replace the Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) with a new appellate body called the Communications Appellate Tribunal, which will have three members and a chairman. According to the report, this tribunal will also have the power to oversee dispute resolution.

     

    The communications bill seeks to replace all old and redundant legislations which include the Telegraph Act and TRAI Act. The Bill proposes a six member regulator with one chairman, who will have five year tenure. The member will include one each from sectors like telecom, broadcasting, finance, management, accountancy and either law or consumer affairs.

  • RIO is a non-discriminatory agreement between parties under DAS: Taj

    RIO is a non-discriminatory agreement between parties under DAS: Taj

    NEW DELHI: On the third day of the Hathway Cable & Datacom and Taj Television hearing in the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT), Taj Television described agreements under the Reference Interconnect Offer (RIO) as ‘a uniform, non-discriminatory mechanism which ensures an agreement between parties.’

     

    Taj Counsel Pratibha Singh also told the TDSAT that RIO was a kind of wholesale rate in the scheme of digital addressable system (DAS). According to her, if no agreement was reached during negotiations, then the payment for TV channels in DAS areas would be fixed as specified in the RIO.

     

    “It is a default programme on a computer – if there is nothing by way of agreement, then there is RIO,” she said.

     

    In the ongoing hearing before the Tribunal in the cases linked to Taj TV, she said that it was also clear that the rates under DAS were 35 per cent of those under analogue, which was later raised to 42 per cent.

     

    Referring to an earlier case in TDSAT, Singh said that though the Quality of Service regulations under DAS tended to curtail freedom, they had protected the consumer until there was adequate competition.

     

    The Telecom (Broadcasting and cable Services) Interconnect (Digital Addressable Systems) Regulations 2012 was clear in section 5(16) that negotiations have to be held.

     

    She reiterated that Hathway had been told on 26 June through a letter that since the negotiations had failed, Taj TV was forwarding a signed RIO. Hathway had also been told that they would be according to RIO if they sent a subscriber report.

     

    She alleged that the multi system operator (MSO) had not reduced the prices of the packages even after receiving the RIO.

     

    She also said that Hathway had failed to respond to the letter sent on 26 June until Taj TV stopped the signals from 1 August. “After failed negotiations, Hathway as late as 18 August claimed that Taj TV was not negotiating despite having admitted earlier that negotiations had been held,” she clarified.

       

    She said it was unfortunate that MSOs and local cable operators felt that they did most of the work and their share should be larger. “They overlook the fact that the broadcaster pays for content, spectrum, government taxes, journalists and producers and so on,” she concluded.

  • Hathway delayed agreement on signals of Zee and Turner: Taj Television

    Hathway delayed agreement on signals of Zee and Turner: Taj Television

    NEW DELHI: In today’s hearing in the Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT), Taj Television counsel contended today and blamed Hathway Cable & Datacom for the delay in an agreement to Zee and Turner channels. She also claimed that Hathway had falsely written in its letter to Taj TV on 23 July that no negotiations were held and presented to TDSAT the dates on which meetings were held between the parties with regard to Zee TV signals.

     

    Counsel Pratibha Singh told the TDSAT today that Hathway had admitted that it had not paid for the Zee TV channels distributed between 1 April and 23 July.

     

    In the ongoing hearing before the Tribunal in the cases linked to Taj TV signals for Turner and Zee, Singh said three meetings had been held to sort out the issue, the last being on 16 June after which Taj TV had sent a copy of the agreement under the reference interconnection offer (RIO) to Hathway. A letter was also sent to Hathway in this connection on 26 June.

     

    Earlier, the Tribunal had fixed for final disposal from 25 August the ‘deep-rooted’ dispute between Hathway and Taj TV, noting that this would require interpretation of certain clauses of some of the statutory regulations.

     

    TDSAT chairman Aftab Alam and member Kuldip Singh had said: ‘unfortunately, the dispute between the two sides is playing out in highly aggressive way and one may add in a rather unpleasant manner. It seems to be affecting a large number of people in viewing their favourite TV channels. The disputants themselves are approaching the Tribunal on a weekly basis complaining against the actions of each other and seeking some interim directions of the Tribunal consuming a lot of time on arguments on miscellaneous applications.  It is, therefore, in the larger interest to finally dispose of these cases after hearing all sides at an early date.’

     

    The Tribunal noted that the dispute had arisen at a stage when the earlier fixed fee agreement between the parties has come to end and they are unable to come to agreed terms for a fresh agreement and under the circumstances the MSO has no option but to take the broadcasters’ channels on their RIO terms.

     

    When talks between the two parties failed, he said the RIO was forwarded on 25 January and was to be effective from February.

     

    Further arguments will continue tomorrow with counsel for Zee expected to conclude her arguments and Hathway responding to them.