ITV

Tag: TDSAT

  • 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.

  • TRAI issued notice on appeal by consumer body seeking proper regulation of ads on channels

    TRAI issued notice on appeal by consumer body seeking proper regulation of ads on channels

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has issued a notice to the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) on a petition by a consumers body demanding the proper regulation of advertisements on cable and satellite television channels.

    TDSAT said yesterday that it will hear the appeal after other related matters such as the appeal by the News Broadcasters Association have been heard.

    Consumer group MediawatchIndia had approached TDSAT with an appeal that had sought to ‘remind TRAI of its statutory responsibility to check the illegal and unfair practices of television broadcasters who had been indulging in ‘part-screen’ and ‘high-decibel’ ads.’

     

    The consumer group has complained that commercials played during programmes have a higher decibel level than the programme they are interrupting. Commercials as well as promotions of other shows keep appearing on the screen in the middle of the programmes thus distracting the viewer.

    Mediawatch in its appeal sought to “challenge the abrupt, unilateral and mala fide act of TRAI in omitting sub-regulations 3(5) & 3(6) Standards of Quality of Service (Duration of Advertisements in Television Channels) Regulations 2012 that deals with “distracting formats of advertisements (part-screen and drop down ads, scrolls etc. interfering the main programme)” and “loud commercials (high audio levels of advertisements vis-?-vis that of programme).”

  • Dish TV, IndiaCast continue to battle it out

    Dish TV, IndiaCast continue to battle it out

    MUMBAI: The fight between India’s oldest DTH player Dish TV and newbie aggregator IndiaCast seems to be becoming uglier. Both the parties are fighting it out ferociously, however, on the same playground – the Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT).

    It was just last week that the TDSAT dismissed Dish TV’s petition against IndiaCast asking them to come to an agreement that would allow the aggregator to give channels on Reference Interconnect Offer (RIO) basis. However, IndiaCast didn’t seem to be happy with the verdict and thus with the help of newspaper ads informed people about Dish’s ‘on request channels’ scheme.

    The issue took an ugly turn, when Dish reacted to it with a legal notice.

    Now, IndiaCast has gone a step ahead and has filed a petition with the TDSAT seeking clarification on the terms of the RIO, specifically on the ‘on request channel’ scheme and the scrolls running on the channels from Dish TV.

    The IndiaCast contention is that as per RIO agreements, channels can only be given in either as a-la-carte or in the packages. The concept of requesting channels is new and not prescribed as per terms of RIO.

    “Dish TV isn’t telling people exactly what this scheme is. Also, how can the number of SMSs that it receives from ‘so-called unsubscribing’ customers be monitored and verified?” asks a source close to IndiaCast. The fear is that the operator might tweak the feedback from customers and say subscribers don’t want IndiaCast channels, and hence charge carriage fees from it. 

    Dish TV, on its part, isn’t taking things too lightly. While earlier it issued a legal notice to the aggregator for spreading ‘false and malafide information’ through its advertisements on TV and in newspapers, now it has threatened severe action. Now it has also moved to the TDSAT against IndiaCast for the same.

    Both the cases will be heard on Thursday.

    According to the ‘on request channels’ scheme, viewers will have to individually message each channel that they want to watch to Dish TV. The subscriber also can earn rewards in the form of 100 points worth Rs 100 which can be redeemed to watch ‘movies on demand’ that the DTH operator offers. 

    As the fight between the two gets fierce, it’s to be seen who bows down? Or, will the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) have to step in to resolve the issue?

  • TRAI ad cap: Broadcasters move Delhi High Court

    TRAI ad cap: Broadcasters move Delhi High Court

    MUMBAI: The 12 minute ad cap case has had a change in venue – from the Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) to the Delhi High Court (HC). With the Supreme Court’s recent ruling that TDSAT does not have authority to hear cases challenging the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) regulations, broadcasters had filed a writ petition in the HC last Friday.

    The case is set to be heard on 17 December in the Delhi HC by Justice Manmohan. The appellants include the News Broadcasters Association (NBA), 9X Media, B4U, TV Vision, Sun TV, E24 and Pioneer Channel. The hearing for the case is set to begin afresh but the priority of the lawyers representing the broadcasters will be to get a stay order from the HC to disallow the TRAI from taking any coercive action against channels which are reportedly not following the 12 minute ad cap. Under the TRAI mandate, it can persecute channels who do not toe the line that it has set.

    “We will ask for a stay order on TRAI taking any punitive actions against broadcasters. Since the TDSAT had given a stay order earlier and the bench was headed by a SC judge Justice Aftab Alam, we hope we get it from the HC too,” says a senior executive.

    The case will by and large remain the same with the focus on the fact that the ad cap is not a regulation at all. However, since it is now the HC, the crux of the arguments will be on constitutional grounds such as Article 14 and Article 19 that talks about the right to equality and freedom of speech respectively.

    The channels will now have to go through the long drawn process of the hearing proceeding in the HC and getting the stay order against the regulator taking them to the cleaners for violation of the ad cao reglation. They have been fortunate not to have got the stick so far from the TRAI which could have prosecuted them as it was within its rights to do so.

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • TRAI ad cap case: Judgement day dawns?

    TRAI ad cap case: Judgement day dawns?

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

  • Ad cap dispute to move to High Court?

    Ad cap dispute to move to High Court?

    MUMBAI: Its wings have been clipped. If one goes by the decision of the Supreme Court announced yesterday, all appeals against regulations set by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) will now be dealt with in the various High Courts, not by the Telecom Disputes and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT).

     

    TRAI has since 2010 been contending that TDSAT cannot hear appeals against its regulations, only those against its directions, decisions or orders. And yesterday a bench of the Supreme Court ruled in its favour.

     

    The authority normally sets regulations on issues such as rates, inter-connection and quality of service. TDSAT, TRAI states, was set up to adjudicate any dispute between a licensor and a licensee, between two or more service providers, between a service provider and a group of consumers, and to hear and dispose appeals against a direction, decision or order of TRAI.

     

    This is clearly set to have an impact on the course of the ad cap regulation set by the TRAI, which the TDSAT is set to adjudicate upon, following hearings involving broadcasters’ and the regulator’s lawyers. Broadcasters have been stating that the TRAI-mandated ad cap is going to have a detrimental impact on their business and the argument has been on whether it is in the form of a direction or a regulation. The stance of the TRAI has been that what it has issued is a regulation and not a direction under the quality of service, keeping in mind the interests of consumers.

     

    Observers expect the ad cap hearing to now move to the High Court. Other cases that will be impacted included the VAS regulation which has crippled the VAS industry but was issued by the TRAI keeping in mind consumer interest.

     

    The background of the Supreme Court ruling is that over the years several appeals have been filed with it by telcos such as Bharat Sanchar Nigam , Cellular Operators Association of India, Tata Teleservices and Reliance Infocomm against TDSAT orders involving regulations set by TRAI. And the TRAI had itself filed a petition in the Supreme Court in 2010 against a TDSAT order which had asked the authority to take a fresh look at the telecommunication interconnection (port charges) Amendment regulation 2007 after Bharat Sanchar Nigam had filed an appeal against it.

     

    TRAI had under that regulation reduced port charges by about 23 to 29 per cent on various slabs.

     

    TRAI had petitioned in the Supreme Court that TDSAT can only decide against any direction, decision or order passed by the TRAI, and not its regulations. And yesterday’s ruling by the Supreme Court clearly indicates where the law of the land lies.

  • MCOF to meet MSOs to discuss billing issues

    MCOF to meet MSOs to discuss billing issues

    MUMBAI: The easier a process becomes, the better it is. It seems this is the process that Maharashtra Cable Operators’ Foundation (MCOF) has opted for in order to make the entire digitisation process a smooth ride. In a new initiative, the apex body of cable operators in Maharashtra has sent a letter to all the MSOs inviting them to a meeting where they would discuss about the proper implementation of digitisation.

     

    In the letter, of which Indiantelevision.com has a copy, the MSOs have been requested to schedule the meeting in the coming week.

     

    When both the parties meet, they are expected to discuss issues related to: interconnect agreement, billing, Consumer Application Form (CAF), package activation, a la carte channels choice, disconnection of set top boxes (STBs) without notice, misleading and false  information given about the LMO to the customer over call center, ownership of STB and uniform rates.
    We are making an effort from our side to meet each MSO separately, says Arvind Prabhoo

     

    The letter has come out a day after the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) gave the MSOs the final deadline of 15 December to submit the duly filled CAFs and also implement gross billing by December.  “CAF is not the only issue, there are issues related to service tax and billing,” says MCOF president Arvind Prabhoo.  “There is no clarity on whether the consumers will be billed on the service provided by the MSO or on the MRP of the package that the subscriber opts for,” he adds.

     

    The meeting has been called to discuss the issues concerning both the MSOs and the LMOs.

     

    “We are making an effort from our side to meet each MSO separately. In the meeting, we will try and understand the system of billing devised by the MSO and make suggestions, if required. If not, we will go hand-in-hand with MSOs, provided our legal status is maintained,” informs Prabhoo.

     

    The apex body which comprises more than 1500 LMOs is also unsure about the settlement mechanism between the MSO and the LMO once the billing is done. “The MSOs so far haven’t spoken to the LMOs on how they will pay the LMO for the customer it bills,” points out Prabhoo.

     

    Expressing concern on the 15 December deadline set for submitting CAFs, Prabhoo says, “If 50 per cent CAFs have been filled in one year on an average, how does TRAI expect the remaining 50 per cent to be filled in next three weeks? Also, with the holiday season coming in, is TRAI looking at switching off STBs, if the deadline is not met?”

     

    With TRAI pushing MSOs to start gross billing from December, Prabhoo comments, “The issue relating to entertainment tax is subjudiced. So when the MSO says it will start gross billing from next month, is it looking at levying entertainment tax as well?”

     

    It should also be noted that the Nasik Cable Operators Association has moved the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) on billing. While TRAI was supposed to respond to it on 22 November, the tribunal has granted time till 23 January to the regulator to respond. “So when both entertainment tax and billing is subjudiced, why is TRAI pushing cable operators for contempt of court?” he questions.

     

    On the issue of TRAI asking the MSOs to either convince the LMOs to start billing or do it themselves, Prabhoo sternly says, “They can do it, if they want. We are not going to be delivery boys. We are owners of our own businesses. And we have the right to bill our own consumers and that is what we are fighting for.”

  • TDSAT-TRAI ad cap: NBA finishes rejoinder

    TDSAT-TRAI ad cap: NBA finishes rejoinder

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

     

    Tomorrow the music channels are expected to give their rejoinders.

  • TDSAT-Ad cap: 2nd amicus curiae done, channels turn now

    TDSAT-Ad cap: 2nd amicus curiae done, channels turn now

    MUMBAI: The second amicus curiae Aman Ahluwalia continued his arguments today in the TDSAT-ad cap hearing. After giving the legal perspective yesterday, today he focused on the commercial implications of the ad cap regulation.

    Ahluwalia said that the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) has the power to implement licensing under section 11 (1) (a) of the TRAI Act as well as enforcing it on broadcasters through section 7 (11) of the Cable TV Networks (CTN) Act. There is no need for it to choose the CTN act. The TRAI’s procedure may have been faulty but the bench should not strike down the ad cap regulation on account of this.

    The bench wondered that when a licence is issued, the terms and conditions need to be read properly, and if the ad cap regulation issued by TRAI adds anything to section 7 (11) of the CTN act, then should it be accepted. The agreement between the licensor and licensee is only for section 7 (11) and if points like clock hour and reporting to TRAI come into the picture, it is in excess of the section.

    The bench said that one cannot change, modulate or supplement the terms of the licence. If TRAI had implemented it under sections 11 and 12 of the TRAI Act that address the issue of licensing and advertisements then such problems wouldn’t have come up.

    The amicus curiae read out the final draft report of the convergence bill which gives the definition of ‘broadcasting services,’ as it doesn’t have an exact one. He said that content, distribution and technical components all come under the TRAI act and content and distribution together mean carriage. By reading out reports such as the Nariman report, he chose to interpret broadcasting services to include content.

    Ahluwalia then proceeded to the commercial aspects. He told the bench that after reading the code in the UK, he saw that the ad cap may work for GECs while the news channels that have less viewership will be most affected by it. The only way revenue can be raised is either by digitisation when subscription revenue will go up, or by raising advertising rates. However, if subscription rates are jacked up, viewers may not pay, and resort to cord cutting, resulting in lower viewership, and comitantly lower ad revenues as they depend entirely on viewership.

    To support his statement, he also produced financial reports of Zee TV and the Sun Network which showed that their ad revenues were high as compared to news channels. Sponsored shows could be a way out for news channels to generated additional revenues but this could turn out to be dangerous as news could become coloured. And thus he suggested that genres should be dealt with differently.

    According to him, English news channels will be the most affected because advertisers will start turning the screws on them as viewership will quite likely drop off the cliff. The scenario could improve when DAS is implemented completely all over the country as by then subscription and ad revenues each will contribute equally to a company’s top line.

    Reading from an Ofcom (independent regulator and competition authority for the UK communications industries) report, he emphasized that TRAI’s ad cap regulation needs to be more precise in terms of the number of ads per half an hour, duration of the promos etc. Till DAS isn’t complete, it should not be implemented as, under Article 19 of the Constitution, broadcasters have the right to disseminate information and viewers have the right to receive plurality of information giving them the power to choose.

    If the regulation comes into effect now, many smaller news channels may shut down and the existing ones will generate less revenue and hence news could end up being coloured as only a limited number will be left to provide news.

    After Ahluwalia concluded, the News Broadcasters Association (NBA) counsel presented the rejoinder. He argued that TRAI’s analysis of the ad cap violations was incorrect.

    His second argument was that TRAI has the power to implement the terms and conditions between the licencee and licensor under section 4 A of the Telegraph Act that talks about teleport licences. It cannot implement it on the basis of the uplinking and downlinking policies.

    Teleport licences do not mention the CTN act at all and when TRAI is enforcing it on the basis of licensing then its line of reasoning needs to be read in the context of teleport licensing.

    The NBA counsel stated that TRAI cannot act against broadcasters under the uplinking/downlinking policy since it falls under the ambit of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.

    During its arguments, TRAI mentioned that broadcasters had suppressed documents related to licensing. The NBA counsel clarified that the data was about OB vans and teleports, which was available in the public domain.

    He added that, according to Ofcom, UK channels were allowed ad commercials of 9-12 minutes averaging and not per clock hour. Also, if TRAI were to enforce the ad cap, it should be under the teleport licence under section 4 A of the Telegraph Act.

    The NBA will continue its rejoinder tomorrow as well.