Tag: Trai

There is a Government in my TV

From the days of a single Doordarshan channel where one had to watch Krishidarshan and pretend that one is enjoying it, Indian TV has come a long way. The choice of channels is awesome, sometimes even exhausting. There is music. There are movies. There are soaps. There is news. There is education and there are a host of special interest programmes and channels. TV is no longer just colour. If one is willing to pay for it, it is full HD with Dolby Surround Sound.

Indian Government in general and a succession of Ministers of Information and Broadcasting have played a stellar role in this progress. They have been supported by outstanding bureaucrats – from Secretaries of I&B at the top to Joint Secretaries. They have been friends of the Indian public and accessible to the industry. How much the industry values the caliber and integrity of these people individually is reflected in the fact that a couple of years ago, by popular vote the industry picked Mrs Ambika Soni as the Impact Person of the year.

That said, government actions in the last year or two have raised a question in many minds about the role the Government should be playing in the world of media. Not many will debate that Government has a role to play in setting the policy for media. And that the policy has to cover a number of areas. Content to the extent it can impact law and order or public’s sense of decency for one. Foreign investment for another. These two policy areas are relevant to all media. The third are where TV, Internet and probably radio are unique is the pace of technological advancement. Various components of the industry have to move forward in unison to commercialize technological innovations and make them accessible to all. And to that extent government must be involved in setting these technological standards.

Beyond that, Government’s involvement in issues like adcap and TV audience measurement in truth is hard to justify. In the courts and tribunals, one can advance arguments referring to clauses of acts to justify these ‘policies’. Examples of anything can be found if one looks at government regulations around the world to support a government’s stand.

But let us pause and look at some of these questions dispassionately, honestly. What is not so unique about TV that it has advertising. If the government does not prescribe the max percentage of advertising a newspaper can carry or a website can carry, why should it prescribe a limit in the case of TV?

What is not unique about TV is that advertisers want audiences of each media vehicle measured so that they may rationally decide the price they will pay for it. If the government does not prescribe guidelines for print readership measurement or internet engagement measurement, why should it be involved in setting guidelines for TV ratings measurement?

Fewer regulations in important areas of policy and their strong enforcement make for a healthy, economically vibrant society. Government’s involvement in setting ‘policy’ in dozens of micro-areas makes for a high-cost uncompetitive economy. Perhaps the incoming Government will take heed and pull out of regulating these micro-areas that are best left to the market forces.

(Arvind Sharma, outgoing chairman of Leo Burnett, was the Guest Editor Of the Day at Indiantelevision.com)

March 20, 2014
Home Cable Network approaches TRAI against Star Sports

MUMBAI: Delhi-based multi-system operator (MSO) Home Cable Network, which has for long been facing issues with Star Sports channels, has now written to the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) seeking its intervention in the resolution of the matter, which first arose in November 2013, after the interconnection agreement between the MSO and Star Sports expired on 31 October, 2013.

Home Cable Network, in its letter to TRAI, has said that since expiry of the agreement with Star Sports, it has found abnormalities in the rates charged by the broadcaster. “We have been making representations to Star Sports executives, informing them that the rates charged on a per subscriber basis are not at par with the rates being charged by the network to various other MSOs. Due to this, our business is getting adversely affected,” reads the letter, a copy of which is in the possession of indiantelevision.com.

“We have always been asked by Star Sports representatives to either sign on the exaggerated subscriber base with CPS rates or sign up on RIO rates which again are five to ten times higher as compared to the rates offered by them to favoured MSOs,” the letter further states.

The move comes after the 10 February release of the TRAI regulation on content aggregators. “It was in this regulation that TRAI itself noticed irregularities in interconnection agreements. The regulation was an eye-opener, wherein MSOs like us were informed that the rates being charged from non-vertically integrated DPOs were in some cases higher by 62 per cent as compared to vertically integrated DPOs.

The TRAI also brought to our notice that the rates charged by broadcasters to smaller, non-vertically integrated DPOs were higher by about 85 per cent as compared to vertically integrated DPOs,” said Home Cable Network managing director Vikki Choudhry.

He informed that Home Cable Network has approached TRAI under clause 5.11 of the “Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconnection (Digital Addressable Cable Television Systems) Regulations, 2012” to facilitate the “process of entering into an agreement between Home Cable and Star Sports with just and equitable terms and conditions which help in creating a level playing field between the competing MSOs.

The MSO has given a period of seven to ten days to TRAI to respond to its letter. “After the expiry of this tenure, we will approach The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) against Star Sports,” Choudhry said.

In the case against Star Sports channels, Home Cable Network plans to make TRAI respondent number one and Star Sports respondent number two. “If TRAI is unable to create level playing fields, MSOs will start making the regulator a party in the disputes with the broadcaster,” Choudhry concluded.

March 19, 2014
“Broadcasters still haven’t got the benefit of digitisation”

MUMBAI: It’s been a chaotic couple of years for the media and entertainment industry marked by a lack of clarity – be it digitisation, ad cap or other regulations.

Not surprisingly, this was the subject of a panel discussion on day one of FICCI FRAMES 2014, the 15th chapter of the annual convention.

The panel – comprising Star India CEO Uday Shankar; Viacom18 Group CEO Sudhanshu Vats; FCC commissioner Ajit Pai; MIB secretary Bimal Julka; and Discovery Networks Asia-Pacific senior VP and general manager South Asia and head of revenue, pan-regional ad sales and South East Asia Rahul Johri and moderated by NDTV Group CEO Vikram Chandra – discussed ways and means by which the industry can overcome regulatory hurdles.

The panel felt there should be clarity as to why regulations are needed in the first place and stressed on long-term solutions vis-a-vis short-term remedies. “The regulators need to know that there are certain ailments but immediate fixing is not a solution without knowing what the consequences will be,” said Shankar.

Adding to this, Vats spoke about finding the purpose of regulations. “Media is in the consumer business and needs to run by what the consumer wants. Apart from this, there has to be transparency of data, accountability as well,” he said.

Julka expressed the view that the media has come a long way from ‘license raj’ and is now moving towards partnerships and collaborations. “We must not forget that for us, our core target group is our viewers and listeners and we have to keep them in mind. So, whatever regulations we come up with, they have to benefit them. We don’t want to get into the revenue model or the business model. That’s TRAI’s jurisdiction and I think it is doing a fair job,” he said.

Completing phases I and II of digitisation was a huge challenge considering the country’s demographics, he informed. “Thirty million set top boxes (STBs) have been installed and 110 million are yet to be seeded. It is a huge challenge for the industry as a whole. The government is just a facilitator.”

However, Shankar countered Julka and said, “What is the objective of digitisation? When we started with the process, we all thought that it will increase the bandwidth, giving more space for channels and increase transparency as well. The only thing that has happened is that MSOs have placed boxes in certain households. The broadcasters still haven’t got the benefit of it.”

Pointing out that the carriage fee is too high and the subscription rate too low, Shankar recalled the time he was heading Aaj Tak, “When I was heading AajTak, the carriage fee was zero but today, to run a channel, especially a news channel, one has to pay a huge carriage fee, which in turn harms the content on television.”

Vats seconded Shankar and said, “The fundamental reason is addressability and that is far from over.”

Johri drew attention to the fact that several developments were taking place, all at the same time, which should not be the case. “Digitisation needs to be completed first before other things are looked into,” he said. Readers may recall that indiantelevision.com had earlier reported how several people from the industry had said that matters like ad cap needed to be looked into after completion of the digitisation process by December 2014.

While complimenting the government for pushing hard on finishing phases I and II of digitisation, moderator Chandra asked the panel for suggestions on how the industry can better overcome regulatory hurdles.

To this, Vats suggested looking into the licensing issue first that would help get newer and better content players into the market. Secondly, he said digitisation needs to be completed at the earliest to settle the issue of addressability. Thirdly, he said the industry needs to give a second look to carriage fee. “There has to be transparency regarding the carriage fee and the amount needs to be open,” he said.

Johri highlighted the need for an ecosystem that will nurture innovation. “Once digitisation is over, everything will fall in place,” he assured.

March 12, 2014
Former TRAI Chairman J.S. Sarma passes away

NEW DELHI: Senior Indian Administrative Service officer J S Sarma, who was a strong supporter of reforms in the telecom sector, has passed away.

Sarma also served as chairman of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) from 14 May 2009 to 13 May 2012.

Aged 65, Sarma passed away in Hyderabad on 28 February after a brief ailment.

During his regime, mobile number portability was introduced, allowing customers to switch telecom operators without changing their mobile numbers. The per-second billing plan was also mandated during his tenure.

During Sarma’s time at the helm of TRAI, the Supreme Court cancelled 122 2G licences and directed the regulator to recommend steps to auction the spectrum in the same manner as 3G airwaves were sold in 2010.

A 1971 batch IAS officer from the Andhra Pradesh cadre, Sarma initiated the process to stop telecom operators from activating value-added services such as mobile internet and caller tunes without permission from the consumer.

Although the direction was challenged by operators in court, Sarma’s successor and present Chairman Rahul Khullar implemented the regulation in July 2013 with a provision that entitles customers to refund of money deducted for value-added services provided without their permission.

TRAI’s recommendations on ‘Spectrum Management and Licensing Framework’ in 2010 during Sarma’s tenure formed the basis of the new unified telecom licence regime under which spectrum was separated from permits. They also laid the ground for other telecom liberalisation measures such as spectrum auctions, sharing of airwaves and mergers and acquisitions.

The TRAI’s recommendations for the 2G auction in 2012 drew criticism from the industry as the minimum price recommended by the regulator was a little above the rate companies paid for the 3G spectrum.

But he retired before he could consider any amendments, six months before the auction was held in November 2012, attracting a poor response.

Sarma was made a member of the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal in July 2008 and served as the Telecom Secretary before becoming TRAI chairman.

Born in Vijayawada on 4 September 1948, Sarma graduated from Osmania University in 1966. He had an M. Tech degree in Applied Geology (1969) and a Doctorate in Public Enterprises (1982) from the University of Paris.

He served at the centre first between the years 1977 and 1980 in the Defence and Chemicals & Fertilizers Ministries and returned to the centre in June 1997 when he was made Joint Secretary in the Rural Development Ministry till October 2002; Additional Secretary, Department of Personnel and later in the Department of Telecommunications between October 2002 and November 2004; Secretary, Department of Telecommunications and Chairman, Telecom Commission from June, 2005 to July 2006; and Secretary, Department of Fertilizers from July, 2006 to July, 2008.

He also served in Andhra Pradesh in the Districts of Kurnool, Prakasam, Cuddapah, Guntur, and as Collector and District Magistrate, Chittoor. He held the posts of Managing Director of the Oilseeds Growers’ Federation, Commissioner of Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Commissioner of Land Reforms and Urban Land Ceilings, and Secretary in the Departments of Labour, Education and Planning.

March 3, 2014
TRAI plea in SC for raising pay channel tariff cap

MUMBAI: The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) has petitioned the Supreme Court to allow it to raise the ceiling on tariff for pay channels distributed in non-addressable areas.

The tariff for pay channels in areas where cable TV is distributed through analogue technology has remained capped at the pre-2009 rates, following a direction by the Supreme Court in March 2009 for maintenance of status quo.

TRAI says there is a need for reviewing the ceiling to adjust the tariff for pay channels in non-addressable areas for inflation.

The court is likely to hear the TRAI plea towards the end of March.

TRAI in its appeal to the SC says, “The present tariff was based on the figures of 2009 and the appellant is of the view that an across the board adjustments be provided in respect of tariff to compensate for increased costs on account of inflation.”

The TRAI had amended the tariff order of 2007 by providing for a 7 per cent increase on account of inflation effective from the year 2009.

TRAI says, “The authority since then has not been able to revise the tariff for non-addressable systems, even though more than five years have passed.”

Before 2009, the tariff orders were amended periodically, thereby providing for adjustments for inflation. No such exercise has been undertaken after 2009.

The TRAI through its appeal has informed the Supreme Court that it had in its ‘Recommendations on Issues relating to Broadcasters and Distribution of TV Channels’ provided for a provision to periodically review the ceiling on tariff to make adjustments for inflation.

“According to the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, a substantial increase in the price has taken place and the ceiling thus needs to be reviewed immediately,” reads TRAI’s appeal to the SC, a copy of which is with Indiantelevision.com.

According to the current tariff ceiling, the subscriber for up to 20 pay channels and minimum 30 free to air (FTA) channels in A1 and A class cities has to pay not more than Rs 160, in B1 and B class cities not exceeding Rs 140 and in other areas not more than Rs 130.

Likewise for more than 20 and up to 30 pay channels and minimum 30 FTA channels, the subscriber in A1 and A class cities has to pay not more than Rs 200, in B1 and B class cities not exceeding Rs 170 and in other areas not more than Rs 160.

For viewing more than 30 and up to 45 pay channels, the subscriber as per the tariff has to pay not exceeding Rs 235 in A1 and A class cities, Rs 200 in B1 and B class cities and not exceeding Rs 185 in other cities.

Also for viewing more than 45 pay channels and minimum 30 FTA channels, subscribers, according to the current ceiling on tariff, has to pay not more than Rs 260 in A1 and A class cities, Rs 220 in B1 and B class cities and Rs 200 in other cities.

While the broadcasters would welcome over the appeal by TRAI, but cable operators feel the subscription charges for consumers in non-addressable areas will rise by as much as 36 per cent if the ceiling is approved.

February 25, 2014
Gujarat HC to hear LCOs petition against TRAI, govt, MSOs next week

MUMBAI: The Gujarat Cable Operators Association (GCOA) has all the reasons to rejoice. The Gujarat High Court on 30 January had given a final notice to the Union Government, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) and Multi System Operators (MSOs) in the state to respond to the petition filed by the GCOA, but all the three respondents did not file their responses in the court with the deadline ending today.

“Today was the last day for the government, the TRAI and the MSOs to respond to the court’s notice, but none of them responded,” informs Gujarat Cable Operators Association president Pramod Pandya.

Pandya the court will being hearings in the case next week.

GCOA had filed a petition in the high court in September, challenging the legality of the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Services Tariff and the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconnection Regulations. The court had asked the three respondents to file reasons for formulating the tariff and interconnection regulations.

“We have been fighting for our fundamental rights. It is a one-sided regulation. Why is everything being taken away from me and being given to the MSO? We are not against DAS. It is a fight for our right and our ownership of the consumers. We now wait for the case to go up for hearing the next week,” concludes Pandya.

February 20, 2014
TRAI’s ad cap regulation is reasonable: Delhi HC

MUMBAI: Another challenger to the ad cap petition has got relief from the Delhi HC regarding a Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) regulation on restricting advertisement duration in an hour to just 12 minutes. Maa Television, a leading Telugu GEC, has been asked to tag along with other petitioners such as the News Broadcasters Association (NBA), Sun TV, E24, Pioneer Channel Factory on 13 March.

During the course of the hearing, the bench of acting chief justice B D Ahmed and justice S Mridul observed that “Twelve minutes of advertisement in 60 minutes of a programme is ridiculous. The content becomes an advertisement and the ads become the content.”

The bench also supported TRAI’s decision of bringing in ad cap amongst broadcasters. “What TRAI is doing is reasonable. Take an opinion poll. Everyone will say no to advertisements,” remarked the bench.

However, it also gave the channel an interim relief till the next hearing while asking it to submit its weekly advertising data to TRAI. It has restrained the regulator from taking any coercive measures against the channel.

The NBA is leading the case. The case was initially with the Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) and later shifted to the Delhi HC after the Supreme Court in a separate case stated that challenges to TRAI regulations cannot be heard at TDSAT.

However, the lawyers, who are part of the case, think that the observation won’t have any significant impact on the hearing on 13 March.

With less than a month, all parties involved are gearing up to submit their pleas to the court.

February 19, 2014
Over a million telephones of telemarketers disconnected till January: Deora

NEW DELHI: While the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India has so far received Rs 1.52 crore as penalty from registered telemarketers, the government has admitted that Unsolicited Commercial Communications (SMSs or calls) from persons not registered as telemarketers has not ceased.

Such individuals deliberately masquerade themselves as “normal subscribers” even though their primary purpose for obtaining telecom resources is for telemarketing activities, according to Minister of State for Communications and Information Technology Milind Deora. However, he felt TRAI’s regulatory interventions have largely tempered the menace of Unsolicited Commercial Communications (UCC).

A total of 1.4 million telephones of unregistered telemarketers have been disconnected till 31 January and 1,80,000 Unregistered Telemarketers were blacklisted for two years till 31 January.

With the implementation of these measures, the number of complaints regarding receipt of UCC from unregistered telemarketers has come down from around 45,000 per month in the month of August 2012 to around 12,000 per month in January 2014.

The Telecom Commercial Communications Customer Preference Regulation 2010 has laid down a revised framework for UCC. These regulations came into force with effect from 27 September 2011. The National Do Not Call Registry (NDNC) has been renamed National Customer Preference Register (NCPR). The Telemarketers after registration from TRAI get permission to access the National Customer Preference Register (NCPR).

TRAI has been continuously reviewing this regulation and accordingly issued fourteen amendments to the regulation and a number of directions to make the regulatory framework more effective and stringent. The regulation provides for imposition of penalty against registered telemarketers, to be recovered from the security deposit with the service provider.

The regulator has been taking various steps to rein in unregistered telemarketers from sending unsolicited commercial communications to customers registered in the National Customer Preference Register.

The recent initiatives taken by TRAI under this regulation include preventing unregistered telemarketers from misusing concessional SMS packs or tariff plans for sending bulk promotional SMSs, a price restraint has been placed on sending of more than one hundred SMS per day per SIM. The subscriber is free to send SMSs beyond this number, however, all such SMSs sent beyond one hundred SMS per day per SIM shall be charged at a rate not lower than 50 ‘paise’ per SMS.

To restrict unregistered telemarketers from sending bulk promotional SMSs using software applications, Access Providers have been mandated to put in place a solution, which will ensure that no commercial SMSs are sent having same or similar characters or strings or variants from any source or number. The solution will ensure that no more than 200 SMSs with such similar ‘signature’ are sent in an hour.

For increasing consumer awareness and to caution against misuse, Access Providers have been mandated to send SMS to all customers on periodic basis, advising them not to send any commercial communications and informing them about the consequences of misuse.

The unregistered telemarketer’s number will be disconnected and his name and address will be blacklisted for a period of two years. No telecom resources shall be provided to such subscribers for two years.

February 18, 2014
A wrong to correct a wrong

MUMBAI: If you look back a few years it was the MSOs who were arm twisting the Broadcasters and carriage subsidies shot up to an estimate of about 1800-2000 crores so it was but obvious that the broadcasters had to resort to some countervailing power and adopted the age old saying of ‘in unity there is strength’ to fight back. Hence, the mergers and partnerships to create the Aggregator now termed the Aggressor!

But the battle here is not between the MSO and the Broadcaster. Unfortunately, both have been caught in a situation and a created one at that. Both are responsible for this situation. The Broadcaster wanted distribution beyond available bandwidth, the MSO but naturally driven by common supply – demand market dynamics fleeced exorbitant carriage fees. To demand higher shares of which he started grabbing more territory. For doing so he gave significant concessions towards the subscription collections. Soon it reached a stage that they began to subsist on this easy money and forgot about the upward flow of subscriptions. So, the broadcasters were giving and getting back their own monies and plus or minus a little depending on the so called legacy of the channels rather than any rationale of popularity. That is where the business model started floundering. It’s not that the subscriber was getting a free view. Sure 20,000 + crore was getting collected and of course most of it in cash.

So, where did all this money go? And why are both the Broadcasters and MSOs bleeding. One has to examine the value chain and leakages in the upward flow. The interface to the customer is the LCO/LMO the one who is making the collections. A reasonable share of this will need to flow upward to the broadcasters. Content too with all the competition is only getting more expensive especially with international formats and Bollywood hosts.

How much should be a fair share is secondary. First, one needs to ensure that there actually is a streamlined reverse flow. The bottlenecks and leakages lie in the value chain and systems created by both the MSO and the broadcasters. In addition to the MSO in the middle between the LCO/LMO at one end and the Broadcaster at the other end, there are at least three more middlemen in the current system that prevails. The agent aggregator, their dealers and the distributor/JV partner of the MSOs. The money the consumer pays goes through five hands before what’s left will eventually reach the broadcaster. Obviously there are not one but two too many middlemen and this is where the ecosystem needs change.

Now in all of this, how’s the consumer or subscriber faring? We are the cheapest cable market in the world and honestly without an iota of debate our consumers have been spoilt. For three to five dollars a month subscription, we get the most premium of content. (Given the way our rupee is depreciating we’ll soon be down to $2 subscriptions!) And for that an abundance of choice with half a dozen channels per genre. Live sports of pretty much every event around the world and movies within two months of theatrical release.

Wow! Even if the Govt. is floundering in providing Roti, Kapda aur Makaan nobody is complaining about the 4th essential – Entertainment. Sure everyone’s complaining about the cost of electricity and fuel and multiple taxes but no one’s saying cut off my cable!

Fortunately, we are also the 2nd largest cable and satellite market in the world and so can provide affordable entertainment and the best there is to offer. There’s enough to go around for legitimate stake holders we just need to get the business model right. Imbalances will correct themselves over time.

As to the regulator and regulation, digital addressable system (DAS) is great, but for now let’s just focus on getting the boxes. Let it just be an exercise in technological evolution. Enjoy the digital experience and abundance of choice. We are a privileged lot. Trying to introduce addressability and ‘pay for what you want’ is only going to increase the consumer’s monthly outflow or severely restrict choice. When DAS gets to that stage of choosing and billing, it is not going to be a populist regulation.

So Mr Khullar Sir, the aggregator has been disarmed (agent regulation), the MSO reigned in (max 50 per cent of state control) and the broadcaster chastised (12-minute ad cap). The LCO is still trying to figure out how by merely putting a box, the MSO claims the home whereas he’s the guy who has been upgrading the cables and amplifiers for over two decades. Let’s not add a confused customer to this. He’s happy leave him alone for now. Let the market dynamics come into play and let it all settle for a while. Average Revenue Per User (ARPUs) will increase but not at the cost of denying the consumer what he is already used to. Niche content, value added services and TV on the go are new revenue streams and customers will be willing to pay more for these. Affordable internet access is the key to this next phase of growth wherein traditional media and what we call new media need to converge. What will certainly be interesting is to see who will be the players here to emerge.

(The author is a media observor and consultant, and the views expressed are his own.)

February 14, 2014
TRAI’s toothless content aggregator regulations

The Telecom Regulaotry Auhtority of India (TRAI) was right in both identifying and bringing in new regulation in an attempt to curb content aggregator aggression (read: broadcaster aggression). However, the restrictions are very minimal and on the face of it, they don’t seem to have too much teeth. Aggregators can get renamed as Agents but will TRAI’s effort at redoing and notifying regulations for them really act as an agent of change?

There is no restriction on the ownership of agent companies or how many broadcasters they can represent. (Will need to be addressed in issue of cross media.) Broadcasters belonging to the same group can bundle channels. For the immediate future it is more likely to lead to a futile exercise in splitting existing contracts and and overtime and consulting fees for the guys in black suits (read: lawyers).

Already agreed terms including carrying weak channels and desired packages are the tradeoffs by which the DPOs negotiate to their advantage, so contrary to TRAI’s belief that they add to unwanted costs, they actually subsidize the DPOs costs – whether for carriage, packaging or for a preferred LCN.

Restricting multi-broadcaster packages is not important. What is important are the DPO’s packages which are what subscribers eventually subscribe to. As mentioned, these are negotiation tradeoffs.

In any case most of the channel pricing and bouquets evolved arbitrarily at a time when there were already existing TRAI restrictions on a-la-carte, bouquets, price freeze on existing channels etc and very often broadcasters introduced highly priced new channels to offset the freeze on existing channels pricing. Even internal allocations between various broadcasters within an aggregator skewed rationale on pricing.

The new regulations have not addressed many potent issues which have been plaguing the business and continue to beg solutions. For starters, let us understand that the entity signing the RIO is of little consequence to the consumer. Where are the guidelines for DPOs to price to consumers? Should the retail pricing be determined by the DPO or Broadcaster and who should communicate this to the consumer? Same goes for the packages. Is the DPO the real content aggregator buying in wholesale and then retailing to consumers or is he merely offering his delivery infrastructure and payment gateway for a commission? What is the business model TRAI envisages? Is it going to continue as a B2B or should there be complete transparency to consumer in a B2C approach?

Third party channels within aggregator/agent will be most likely impacted. The Stars and Zees are big enough bouquets by themselves, same goes for the TV18/Viacom18 group channels. (Presuming 50 per cent ownership qualifies to label a broadcaster a Group Company!). Yes, Sony and Discovery channels on paper need to be split but their distribution venture has survived many long years and they can resolve any internal issues without upsetting present equations.

The onus is now on the various DPOs – whether DTH or MSO – to leverage the only real advantage and actually negotiate separately for each of the various broadcasters’ bouquets. Some positive effect of this is likely but it would take a while for the dynamics of negotiations to change. For now it will more likely be just a paper tiger.

All of this makes sense only if the end objective of DAS is achieved: which is individual consumer choice and billing. For now it seems to be stuck in a farcical CAF exercise. No one has really asked the consumer if he is happy paying his 150-200 bucks (ARPU) and wants to continue having his unlimited thali and buffet! And if one were to do the maths on this basis for current pay TV homes and allocate say 40 per cent to content- well, everyone’s happy!

(The author is a media observor and consultant, and the views expressed are his own.)

February 12, 2014