ITV

Tag: Telecom Disputes Settlement

  • TDSAT accepts assurance by Malwa MSO of meeting legitimate demands of a group of LCOs in Malwa

    TDSAT accepts assurance by Malwa MSO of meeting legitimate demands of a group of LCOs in Malwa

    New Delhi, 12 March: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal, which had earlier this month asked the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India why there were no other multisystem operators in the Malwa area, has taken note of an assurance by Fastway Transmission Pvt Ltd that it will ensure that all lawful and legitimate grievances of the petitioner LCOs are fully redressed.

    The Tribunal put off to 21 March a petition by the New Malwa Cable Operator Sangh, Punjab.

    Asking the regulator to ‘ponder over and address’ this question, the Tribunal dismissed a petition by another body of LCOs, the Malwa Cable Operators Sangharsh Committee seeking cable TV signals.

    It had said the rejection of the petition by the Committee seeking signals from Fastway was “not due to any lacuna in the law”.

    “It is because there is no one other than the respondent to whom these LCOs may go for supply of signals. How and why such a situation has arisen is a question for the Regulator to ponder over and to address,” Chairman Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said in their judgment.
     

     

  • TDSAT accepts assurance by Malwa MSO of meeting legitimate demands of a group of LCOs in Malwa

    TDSAT accepts assurance by Malwa MSO of meeting legitimate demands of a group of LCOs in Malwa

    New Delhi, 12 March: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal, which had earlier this month asked the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India why there were no other multisystem operators in the Malwa area, has taken note of an assurance by Fastway Transmission Pvt Ltd that it will ensure that all lawful and legitimate grievances of the petitioner LCOs are fully redressed.

    The Tribunal put off to 21 March a petition by the New Malwa Cable Operator Sangh, Punjab.

    Asking the regulator to ‘ponder over and address’ this question, the Tribunal dismissed a petition by another body of LCOs, the Malwa Cable Operators Sangharsh Committee seeking cable TV signals.

    It had said the rejection of the petition by the Committee seeking signals from Fastway was “not due to any lacuna in the law”.

    “It is because there is no one other than the respondent to whom these LCOs may go for supply of signals. How and why such a situation has arisen is a question for the Regulator to ponder over and to address,” Chairman Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said in their judgment.
     

     

  • Govt rules out separate body to examine broadcasting complaints

    Govt rules out separate body to examine broadcasting complaints

    New Delhi: The Government today ruled out any separate body for going into complaints relating to broadcasting.

    Minister of State for Information and Broadcasting Rajyavardhan Rathore said this while replying to a question about the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal.

    The Minister said TDSAT handled 1341 broadcasting cases between 2013 and 2015: 593 in 2015, 433 in 2014 and 315 in 2013.

    It dealt with thirty appeals relating to broadcasting during this period , which includes five in 2015, seven in 2014, and 18 in 2013.

    When the Government decided in 2004 to give charge of broadcasting to the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, the TDSAT, which handles cases arising out of TRAI orders, also began handling broadcasting cases.

    Even as the Prasar Bharati Act has a clear provision relating to establishing a Broadcasting Council to hear cases relating to that sector, the previous government had been contemplating a comprehensive law on legislation, which would provide for a Broadcasting Regulatory Authority of India, but did not take action after the private sector protested and both the Indian Broadcasting Foundation and the News Broadcasters Association set up their own regulatory bodies.  

  • Govt rules out separate body to examine broadcasting complaints

    Govt rules out separate body to examine broadcasting complaints

    New Delhi: The Government today ruled out any separate body for going into complaints relating to broadcasting.

    Minister of State for Information and Broadcasting Rajyavardhan Rathore said this while replying to a question about the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal.

    The Minister said TDSAT handled 1341 broadcasting cases between 2013 and 2015: 593 in 2015, 433 in 2014 and 315 in 2013.

    It dealt with thirty appeals relating to broadcasting during this period , which includes five in 2015, seven in 2014, and 18 in 2013.

    When the Government decided in 2004 to give charge of broadcasting to the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, the TDSAT, which handles cases arising out of TRAI orders, also began handling broadcasting cases.

    Even as the Prasar Bharati Act has a clear provision relating to establishing a Broadcasting Council to hear cases relating to that sector, the previous government had been contemplating a comprehensive law on legislation, which would provide for a Broadcasting Regulatory Authority of India, but did not take action after the private sector protested and both the Indian Broadcasting Foundation and the News Broadcasters Association set up their own regulatory bodies.  

  • TDSAT asks Star India to restore signals to Karnataka LCO subject to part payment

    TDSAT asks Star India to restore signals to Karnataka LCO subject to part payment

    NEW DELHI: Star India has been asked by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) to restore signals to Karnataka based local cable operator (LCO) V4 Media, provided it pays Rs 12.91 lakh through RTGS as committed by it.

     

    Listing the matter for 21 December, the Tribunal said V4 Media will further make payment of Rs 19.88 lakh by 26 December.

     

    TDSAT chairman Justice Aftab Alam and member B B Srivastava made it clear that “these payments are on account payment and shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties.”

     

    Apart from the aforesaid payments, V4 Media will also pay the monthly subscription fee as per the invoice dated 5 November.

  • Sun asked to sign provisional agreement and commence signals to MSO

    Sun asked to sign provisional agreement and commence signals to MSO

    New Delhi: Sun Network has been directed by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal to enter into a provisional interconnect agreement with multi system operator Balu Cable Network and commence supply of signals.

     

    Chairman Justice Aftab Alam and member Kuldip Singh felt that the order was proper and appropriate considering much time has already lapsed.

     

    The Tribunal said: “We note that this petition was filed on 28 May 2015 and it is lingering on, on some pretext or the other. The request on behalf of the respondent for making physical verification of the petitioner’s SLR cannot be disallowed.”  

     

    Listing the matter for 14 December, the Tribunal said Sun Network may make a physical verification of the petitioner’s SLR and submit its report on completion of the verification.

     

    Thereafter, the Tribunal will pass further orders, the bench said.

  • TDSAT warns Den Network against piracy of Star channels

    TDSAT warns Den Network against piracy of Star channels

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has cautioned and warned Den Network to desist from activities like piracy and transmitting any channels of Star available to it on a la carte basis on any of its channels available in any bouquets.

     

    As per Star, it telecast the Salman Khan starrer film Bajrangi Bhaijaan on one of its channels, Star Gold which is available to Den’s network only on a la carte basis. In order to circumvent the a la carte restriction, Den unauthorisedly transmitted the movie on one of its local channels called Den Cinema, which was available to its entire subscriber base.

     

    TDSAT chairman Justice Aftab Alam and members Kuldip Singh and B B Srivastava said, “Prima facie it appears to us that Den is indulging in practices that are not only not sanctioned by law but which in fact may constitute criminal offence.”

     

    It further clarified that in case Den is “violated the warning it would do so at its risk as to costs and consequences. It is further made clear that Star, if so advised, may file claim for damages against Den for allegedly having indulged in piracy of its signals.” 

     

    The Tribunal noted that in the petition filed by Den, Star had even earlier alleged similar piracy and that matter had been posted for 3 November as Den counsel Abhay Chattopadhyay sought time to get instructions. 

     

    The Tribunal hoped that by the next date, Chattopadhyay may file Den’s reply to the two applications. 

     

    In the present application, Star counsel Kunal Tandon alleged that Den was “indulging in rampant piracy of some of the Star channels.” Both the earlier application and the present application are supported by screen shots and CDs.

  • Ad cap petitions adjourned till 11 November

    Ad cap petitions adjourned till 11 November

    NEW DELHI: The case challenging the adcap regulations sought to be implemented on television channels was today adjourned to 11 November by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal.

    TDSAT Chairman Justice Aftab Alam and member Kuldip Singh also rejected the interventions filed by Zee, Star and Viacom18, with the Tribunal asking them to file separate applications.

    The News Broadcasters Association had moved TDSAT challenging the constitutional validity of the regulations of Telecom Regulatory Authority of India enforcing the ad cap.

    Several other broadcasters – mostly general entertainment channels – had later moved TDSAT, but the Tribunal had in 30 August accepted the argument by NBA that the cases of the general entertainment channels could not be clubbed with the petition of NBA.

     The news channels are seeking relief from the 10+2 ad cap regulation prescribed by TRAI.

    Senior Counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi on behalf of the NBA sought time as the pleadings were not ready.

    Some regional channels from Kerala also wanted to intervene as petitioners, but TDSAT said their matter would be heard after the main hearing.

    Channels that sought to move to the court today included 9X, B4U, TV Vision and Pioneer Channel Factory of Mumbai, Sun TV Network of Chennai, E24 Glamour, Polimer Media, Reliance Big Network, Eenadu TV, Sarthak Entertainment and Raj TV.

    Later, some general entertainment channels including music channels had also approached TDSAT in various petitions and the Tribunal had decided to hear these matters after the NBA matter.

    Counsel for TRAI said that an anomalous situation had been created with some channels having accepted the adcap with effect from 1 October. It was therefore requested that the matter be resolved once for all.

    Meanwhile, TRAI had been forbidden on 30 August from taking any ‘coercive action’ against news channels who are not abiding by the agreement relating to advertisement time on news channels.

    The Tribunal also said that while the news channels will maintain weekly records of the advertising time per hour on a weekly basis, they will not be required to submit this to the regulator as being done at present and will only submit these to TDSAT at the hearing of the case.

    Counsel for the NBA A J Bhambani had said on 30 August that a delegation of the Indian Broadcasting Foundation had submitted a formula to the regulator but that did not preclude the broadcasters from challenging the validity of the Regulations. He also said that this was only a compromise reached between the broadcasters and the regulator and could not form the basis of penal action since it was not a regulation or legal provision. He had added that there were many members who were common to both the IBF and the NBA, and therefore the IBF had submitted a ‘proposal’ on 29 May this year, which the TRAI accepted. But this could not be construed as a regulation.

    Even otherwise, he argued that TRAI was only empowered by its own Act to make ‘recommendations’ on issues like advertisements and not bring about or enforce regulations and resort to prosecution.

    When the law was invoked by the Authority in May 2012, it was disputed by television broadcasters which had also challenged the jurisdiction of TRAI in this regard before the Tribunal.

  • Ad cap petitions adjourned till 11 November

    Ad cap petitions adjourned till 11 November

    NEW DELHI: The case challenging the adcap regulations sought to be implemented on television channels was today adjourned to 11 November by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal.

     

    TDSAT Chairman Justice Aftab Alam and member Kuldip Singh also rejected the interventions filed by Zee, Star and Viacom18, with the Tribunal asking them to file separate applications.

     

    The News Broadcasters Association had moved TDSAT challenging the constitutional validity of the regulations of Telecom Regulatory Authority of India enforcing the ad cap.

     

    Several other broadcasters – mostly general entertainment channels – had later moved TDSAT, but the Tribunal had in 30 August accepted the argument by NBA that the cases of the general entertainment channels could not be clubbed with the petition of NBA.

     

     The news channels are seeking relief from the 10+2 ad cap regulation prescribed by TRAI.

     

    Senior Counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi on behalf of the NBA sought time as the pleadings were not ready.

     

    Some regional channels from Kerala also wanted to intervene as petitioners, but TDSAT said their matter would be heard after the main hearing.

     

    Channels that sought to move to the court today included 9X, B4U, TV Vision and Pioneer Channel Factory of Mumbai, Sun TV Network of Chennai, E24 Glamour, Polimer Media, Reliance Big Network, Eenadu TV, Sarthak Entertainment and Raj TV.

     

    Later, some general entertainment channels including music channels had also approached TDSAT in various petitions and the Tribunal had decided to hear these matters after the NBA matter.

     

    Counsel for TRAI said that an anomalous situation had been created with some channels having accepted the adcap with effect from 1 October. It was therefore requested that the matter be resolved once for all.

     

    Meanwhile, TRAI had been forbidden on 30 August from taking any ‘coercive action’ against news channels who are not abiding by the agreement relating to advertisement time on news channels.

     

    The Tribunal also said that while the news channels will maintain weekly records of the advertising time per hour on a weekly basis, they will not be required to submit this to the regulator as being done at present and will only submit these to TDSAT at the hearing of the case.

     

    Counsel for the NBA A J Bhambani had said on 30 August that a delegation of the Indian Broadcasting Foundation had submitted a formula to the regulator but that did not preclude the broadcasters from challenging the validity of the Regulations. He also said that this was only a compromise reached between the broadcasters and the regulator and could not form the basis of penal action since it was not a regulation or legal provision. He had added that there were many members who were common to both the IBF and the NBA, and therefore the IBF had submitted a ‘proposal’ on 29 May this year, which the TRAI accepted. But this could not be construed as a regulation.

     

    Even otherwise, he argued that TRAI was only empowered by its own Act to make ‘recommendations’ on issues like advertisements and not bring about or enforce regulations and resort to prosecution.

     

    When the law was invoked by the Authority in May 2012, it was disputed by television broadcasters which had also challenged the jurisdiction of TRAI in this regard before the Tribunal.