ITV

Tag: Trai

  • TRAI issues consultation paper on AGR issues relating to Spectrum

    TRAI issues consultation paper on AGR issues relating to Spectrum

    NEW DELHI: Following a query by the Department of Telecom on 25 Jun e 2016, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India has asked stakeholders if spectrum assignment on location basis/link-by-link basis on administrative basis to ISPs, be continued in the specified bands.

    In a new consultation paper issued following the DoT letter, the regulator has discussed issues relating to minimum presumptive AGR for ISP licenses and VSAT licenses and other issues raised by DoT in its reference of 25 June 2014, and 15 May 2015. The information/clarifications were furnished to DoT in the letter of 2 March 2016.

    Stakeholders have been asked to respond by 19 September 2016 with counter-comments if any by 3 October 2016.

    The DoT had sought TRAI’s recommendations in terms of clause 11(1) of TRAI Act 1997 (as amended) on:

    (A) ISP license

    (i) Rates for SUC;

    (ii) Percentage of AGR including minimum AGR;

    (iii) Allied issues like schedule of payment, charging of interest, penalty and Financial Bank Guarantee (FBG).

    (B) Commercial VSAT license

    (i) Floor level (minimum) AGR, based on the amount of spectrum held by commercial VSAT operators.

    The Authority said in 2014 it had suo motu undertaken the exercise of review of definition of revenue base (AGR) for the reckoning of licence fee (LF) and spectrum usage charges (SUC). The Consultation Paper was issued on 31st July 2014 and Recommendations on 6 January 2015. The Recommendations along with other issues also contain recommendations on minimum presumptive AGR.

    In the Recommendations of 6 January 2015, the Authority had recommended that minimum presumptive AGR for the purpose of LF and SUC should not be made applicable for any licenses granted by the Government for providing telecom services. The recommendation was based on the fact that in the new licensing regime, spectrum is allocated through an auction process and TSPs are required to pay market-determined prices which can generally be expected to be sufficient motivation to licensees to start the commercial operations. Further the respective licence agreements include provisions on rollout obligations to be met by the licensee within a specified time frame, failing which, there are provisions for penalty (including prospects of cancellation of assigned spectrum).

    Therefore, it said the rationale for imposition of levies based on presumptive AGR does not hold good. However as the DoT letter of 25 June 2014 contains specific reference on minimum presumptive AGR in respect of ISP license and VSAT license, the same has been discussed afresh
    Some of the questions asked by TRAI are:

    Q1: Should the spectrum assignment on location basis/link-by-link basis on administrative basis to ISPs, be continued in the specified bands. If not, please suggest alternate assignment mechanism.

    Q2: Should minimum presumptive AGR be introduced in ISP license for the purpose of charging SUC? If yes, what should be the value of minimum presumptive AGR and basis for its computation?

    Q3: Is there a need to introduce SUC based on percentage of AGR for ISPs or should the existing formula based spectrum charges continue? Please give justification while suggesting a particular method of charging SUC.

    Q4: If AGR based SUC is introduced, whether the percentage of AGR should be uniform for all ISP licenses or should it be different, based on revenue/spectrum-holding/any other suitable criteria?

    Q5: What mechanism should be devised for ISP licensees to identify revenue generated from use of spectrum and revenue generated without use of spectrum?

    Q6: In case minimum presumptive AGR is prescribed for the ISP license, what percentage should be applied on minimum presumptive AGR to compute SUC?

    Q7: In case, Formula based spectrum charging mechanism in ISP license is to be continued, do you feel any changes are required in the formula being currently used that was specified by DoT in March 2012? If yes, suggest the alternate formula. Please give detailed justification.

    Q8: Do you propose any change in existing schedule of payment of spectrum related charges in the ISP license agreement?

    Q9: Should a separate regime of interest rates for delayed payment of royalty for the use of spectrum be fixed in ISP license or should it be the same to the prevailing interest rates for delayed payment of license fee/ SUC for other licensed telecom services?

    Q10: Should separate financial bank guarantee or single financial bank guarantee be submitted by the ISP licensee covering LF payable, fees/charges/royalties for the use of spectrum and other dues (not otherwise securitized)? If yes, what should be the amount of such financial bank guarantee in either case?

    Q11: Is there a need to specify minimum presumptive AGR for commercial CUG VSAT license for the purpose of charging SUC? If yes, what should be the value of minimum presumptive AGR and basis for its computation?

    Q12: Should the SUC applicable to commercial VSAT services be reviewed? If yes, what should be the rate of SUC to be charged? Please give your view on this with justification.

  • TRAI gives MSOs-LCOs 15 days to sign interconnection agreements

    TRAI gives MSOs-LCOs 15 days to sign interconnection agreements

    MUMBAI: Telecom’s watchdog Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) is cracking the whip on India’s cable TV sector players. The regulator yesterday issued a cautionary note to India’s MSOs (multisystem operators) and LCOs (local cable operators) to get their act together on written interconnection agreements.

    And it warned them if them of dire consequences punishable under the TRAI

    It warned the former to supply TV signals to the latter only if the two have signed interconnection agreements. It has given the two a deadline of 15 days to sign their contracts with the MSO being given the responsibility of handing over the agreement to the LCO and getting its acknowledgement of receipt.

    The Trai warned MSOs to stop flirting with LCOs by offering them signals without a written interconnection agreement in place, failing which punishment under the TRAI act would follow.

    The Trai has also drawn up and issued the formats of a model interconnection agreement (MIA) and standard interconnection agreement (SIA) which have to be entered into by the two. The MIA can be used by the two if they agree to terms mutually in a structured manner according to regulations. If they fail to reach a conclusion under the MIA, they could use the SIA which provides standard terms and conditions prescribed by the regulations

  • TRAI gives MSOs-LCOs 15 days to sign interconnection agreements

    TRAI gives MSOs-LCOs 15 days to sign interconnection agreements

    MUMBAI: Telecom’s watchdog Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) is cracking the whip on India’s cable TV sector players. The regulator yesterday issued a cautionary note to India’s MSOs (multisystem operators) and LCOs (local cable operators) to get their act together on written interconnection agreements.

    And it warned them if them of dire consequences punishable under the TRAI

    It warned the former to supply TV signals to the latter only if the two have signed interconnection agreements. It has given the two a deadline of 15 days to sign their contracts with the MSO being given the responsibility of handing over the agreement to the LCO and getting its acknowledgement of receipt.

    The Trai warned MSOs to stop flirting with LCOs by offering them signals without a written interconnection agreement in place, failing which punishment under the TRAI act would follow.

    The Trai has also drawn up and issued the formats of a model interconnection agreement (MIA) and standard interconnection agreement (SIA) which have to be entered into by the two. The MIA can be used by the two if they agree to terms mutually in a structured manner according to regulations. If they fail to reach a conclusion under the MIA, they could use the SIA which provides standard terms and conditions prescribed by the regulations

  • COAI vs. TRAI: Is incumbents’ wrath justified?

    COAI vs. TRAI: Is incumbents’ wrath justified?

    When an industry organisation goes out on a limb to hit out against one of its own members, it raises questions. When the industry body is a powerful one like Cellular Operators’ Association of India (COAI), it should raise eyebrows all round.

    In a rare instance, COAI, an apex body representing Indian and global telecom companies providing telecoms-related converged services (voice, broadband, VAS, content, etc) in the country, went public with its grievances against Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) alleging the regulator’s actions (rather proposed ones) were biased against incumbent players.

    What COAI meant is that a discussion paper of  TRAI, which has a possibility of forming basis of a regulation in future, is designed to favour new players in the telecoms convergence arena (read Reliance JIO).

    Oh boy! This industry body-regulator face-off  is not only juicy but is a curious one on many counts too.

    First, it’s rare for an industry organisation comprising companies with  competing business interests to go public with a view that hits out against one of its own members.

    Second, the under-current of panic (or is it arrogance?) amongst existing established telcos at the arrival of  a  newcomer may indicate to lack of self-confidence though it must be admitted that the cash-rich new kid on the block has the potential of starting a pricing bloodbath that can turn the bottomlines of existing players scarlet.

    Third and last, going public accusing the regulator of bias and appealing to the government to intervene may not be the correct way to address the issue of bias, if at all it exists. Simply because getting the government involved as a third umpire could be slippery slope.

    So, why is COAI hitting out at TRAI and insinuating that the regulator’s discussion papers on inter-connects and related issues are drafted to benefit Reliance JIO, which has publicly stated has invested about Rs. Rs. 1,34,000 crore so far in the project?

    COAI’s allegations revolve around  the way  telecoms business is done via inter-connections (where a service provider lets its customer hook on to another network in the absence of its own infrastructure in an area), the charges levied therein and the fact that certain aspects of the business is being tried to be removed to ease the entry path of newcomer Reliance JIO. The latter has  claimed to have 15 lakh customers in a test/trial phase with over 50 per cent call drops in the absence of other telcos refusing to interconnect despite the fact Reliance JIO’s network is quite widespread in the country.

    An industry and trade organisation normally settles differences and conflicting interests of members (that is bound to exist and should be allowed to flourish in the true spirit of transparency and democracy)  beyond the pale of public glare as a divided house is not taken as seriously  by  target audience.

    But by washing part of the dirty linen in public via the executive office, COAI may end up undermining its own credibility as an organisation representing the telecoms sector in India.

    Thus, even if there are differences of opinion (and business interest) within COAI, the dissenting note(s), if there were any, also should have been played  out so transparency was maintained.

    This brings us to incumbents’ sense of entitlement.

    Existing telcos (and many other players in other businesses too), all claiming to have subscriber bases in millions in the world’s largest market in terms of numbers, have often cried foul at the arrival of a disruptive newcomer or technology saying in the interest of a level playing field the new entities should also be regulated and restricted.
    Reliance JIO could turn out to be as ruthless and apathetic to customer satisfaction as some other existing players in the future, but that’s no reason to create more hurdles in its path or object to its test services.

    One wonders where was the level playing field when Indian telecom customers, plagued by indifferent implementation of consumer protection laws and falling quality of services, turned towards cheaper and newer technologies to communicate? And when it became apparent to incumbents that the new techs were more efficient (for example, OTT services, including Skype, WhatsApp, etc), again the bogey of level-playing field was raised to seek regulatory interventions.

    A status quo is the best scenario for existing players all over the globe; and especially so in India where any change or possibility of  betterment of consumer satisfaction is resisted more efficiently than providing a service. The recent Delhi taxi and auto-rickshaw unions stir against cab aggregators like Ola and Uber is a great case in point of the sense of entitlement that existing players in business and politics want to have in India; irrespective of (pathetic) quality of services and low customer satisfaction.

    Though Reliance JIO is capable of  taking care of  its interests in all possible ways, as is evident in the letter it sent out to Telecoms Secretary JS Deepak earlier this month rebutting COAI’s allegations point-by-point,  the double-standards of existing telcos is not only confounding but also goes against the grain of level-playing field that COAI and its members have flaunted so often in the past.

    (The author is Consulting Editor of Indiantelevision.com)

  • COAI vs. TRAI: Is incumbents’ wrath justified?

    COAI vs. TRAI: Is incumbents’ wrath justified?

    When an industry organisation goes out on a limb to hit out against one of its own members, it raises questions. When the industry body is a powerful one like Cellular Operators’ Association of India (COAI), it should raise eyebrows all round.

    In a rare instance, COAI, an apex body representing Indian and global telecom companies providing telecoms-related converged services (voice, broadband, VAS, content, etc) in the country, went public with its grievances against Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) alleging the regulator’s actions (rather proposed ones) were biased against incumbent players.

    What COAI meant is that a discussion paper of  TRAI, which has a possibility of forming basis of a regulation in future, is designed to favour new players in the telecoms convergence arena (read Reliance JIO).

    Oh boy! This industry body-regulator face-off  is not only juicy but is a curious one on many counts too.

    First, it’s rare for an industry organisation comprising companies with  competing business interests to go public with a view that hits out against one of its own members.

    Second, the under-current of panic (or is it arrogance?) amongst existing established telcos at the arrival of  a  newcomer may indicate to lack of self-confidence though it must be admitted that the cash-rich new kid on the block has the potential of starting a pricing bloodbath that can turn the bottomlines of existing players scarlet.

    Third and last, going public accusing the regulator of bias and appealing to the government to intervene may not be the correct way to address the issue of bias, if at all it exists. Simply because getting the government involved as a third umpire could be slippery slope.

    So, why is COAI hitting out at TRAI and insinuating that the regulator’s discussion papers on inter-connects and related issues are drafted to benefit Reliance JIO, which has publicly stated has invested about Rs. Rs. 1,34,000 crore so far in the project?

    COAI’s allegations revolve around  the way  telecoms business is done via inter-connections (where a service provider lets its customer hook on to another network in the absence of its own infrastructure in an area), the charges levied therein and the fact that certain aspects of the business is being tried to be removed to ease the entry path of newcomer Reliance JIO. The latter has  claimed to have 15 lakh customers in a test/trial phase with over 50 per cent call drops in the absence of other telcos refusing to interconnect despite the fact Reliance JIO’s network is quite widespread in the country.

    An industry and trade organisation normally settles differences and conflicting interests of members (that is bound to exist and should be allowed to flourish in the true spirit of transparency and democracy)  beyond the pale of public glare as a divided house is not taken as seriously  by  target audience.

    But by washing part of the dirty linen in public via the executive office, COAI may end up undermining its own credibility as an organisation representing the telecoms sector in India.

    Thus, even if there are differences of opinion (and business interest) within COAI, the dissenting note(s), if there were any, also should have been played  out so transparency was maintained.

    This brings us to incumbents’ sense of entitlement.

    Existing telcos (and many other players in other businesses too), all claiming to have subscriber bases in millions in the world’s largest market in terms of numbers, have often cried foul at the arrival of a disruptive newcomer or technology saying in the interest of a level playing field the new entities should also be regulated and restricted.
    Reliance JIO could turn out to be as ruthless and apathetic to customer satisfaction as some other existing players in the future, but that’s no reason to create more hurdles in its path or object to its test services.

    One wonders where was the level playing field when Indian telecom customers, plagued by indifferent implementation of consumer protection laws and falling quality of services, turned towards cheaper and newer technologies to communicate? And when it became apparent to incumbents that the new techs were more efficient (for example, OTT services, including Skype, WhatsApp, etc), again the bogey of level-playing field was raised to seek regulatory interventions.

    A status quo is the best scenario for existing players all over the globe; and especially so in India where any change or possibility of  betterment of consumer satisfaction is resisted more efficiently than providing a service. The recent Delhi taxi and auto-rickshaw unions stir against cab aggregators like Ola and Uber is a great case in point of the sense of entitlement that existing players in business and politics want to have in India; irrespective of (pathetic) quality of services and low customer satisfaction.

    Though Reliance JIO is capable of  taking care of  its interests in all possible ways, as is evident in the letter it sent out to Telecoms Secretary JS Deepak earlier this month rebutting COAI’s allegations point-by-point,  the double-standards of existing telcos is not only confounding but also goes against the grain of level-playing field that COAI and its members have flaunted so often in the past.

    (The author is Consulting Editor of Indiantelevision.com)

  • TDSAT directs West Bengal network Saptak Digital to clear Taj TV dues

    TDSAT directs West Bengal network Saptak Digital to clear Taj TV dues

    NEW DELHI: West Bengal cable TV network Saptak Digital has been asked by the Telecom Disputes Settlement & Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) to clear its outstanding dues to Taj TV of Rs 2,11,989 and Rs 2,48,006 for non-DAS and DAS areas as per terms and agreement of the previous agreement.

    Listing the matter for 7 September, member B B Srivastava also directed that for enjoying the signals the monthly payment will also have to continue to be made in accordance with the terms of the same agreement.

    The Tribunal said in its order of 9 August that the payment has to positively be made within two weeks.

    It however clarified that all these payments would be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of Saptak and subject to the final decision of the Tribunal.

    Meanwhile, the two sides were again asked to “sit down immediately after effecting the payment to resolve their differences and for signing the interconnect agreement in accordance with the TRAI regulation of March 2016.

  • TDSAT directs West Bengal network Saptak Digital to clear Taj TV dues

    TDSAT directs West Bengal network Saptak Digital to clear Taj TV dues

    NEW DELHI: West Bengal cable TV network Saptak Digital has been asked by the Telecom Disputes Settlement & Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) to clear its outstanding dues to Taj TV of Rs 2,11,989 and Rs 2,48,006 for non-DAS and DAS areas as per terms and agreement of the previous agreement.

    Listing the matter for 7 September, member B B Srivastava also directed that for enjoying the signals the monthly payment will also have to continue to be made in accordance with the terms of the same agreement.

    The Tribunal said in its order of 9 August that the payment has to positively be made within two weeks.

    It however clarified that all these payments would be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of Saptak and subject to the final decision of the Tribunal.

    Meanwhile, the two sides were again asked to “sit down immediately after effecting the payment to resolve their differences and for signing the interconnect agreement in accordance with the TRAI regulation of March 2016.

  • TRAI-COAI spar on interconnect charges consultation paper

    TRAI-COAI spar on interconnect charges consultation paper

    MUMBAI: Telco watchdog  the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) has garbaged allegations by the Cellular Operators Associaiton of India (COAI) that its latest consultation paper on call connect charges was “unfair” on incumbent operators and favouring newer entrants. TRAI chairman RS Sharma told PTI that the allegations against the regulator are “baseless.”

    TRAI maintained that it will continue to work according to its mandate. “Trai will continue to work in the areas in which it is mandated to work…We will continue to perform functions assigned in the Trai Act, with regard to consumer protection, Quality of Service, encouraging competition, fair play and growth of industry,” Sharma said.

    COAI had questioned the regulator’s urgency in initiating the process of  reviewing interconnect charges – paid by one operator to another for connecting calls, which the association claimed “favours new entrants.” TRAI  said it had undertaken this review in the backdrop of 4G and internet telephony changing the way consumers communicate.
    Currently, termination charges for a mobile to mobile local and national long distance call is pegged at 14 paise per minute while the termination charges for international incoming call to wireless and wired line stands at 53 paise per minute.

    Trai had sought fresh views on whether this should be continued or whether a new way of computing could be considered which is Bill and Keep (BAK) – to maximize consumer welfare, adoption of more efficient technologies and growth of the telecom sector. Under the BAK method, each telco bills its own subscribers for outgoing traffic that it sends to the  other interconnecting network and keeps the revenue received from its subscribers.

    COAI has finger pointed at the regulator’s suggestion, saying it essentially favours new operators as they would  not have to pass any payments to existing older operators, while the latter would end up incurring costs. “This is a misguided effort from the TRAI that will help new entrants at the cost of the incumbent. We are extremely disturbed by this, this further tilts the level playing field,” COAI director general Rajan Matthews had stated yesterday.

    This is not the first time that India’s private sector telecom operators have tried to put pressure on the regulator.
    Even in the case of net neutrality and zero-rating plans of telecom operators, the telcos had termed certain orders of TRAI without any basis that did not give the telcos a level playing field against new technologies (OTT services like WhatsApp, Skype, etc) and their backers.

    Matthews told PTI that his association   had sought a meeting with the telecom minister and secretary “so that the matter can be debated in a transparent manner.”

    The Mukesh Ambani-led Reliance Industries Ltd, which has a pan-India licence for providing telecom services by a subsidiary company under Reliance Jio brand name, is slated to launch its services formally later this year. Reliance Jio is also slated to offer its consumers hi-speed 4G broadband services on low-priced Lyf handsets at  monthly subscription rates, telecoms observer opine, that are likely to start a blood-bath in the telecoms sector.

    RIL also controls the Network18 media group, founded by Raghav Bahl, which owns several TV channels and online and digital properties.

    In recent times, incumbent telecoms operators have been severely criticised within and outside the government for the low quality of services and rampant call-drops that TRAI had tried to rectify by proposing fines to benefit consumers.

    This move and other such regulatory initiatives too were criticised by telecos and various telecom industry bodies like COAI and Broadband India Forum.

    Interestingly, Reliance Jio  is also a member of COAI, though, according to media reports, its position on the present round of TRAI bashing by telcos is not known and unclear.

    ALSO READ:

    BIF bats for OTT regulations & level-playing field for all in Net Neutrality debate

  • TRAI-COAI spar on interconnect charges consultation paper

    TRAI-COAI spar on interconnect charges consultation paper

    MUMBAI: Telco watchdog  the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) has garbaged allegations by the Cellular Operators Associaiton of India (COAI) that its latest consultation paper on call connect charges was “unfair” on incumbent operators and favouring newer entrants. TRAI chairman RS Sharma told PTI that the allegations against the regulator are “baseless.”

    TRAI maintained that it will continue to work according to its mandate. “Trai will continue to work in the areas in which it is mandated to work…We will continue to perform functions assigned in the Trai Act, with regard to consumer protection, Quality of Service, encouraging competition, fair play and growth of industry,” Sharma said.

    COAI had questioned the regulator’s urgency in initiating the process of  reviewing interconnect charges – paid by one operator to another for connecting calls, which the association claimed “favours new entrants.” TRAI  said it had undertaken this review in the backdrop of 4G and internet telephony changing the way consumers communicate.
    Currently, termination charges for a mobile to mobile local and national long distance call is pegged at 14 paise per minute while the termination charges for international incoming call to wireless and wired line stands at 53 paise per minute.

    Trai had sought fresh views on whether this should be continued or whether a new way of computing could be considered which is Bill and Keep (BAK) – to maximize consumer welfare, adoption of more efficient technologies and growth of the telecom sector. Under the BAK method, each telco bills its own subscribers for outgoing traffic that it sends to the  other interconnecting network and keeps the revenue received from its subscribers.

    COAI has finger pointed at the regulator’s suggestion, saying it essentially favours new operators as they would  not have to pass any payments to existing older operators, while the latter would end up incurring costs. “This is a misguided effort from the TRAI that will help new entrants at the cost of the incumbent. We are extremely disturbed by this, this further tilts the level playing field,” COAI director general Rajan Matthews had stated yesterday.

    This is not the first time that India’s private sector telecom operators have tried to put pressure on the regulator.
    Even in the case of net neutrality and zero-rating plans of telecom operators, the telcos had termed certain orders of TRAI without any basis that did not give the telcos a level playing field against new technologies (OTT services like WhatsApp, Skype, etc) and their backers.

    Matthews told PTI that his association   had sought a meeting with the telecom minister and secretary “so that the matter can be debated in a transparent manner.”

    The Mukesh Ambani-led Reliance Industries Ltd, which has a pan-India licence for providing telecom services by a subsidiary company under Reliance Jio brand name, is slated to launch its services formally later this year. Reliance Jio is also slated to offer its consumers hi-speed 4G broadband services on low-priced Lyf handsets at  monthly subscription rates, telecoms observer opine, that are likely to start a blood-bath in the telecoms sector.

    RIL also controls the Network18 media group, founded by Raghav Bahl, which owns several TV channels and online and digital properties.

    In recent times, incumbent telecoms operators have been severely criticised within and outside the government for the low quality of services and rampant call-drops that TRAI had tried to rectify by proposing fines to benefit consumers.

    This move and other such regulatory initiatives too were criticised by telecos and various telecom industry bodies like COAI and Broadband India Forum.

    Interestingly, Reliance Jio  is also a member of COAI, though, according to media reports, its position on the present round of TRAI bashing by telcos is not known and unclear.

    ALSO READ:

    BIF bats for OTT regulations & level-playing field for all in Net Neutrality debate

  • What really happened at the 16th DAS Task Force meeting

    What really happened at the 16th DAS Task Force meeting

    NEW DELHI: Even as the government has once again reiterated that it is firm on Phase IV of digital addressable systems for cable television to commence on 31 December this year, the Information and Broadcasting Ministry (MIB) has for the first time admitted that the Law Ministry had observed that the order passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court staying Phase III “appears to have all lndia applicability”.

    (The Ministry had sought this opinion in view of the Mumbai high court making a reference to the Kusum Ingots case which had said that if one high court gives an order, others can give similar orders if similar circumstances exist. indiantelevision.com had reported in January this year that the MIB had told the Punjab and Haryana high court that it had ‘decided not to press the requirement of having a STB as for now till the decision of the cases which are pending before various other high courts’).

    The MIB affirmed this at the 16th DAS IV Task Force meeting held on 26 July in Delhi. MIB secretary Ajay Mittal who presided over the meeting said digitisation is a process which cannot be stopped. He said that Ministry has been proactive in the matter of dealing with all the court cases filed by some MSOs for extension of cut-off date for phase lll. He suggested that the stakeholders should supplement the efforts made by Ministry to dispose off these cases.

    He cautioned that MSOs and LCOs should desist from transmitting or re-transmitting un-authorized TV channels which are not permitted by the Ministry. He informed that Ministry has written to all the district collectors/magistrates in this regard to take action under the law against those who are violating the law.

    Advisor DAS Yogendra Pal told the Task Force Meeting for DAS that there were no cases in twenty states but the MIB was not in a position to issue orders in view of the advice given by the law ministry.

    However, he said following the decision to transfer all DAS cases to the Delhi high court following a petition in the Supreme Court by the MIB, 29 cases have so far been transferred by various courts to Delhi and 18 cases are still left to be transferred.

    He said 62 cases had been filed by some multi-system operators (MSOs) in various courts in the country for extension in the deadline of Phase lll. Out of these 62 cases, 12 cases had been disposed off by respective courts and 3 cases had been withdrawn by the petitioners. Two months extension in the deadline was granted by the Andhra Pradesh high court. Both Mumbai high court and the Aurangabad Branch of that court had passed orders to the effect that the order passed by the Telengana bench of the high court of Andhra Pradesh had all India applicability in view of the Supreme Court judgment in Kusum Ingots case.

    Two cases are scheduled for hearing by the Delhi High Court on 13 September 2016. He added that the MIB as approached the Solicitor General to defend the cases and for an early hearing of the cases in Delhi high court. He added that a special leave petition (SLP) is also being drafted against the order of Aurangabad Branch of Mumbai high court.

    The Ministry had recently conducted one workshop with state level nodal officers in Delhi and three regional workshops with state and district level Nodal Officers at Dehradun, Shimla and lmphal.

    The Joint Secretary said that there were a reported 6000 MSOs in the country but only 965 MSO had got registrations so far and about 200 applications are under process in the Ministry.

    She requested the Indian Broadcasting Foundation, the News Broadcasters Association, and the ARTBI to tell their member broadcasters to check with all MSOs with whom they have interconnect agreements whether they were registered and if they have not applied for it so far, advise them to do so immediately. She said that broadcasters should be having the details of all MSOs operating in phase lV areas in their data base which can be crosschecked with the list of registered MSOs on MIB website to identify the MSOs who have not applied for registration so far. She asked the representatives of broadcasters to send a list of these MSOs operating in phase lV areas but who have not applied for MSO registration to Ministry by 7 August 2016. She added that as a next step the broadcasters should communicate with these MSOs and ask them to apply for MSO registration if they want to continue to operate as MSOs in DAS notified areas.

    A representative of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India emphasized that broadcasters should start entering into interconnect agreements with MSOs and likewise MSOs should enter into interconnect agreements with LCOs for phase lV areas. He said that broadcasters should collect STB requirements from local cable operators in phase lV areas.

    The representative of IMCL said broadcasters have offered separate digital and analogue rates in phase lV market and suggested that TRAI may issue an advisory/directive that there should be only analogue rate till 31 December 2016.

    TRAI said no such advisory which is outside the regulations can be issued. He said put of 900 TV channels, about 600 channels are free to air (FTA) channels and operate through about 2000 LCOs from their head ends. He suggested that in their case the State Governments can asks these LCOs to apply for MSO registration.

    Joint secretary Jaya said MSOs had sought an extension from the courts on the plea that broadcasters had not signed interconnect agreement with them. She said agreements between broadcasters important for further signing of agreements between MSOs and LCOs. She said that broadcasters, MSOs and LCOs should prioritize this issue everywhere and make concerted efforts to seal the agreements for phase lV areas by August 2016.

    TRAI said all MSOs who have any issue with broadcasters with regard to signing of interconnect agreements should write to the TRAI. He added that TRAI would review the situation in this regard from time to time.

    A representative of a cable operator association from Maharashtra (MocF) mentioned that about 200 LCos have signed interconnect agreements with Hathway in Maharashtra. He suggested that other large MSOs like IMCL & Siticable may also enter into agreements with LCos there on the basis of model inter-connect agreement.

    He complained that the post offices in Maharashtra were asking for no objection certificates from the offices of the district magistrate for renewal of registration to LCOs. He was told that with regard to this issue, which was raised in the last meeting also, proper reference with details should be sent to MIB He also wanted to know whether an MSO registered with MIB and operating as an LCO also is required to obtain the LCO registration from local the post office.

    A representative of CEAMA mentioned that orders for STBs had peaked in October 2015. Thereafter, except for supply orders from DTH operators and some small MSOs, no major orders have been received by them. He suggested that the MSOs planning for procurement for phase lV should place the orders now for timely delivery of STBs. He re-confirmed that they have the capacity to meet the complete requirements of phase lV.

    Representatives of state nodal officers from the Himachal Pradesh, Telengana, UP, Uttarakhand, MP, Karnataka, Bihar and J & K briefed about the various measures undertaken by them to implement the last phase of digitisation in their states. Most of them confirmed that monitoring committees have been set up and they are holding regular meetings to monitor the progress.