ITV

Tag: TDSAT

  • Neo Sports challenges Trai decision on price cut for its sports channels

    Neo Sports challenges Trai decision on price cut for its sports channels

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal today asked Trai to explain by 7 February the basis of its decision to slash the bouquet prices of Neo Sports and Neo Sports Plus channels’ from Rs 58.50 to Rs 37.25, on which the channels had filed an appeal.

    The channels’ contentions were on several grounds, especially that “sports” cannot be treated as a “genre” for fixing of price.

    The counsel for the channels argued at TDSAT today, that “sports” cannot be treated as a genre as a method of fixing a channel’s price because there are sports channels and sports channels.

    The channels said that there were huge differentials between the pricing of various sports channels, and that these differentials stem from the rights to cricket properties. Neo Sports channels presented its case saying that it had rights of almost two-third of the assured cricketing properties involving India, till 2010. These properties have a tremendous revenue generating potential and also have to be bought at massive prices, hence the higher prices, the channels argued.

    Trai had argued earlier that fixing of prices for channels of the same “genre”, which is one of the key factors as per the Trai principal Tariff Order’s clause 3, does not allow Neo Sports and Neo Sports Plus to fix their prices higher than those fixed for channels of the same genre of sports, like Star Sports and ESPN.

    Based on these arguments Trai last week had ordered a slashing of the prices of the two Nimbus channels to the levels of Star Sports and ESPN, that is, Rs 5 in Cas areas in the three metros, and Rs 37.25 otherwise.

    While Nimbus has questioned the authority of Trai to fix the price, it has also pointed out to the tribunal that the price of sports channels range from Rs 10 for Zee Sports, to Rs 42.50 for ESPN, with Ten Sports at Rs 14 falling in between.

    This shows a 400 per cent difference in pricing for channels of the same genre: sports, which, Nimbus has contended, goes against Trai’s own argument, which is the basis of the decision to slash Nimbus’ pricing.

    MSOs and cable operators refused comment, since the matter has become sub-judice. Roop Sharma, president of Cable Operators Federation of India, which had in the first instance filed the case against Nimbus originally, said they would respond to the notice when the time comes.

  • Trai slashes Nimbus bouquet price by Rs 21.25

    Trai slashes Nimbus bouquet price by Rs 21.25

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) has directed Nimbus Sports Broadcast Pvt Ltd to reduce the price of its two channels by Rs 21.25 to Rs 37.25. Nimbus had priced the bouquet at Rs 58.50.

    The regulator has asked Nimbus to furnish a report of compliance within seven days from the date of receipt of this direction. The directive was issued yesterday.

    Reacting to the decision, Nimbus officials have told Indiantelevision.com that they would be filing a challenge to Trai’s directive before the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT).

    Trai ordered this in relation to a complaint filed by Cable Operators’ Federation of India, after reviewing the prices charged by other broadcasters in the the same genre, that is, sport.

    In the Cas (Conditional access system) areas, Nimbus will have to stick to Trai’s tariff order where a la carte channels can be priced at a maximum of Rs 5.

    A clearly jubilant Cable Operators’ Federation of India president Roop Sharma told Indiantelevision.com that “this was a great decision as customers were being fleeced.”

    Trai has held that the decision was based on Clause 3 of its principal Tariff Order relating to charges, and said that Nimbus’ contentions were irrelevant especially because review of the prices charged by channels of the same genre showed that these are much less.

    Nimbus had argued that the prices for its two channels, Neo Sports and Neo Sports Plus, were higher than those of other sports channels because their content, composition and structure were different than such other rival sports channels.

    Trai in its decision observed that clause 3 of the principal Tariff Order specifies that the charges, excluding taxes, payable by (a) Cable subscribers to cable operator; (b) Cable Operators to multi system operators / broadcasters (including their authorised distribution agencies); and (c) Multi System operators to broadcasters(including their authorised distribution agencies) prevalent as on the 26th December 2003 shall be the ceiling with respect to both free-to-air and pay channels.

    Tra said that basically, channels of the same genre are required to charge the same price and this is a reasonable basic for fixing of prices.

    But the “thrust of the arguments of Nimbus does not bring out facts, which would justify a higher price being charged by them for its said sports channels as compared with other similar channels of the same genre”, Trai observed.

    The regulator compared the prices charged by Star Sports and ESPN and said that after due consideration, it has decided that Nimbus would have to slash the rate by Rs 21.25.

    Trai said that the argument that the prices charged were based on composition, content and structure of a sports channel did not hold ground.

    “Being business decisions, these may undergo a change in view of changing perception of the market and other perceptions, and such changes will not have a bearing on deciding the similarity of channels, as required under clause 3B, so long as the genre of the channel does not get altered on account of such changes,” Trai said.

    Trai observed that even in the case of Nimbus’ own two channels, Neo Sports and Neo Sports Plus, which were different in their respective compositions, contents and structures “both the said sports channels are having the same price”.

    “This shows that the broadcaster has not resorted to differential pricing even where composition, content and structure are different,” Trai observed.

    Commenting on the Trai directive WWIL senior executive vice president Arvind Mohanl said, “This is a seminal order and will go a long way to ease the burden on consumers.”

  • SC reserves order in Sea vs Star case

    SC reserves order in Sea vs Star case

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court today completed hearing arguments from both sides, Star TV and Sea TV, a franchise of WWIL, on the question of whether an a broadcaster’s agent could also be an MSO, and reserved its orders.

    The parties concerned have been asked to file written submissions within a week.The case relates to Sea TV, a WWIL franchise MSO based in Agra, which had requested signals from Star.

    However, Star had asked Sea TV to take the signals from one of their agents, Moon TV. It is then that Sea TV had pointed out that Moon TV is actually an MSO in competition with it, and had filed a case in the TDSAT, asking whether a broadcaster’s agent could also be an MSO.

    The TDSAT had earlier last year ruled against Star , who had then filed an appeal with the Supreme Court.

    The court heard the final arguments for two days over lengthy sessions, and reserved its orders.

  • FTA subscription sharing: TDSAT for expanded review by Trai

    FTA subscription sharing: TDSAT for expanded review by Trai

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has sent back the case related to MSO’s demanding a share of the Rs 77 for FTAs to be paid by consumers under the Cas regime, for an expanded review by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai).

    The tribunal, in its order issued yesterday, said that the process would have to be completed within six weeks.

    According to the TDSAT, since the case is of great importance and has wide repercussions, Trai should also incorporate the views of all stakeholders, including those of the cable operators.

    Wire and Wireless India Limited (formerly Siticable) had filed the case against the 31 August, 2006, order by Trai, giving to the cable operators the entire Rs 77 that consumers pay for Free-to-air channels under the Cas regime.

    “We said that if this is done under the Cas regime, the Rs 75-odd in fees that we get for carrying pay channels will not even cover our variable costs, let alone overheads,” Arvind Mohan, vice president, WWIL, told Indiantelevision.com.

    In the court the WWIL counsel proffered his logic, stating that Trai had said that while cable operators could keep the Rs 77, MSOs could keep the subscription from pay channels, as well as the carriage fees.

    However, the subscription for the pay channels would also be shared between MSOs and LMOs as well as broadcasters, as per a Trai formula.

    ‘Carriage fees’ are the amount charged by MSOs for carrying a certain pay channel in the ‘prime band’ or ‘colour band’, that is, special, viewer-preferred slots. This was applicable when the channels were streamed in the analogue system, because in that system, the number of channels would be limited to a maximum of 60.

    Under the Cas system, where digitalisation is compulsory, the number of channels shown can be innumerable, theoretically, and not less than 600, or 10 times that under the analogue system.

    WWIL argued today that Trai itself had gone on record that ‘carriage fees’ are a temporary phenomena and would disappear under the Cas regime, because the carrying capacity would shoot up from 60 to at least 600. Hence, the MSOs would lose that avenue of revenue.

    Trai argued that sharing of the FTA purse would lead to disputes and hence it had opted for a simple formula that MSOs could keep the carriage fees and the cable operators could keep the Rs 77 from the consumer subscription for FTAs.

    The tribunal, however, felt that he matter was seminal and the views of all the stakeholders need to be incorporated, and asked Trai to file the response of the views of all parties concerned within six weeks.

    Incidentally, this is the second time in two weeks that TDSAT has asked Trai to review aspects of an important case. The first was last week when TDSAT asked Trai to give their views on transponder capacity issue after examination of the facts. That case too, had been filed by Siticable, now known as WWIL.

  • ‘A revolutionary year that was also one of the government’s total failure to control the broadcasters’

    ‘A revolutionary year that was also one of the government’s total failure to control the broadcasters’

    One healthy thing is that the industry is moving… maybe slowly in some areas, but it is definitely moving, which was not there earlier. The manufacturers lobby which had become stagnant are looking forward again. Fibre optical networks are spreading.

    New technology is coming, and words we had never used two years ago, like IPTV & Mobile TV, are now common usage. DTH has been launched already and this will give competition to the cable sector and they will be bound to improve their services. HITS is on the way and if it is operated on C band then it will be good for the cable industry, but if it is put on Ku band, that will kill the cable industry. That will be a disaster.

    If it is on C band, digitalisation will become faster, but if it is on Ku band, all the DTH players would start giving out their signals, because they are already on Ku band. And the consumer will also suffer because one after another DTH players will come and ask for money for their channel bouquets if the subscribers want them, so this will hurt the latter’s interests.

    But I must say that Trai has given importance to the last mile operator, and this has been a major positive this year, they have realised the worth of the LMO and understood that it is the last mile people who have created the industry. They know now that the LMO is the one who gives the connection and actually works in the field.

    Thus, to get 25 per cent to carry pay channels on the network was worthwhile. That was not there at all and that is a great achievement. You can say this is only in the CAS area, but a beginning has been made, that these people ought to get this much, which is a model now. So now we can take this forward and at least demand what we deserve. When voluntary CAS is extended to the 55 cities, we shall at least get some margin for letting them use our networks, based on this model.

    Again, Trai for the first time has worked out the pay channel rates. Rs 5 for CAS areas and even for the non-Cas areas they have set an upper cap and declared the prices. Yes, of course the broadcasters will protest because they do not want to be controlled. The problem for the cable operator is that he never, before this, knew what he was going to charge the customer, who also never knew what he was being charged for and at what rate.

    But the best came from the High Court, the order that CAS had to be rolled out. The courts, whether TDSAT or High Court or Supreme Court has been acting only in public interest, and two of the major decisions related to fixing the price of a sports channel, when Neo wanted to charge an astronomical price but was not allowed, and when the court upheld the government Act on sharing sports events of national importance with Doordarshan.

    But beyond the rosy developments, the two worst things that happened this year were failure to extend CAS, and the failure to control the broadcasters. And in fact non-extension of CAS is mainly due to resistance from broadcasters lobby. They have earned too much of money in a non-addressable system and wants the market to stay that way.

    I feel sad also that the government this year did not heed to our demand, the only demand, that we be given funds for going digital, which would have really helped, but that was turned down. It is small money and the government should have facilitated the LMOs by telling banks to make it easy for them to get small loans to facilitate digitalisation.

    For the government this was a year of failures on several fronts, I am a member on three government committees, and all three here failed to deliver because of lack of will of the government and the most dangerous development is vertical integration, creating absolute monopolies, and the governments failure to implement cross-media restrictions.

    As far as CAS is concerned, extension, even under voluntary effort will be good for the industry. But even if an LMO, say in a place like Kota in Rajasthan ushers in voluntary CAS, the broadcasters will not give him the decoders under one pretext or the other, saying that his SMS or some other system is not accurate and he is still under-declaring his subscriber base. The government has thus squarely failed to reign in the broadcasters on all fronts.

    In passing, I must say one thing: the image of the LMOs so far had been that we are rowdy, uncontrollable. But in a series of meetings the government has seen who is rowdy, the journalist broadcasters or cablewallahs and officials are now saying, at least the LMOs have some dignity! That is why the goodwill for us has increased in the government quarters.

  • ‘Rolling out of Cas has been the most significant development’

    ‘Rolling out of Cas has been the most significant development’

    Lots of consumer centric stipulations have been made in the said Regulations which, among other things, include establishment of call centres by DTH operators, redressal of consumer complaints within stipulated timeframes and the concept of Nodal Officers to be appointed by DTH operators.

    Trai has also issued Interconnect Regulations for DTH services mandating the Broadcasters to come out with Reference Interconnect Offer (RIO) for DTH operators and provision of channels on a la-carte basis by broadcasters to DTH operators under the said RIO.

    Trai has also come out with a Tariff Order for non-Cas areas whereby not only the price freeze, which was already in operation, has been continued, but now even the ceiling in respect of cable rates have also been provided at the retail level.

    In addition, Trai has also stipulated the provision of a la carte channels to MSO/Broadcasters in non-Cas areas. The order has created a lot of hulchul in the industry.

    Cross media ownership issue and restriction in holding shares within electronic media and distribution sector may act as an impediment to the overall growth of the sector
    _____****_____

    No previous order/Regulation of Trai had generated as much heat and controversy as the present Tariff order for non-Cas areas. While the MSO and cable operators have welcomed it, the broadcasters on the other hand have severely criticised it, as in their view their commercial interest have not been adequately taken care of by Trai. The broadcasters are arguing that the present tariff order would benefit only one segment – the MSOs as no a la-carte choice can be provided to consumers in non-addressable analog environment because of technological impediments. Their grievance is that the Regulator has not addressed the problem of “under-declaration”. The matter is currently sub judice in the TDSAT.

    The Trai is in the process of issuing its recommendation to the government on IPTV and Mobile TV which would give further impetus to the proposed digitisation.

    The Cable and Satellite Television sector is the only sector where both Service Tax and Entertainment Tax are levied at present which amounts to double taxation. It may be mentioned that levy of both service tax and entertainment tax ultimately make the services costlier for the consumers. It is pertinent to point out that when a movie/ film is shown in a cinema, only entertainment tax is levied and no service tax is charged for screening the movie in a cinema theatre.

    Both DTH services and cable services are at present reeling under the heavy burden of multiple taxation and levies (such as license fee, service tax, entertainment tax, VAT on customer premises equipment which cumulatively add up to as high as 56 per cent) which are acting as an impediment to the growth and development of these services. Such a high multiple taxation and other levies vis-?-vis other sectors has resulted in these services becoming costlier and unaffordable for the masses.

    Accordingly, to ensure proper growth and development of this sector, the multiple levies/ taxation structure needs to be rationalised.

    Similarly, the customs duty structure on STBs and other equipments which are quite crucial for digitization also needs rationalisation in line with IT and Telecom sectors.

    It is imperative that to promote the growth of digital platforms, duty structure/concession applicable to IT and Telecom sector be extended to the broadcasting industry to provide a level playing field
    _____****_____

    All in all, year 2007 has been excellent for the Broadcast, DTH and Cable sector, and would be remembered as the year in which the solid foundations have been laid for digitisation and to create an environment enabling the broadcasting and distribution sector to takeoff and move towards the path of growth and development at an accelerated pace.

    In the present era of convergence the distinction between Broadcasting, Telecommunication and Information Technology is disappearing very fast. It is therefore imperative that in order to promote the growth of digital platforms, duty structure/concession applicable to IT and Telecom sector be extended to the broadcasting industry and it is treated as part of telecom infrastructure to provide a level playing field.

    The need of the hour is to create the same kind of conducive environment by the government by creating level playing field and granting fiscal incentives and concessions to the sector as has been done for the telecom sector and this sector would also register phenomenal growth in coming years.

  • Tata Sky, Zee Turner case: TDSAT asks for Trais’s position on DTH operations

    Tata Sky, Zee Turner case: TDSAT asks for Trais’s position on DTH operations

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (Tdsat) today asked the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) to look into the issue of transponder capacity as raised by direct-to-home (DTH) service provider Tata Sky as a limiting factor.

    The Tdsat has also asked Trai whether it would like to regulate prices for channels on DTH operations, as it has done in the case of cable operations in the Cas regime, or let market forces operate as they are now, in terms of broadcasters fixing their own prices.

    Trai had been asked to state the time they would need to do so, and their counsel wanted two weeks. Trai has been asked to file an affidavit by 19 January.

    Tdsat was hearing the ongoing case between Tata Sky and Zee-Turner, regarding the fixing of channel offered by the latter, which Tata Sky found too high. Tata Sky had filed the case earlier also because according to it, Zee-Turner had not acceded to its request to stream signals over the issue of prices, violating Trai regulation.

    The matter came to head when Tata Sky alleged that Zee-Turner was indulging in cartelisation, since it was not only a MSO, but also part of a broadcaster on behalf of Turner.

    While the Tata Sky counsel was addressing the court, the Zee counsel intervened to say that though Tata Sky was challenging Zee’s contentions on the ground that it was an arm of broadcaster Turner, the same was the case with Tata Sky, which had an agreement with Star television, and could simply not seek to plead as just a DTH operator.

    Tata Sky had said during the arguments that it had to operate through various transponders, and the total capacity of these was limited; but Zee rebutted that over and above the channels Zee was giving Tata Sky, the latter was still able to beam local channels, so the issue of a limited capacity of transponders did not hold good.

    This is when the court decided to rise and discuss the issue between the brother judges.

    On resumption of hearing, the court, instead of allowing the parties to continue arguments, directly addressed the Trai counsel and said that there are “larger issues that are worrying us”, and asked Trai to come out with their position.

    While the counsel for Tata Sky referred to an earlier judgement of the same court (July 14, 2006), the court said certain issues may have been overlooked and hence, it was only Trai that would first need to state its position.

  • Delhi High Court, Tdsat refuse to grant stay on Cas

    Delhi High Court, Tdsat refuse to grant stay on Cas

    NEW DELHI: This seems to be the last word on Cas (conditional access system). The Delhi High Court and Tdsat (Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal) today made it clear in separate verdicts that Cas had to roll out on 1 January, ending the efforts of broadcasters and some multi-system operators (MSOs) to obtain a stay.

    The High Court heard arguments in two appeals clubbed together, filed before it against the roll out of Cas, while Tdsat heard appeals against the tariff rate being fixed at Rs 5 per channel as well the interconnection order by Trai, regarding sharing of revenue between the MSOs, last mile operators (LMOs), and the broadcasters.

    The Delhi High Court, refusing to grant more time to MSOs, said that there is no question of Cas not being rolled out on the notified date. It asked the two petitioners to file replies which will be heard after the court vacation ends.

    Star Broadband Services, a MSO in Delhi whose licence for operating under Cas had been cancelled by Trai in an order dated 14 December, had moved the court saying that it was getting ready for Cas roll out but needed more time.

    NGO Shakti had filed application seeking postponement on the ground that the MSOs were not yet ready with the infrastructure for Cas implementation on the due date. Hence, Cas should be postponed indefinitely.

    Meanwhile, in a separate hearing, the Tdsat declined to grant stay on an appeal filed by ESPN and SET Discovery.

    The Tdsat sat through the final arguments by Trai and MSOs and the rejoinder by the broadcasters (ESPN and SET), and asked them to file written submissions, to be taken up after the vacation, but said that nothing that would be argued or heard later would mean that Cas will not roll out on the impugned date.

    The Tdsat had been told earlier by the broadcasters’ counsels that there was no rationale in the tariff fixed and that the Chennai model, where Cas had been found to be effective without Trai intervention in pricing, had left the subscribers happy. The broadcasters held that the ‘facts’ shown by Trai and the ‘assumption’ on which they based their order were mutually contradictory.

    The counsel for SET Discovery dubbed this as non-application of mind, and said this was unacceptable when Trai is issuing such a momentous order that would govern the industry for a long time.

    The counsel for the broadcasters said that Trai’s fixing of price was based on such arbitrary assumptions that went against the survey report quoted by the Authority itself.

    The Trai senior counsel, in his argument yesterday, had caused a flutter in the court, showing that the broadcasters had completely failed in Chennai and that only 3.7 per cent of the total cable households there had opted for pay channels because the prices fixed by the pay channels were too high.

    This revelation had almost every sit up, and the judges had asked whether this means that Chennai cable homes had the option of both CAS and non-CAS operation. Trai senior counsel Rakesh Dwivedi said that was correct, and that the vast majority had not take the offer.

    Dwivedi also argued that the Chennai model in any case could not be extended to Mumbai, Kolkata or Delhi, as in Chennai, four out of the five most popular channels are FTAs, and only one of the top five is a pay channel The case is the reverse with the other three metros.

    In fact, he argued that by fixing the ratio of revenue sharing at 45 per cent, Trai had actually given the broadcasters three benefits at one go: it has got rid of underdeclaration as a perennial problem; cut out ‘piracy’ that broadcasters had accused LMOs of indulging in; and given them a 300 per cent rise in their revenues.

    He argued that the broadcasters had complained that under the present system of operations, the LMOs and MSOs retain 85 to 90 per cent of the revenue from subscriotion, and only 15 per cent reach them, and that too becomes difficult to collect. “We are ensuring them a 45 per cent share and besides, the bulk of their revenue, as they claim, from advertisements remains intact,” the Trai counsel said.

    The counsel for SET Discovery today in his rejoinder said that while Trai had the legal authority to fix the tariff, it was the manner in which that had been done that bordered on perversity.

    His argument was that the Trai had itself admitted that there was not enough material on which the fixation was based.

    The SET Discovery counsel held that Trai had been referring to a document, an IMRB survey that was two and half years old and today could not be valid, since so many FTAs have now become pay channels. He said also that the budgets of households had increased manifold and that Trai had fixed the tariff without adequacy of material to support that pricing.

    Besides, the Trai had so long not brought up the issue of the IMRB survey, which had not been mentioned in the Consultation Paper issued by Trai, nor in later discussions, and was only using it to justify a wrong decision taken without any basis.

    The SET Discovery counsel also held that the Trai itself had repeatedly admitted in the court that any price fixation is arbitrary. The price, thus, fixed could not be held to be legal.

    SET Discovery’s last plea was that Tdsat should ask Trai to undertake a fresh survey and base the new tariff fixation on that. He said that actually the price fixed should be around Rs 10 per pay channel, and that if the price is fixed now at Rs 5, then there would never be an upward revision, even if Trai held a review. Public ire would prevent that upward revision, if Trai did the review at all, which he doubted would ever happen in actuality.

  • TDSAT asks Tata-Sky, Sun TV Group to settle differences

    TDSAT asks Tata-Sky, Sun TV Group to settle differences

    MUMBAI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has proposed to direct-to-home (DTH) player Tata-Sky and Chennai-based broadcaster Sun TV Group that they resolve their dispute between themselves.

    According to a tribunal official, the two parties are set to negotiate a potential settlement at a meeting in Chennai that is likely to take place by the end of week.

    Nonetheless, the tribunal dispute forum has also drawn up the date for next hearing before adjourning the case to 29 November if the attempts to achieve a “lucid response” through the discussion fails.

    Tata-Sky had moved the tribunal accusing the broadcaster of refusing supply of its bouquet of channels. The DTH player approached the disputes forum after repeated requests to provide the signals of the channels of Sun’s bouquet of channels on “non-discriminatory terms” proved futile.

    According to the norms laid down by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), all content should be made available to all delivery platforms on a nondiscriminatory basis.

    Sun TV promoter Kalanithi Maran has set forth plans to enter the DTH space through the still to launch commercially Sun Direct TV. He runs a string of successful channels, which include SunTV, GeminiTV, SuryaTV, UdayaTV, KTV, TejaTV, UsheTV, KiranTV, AdithyaTV, Sun News, KiranTV, GeminiTV, TejaTV, Teja News, Udaya2 and Udaya News.

  • Upscale commercial establishments to pay market rates for pay channels: Trai

    Upscale commercial establishments to pay market rates for pay channels: Trai

    MUMBAI : In an order issued today, the sector regulator has decreed that pay broadcasters will now be able to charge “market rates” to more upscale hotels and big commercial establishments that access their channels.

    The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) has stated that the tariffs of pay channels as well as set top box rentals will be left to mutual agreements and market forces in both CAS and non-CAS areas “subject to restrictions on maximum bouquet price in relation to sum of individual channel prices”.

    For the purpose of tariff regulation, Trai has identified two categories of commercial subscribers. One category consists of hotels with a grading of 3 star and above and heritage hotels. This category will also include any other hotels, motels, Inns and such other commercial establishments providing board and lodging and having 50 or more rooms. In the second category would fall all other commercial establishments.

    The regulator has grouped the rest of commercial establishments into the residual category and decreed that the same rules that govern ordinary cable subscribers will apply to them also, both in CAS and non-CAS areas.

    Taking note of a point made by pay broadcasters with respect to clubs, pubs and other such establishments, Trai’s tariff orders also provide that whenever “any commercial cable subscriber uses the programmes of a broadcaster for public viewing by 50 or more persons on the occasion of special events at a place registered under Entertainment Tax Act, then also the tariff will have to be mutually decided between the parties concerned.

    The pricing formula Trai has worked out is:

    I. The maximum retail price of any individual channel shall not exceed three times the average channel price of the bouquet of which it is a part.

    For example, if the maximum retail price of a five-channel bouquet is Rs 150 per (average channel price of Rs 30), the maximum price an individual channel can be priced at is Rs 90.

    II. The sum of the individual maximum retail prices of the channels shall not be more than 150 per cent of the maximum retail price of the bouquet. Therefore, the total a la carte pricing all these five channels together can charge would be a maximum of Rs 125 (Rs 150 + Rs 75).

    Trai issued the order after the Supreme Court agreed with its argument that in order to ensure an orderly growth of the telecom sector in the country, it was necessary to have differential tariffs for commercial and non-commercial subscribers of conditional access system (CAS).

    Trai’s submission was in response to a petition filed by the Association of Hotels and Restaurants, which challenged an order of the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) that upheld the dual rates.

    Trai had placed the draft Tariff Orders, both for CAS notified areas and non-CAS areas, along with a letter to stakeholders inviting comments by 10 November.

    Broadcasters see Trai’s decision as a positive step towards generating subscription revenues. “Business will see at least a three-fold jump,” says Novex Communications head Ketan Kanakia.