ITV

Tag: Trai

  • Govt earns over Rs 2,400 crore as licence fee from DTH players in 3 years: Rathore

    Govt earns over Rs 2,400 crore as licence fee from DTH players in 3 years: Rathore

    NEW DELHI: A sum of Rs 2400.45 crore has been earned by the government from licence fee from the six private direct-to-home players in the last three years.

    Lok Sabha was told in a written reply by Minister of State for Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) that while “there is no restriction on the total number of DTH licenses, no new application has been received in the Ministry for grant of DTH license.”

    He said that a sum of Rs Rs.836.52 crores was earned in 2014-15, while the revenue from licence for 2015-16 was Rs.816.15 crores and for 2016-17 was Rs.747.78 crores.

    The Ministry has granted license to six private companies: Dish TV India Limited; Tata Sky Limited; Sun Direct TV Pvt. Limited; Reliance BIG TV Limited; Bharti Telemedia Limited and Videocon d2h Limited

    In addition, pubcaster Doordarshan provides a free-to-air DTH services in the country from its platform Freedish, which only requires a one-time investment in purchasing the dish and linked set-top-box.

    DTH licenses, under the DTH guidelines, are granted to those companies which fulfill the eligibility criteria, terms and conditions and are subject to security clearance and technical clearances by the appropriate authorities of the government. The details are available on the website of this Ministry at www.mib.gov.in.

    In a related development, broadcast carriage regulator TRAI has set in motion a consultation process to explore whether the private DTH operators and other distribution platforms can share infrastructure so as to optimise their usage and reduce overall cost.

    The TRAI proposal has elicited mixed response from DTH operators till now, while Hong Kong-based Asian pay TV industry organisation CASBAA has opposed any government or regulator mandated sharing on the ground that consumers will not benefit ultimately, apart from other reasons.

  • TRAI gives more time on responses to Paper on internet telephony which can affect mobile TV, IPTV

    TRAI gives more time on responses to Paper on internet telephony which can affect mobile TV, IPTV

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India today decided to give more time to stakeholders to respond to its consultation paper on internet telephony (VoIP).

    The paper had noted that unified IP based backbone and the benefits associated with the converged telecom access scenario has enabled service providers to launch more and more converged services such as Internet Telephony, IPTV, Mobile TV etc.

    TRAI has now asked stakeholders to respond by 22 August 2016 (which is exactly two months after the paper was issued on 22 June 2016) and give countercomments by 5 September 2016.

    The paper has sought to know the format of voice over internet telephony (VoIP) in India.

    The authority has pointed out that use of Internet Protocol (IP)-based networks, including the Internet, continues to grow around the world due to the multitude of applications it supports and particularly due to Voice Over IP (VoIP). IP-based networks are capable of providing real-time services such as voice and video telephony as well as non real-time services such as email and are driven by faster Internet connections, widespread take-up in broadband and the emergence of new technologies.

    The terms “IP Telephony”, “VoIP”, Internet Telephony and other variants often generates confusion as there are many different definitions used by various organizations. Some use them interchangeably while others give them distinct definitions. Further confusion is caused by using the terms to refer to both the IP-based technologies and the services that are enabled by these technologies.

    Convergence is primarily driven by increasing processing power, high capacity memory storage devices, reduced price, lesser power requirement and miniaturization of the devices. High-speed data transfer is now possible which is necessary for delivering innovative and advanced multimedia applications.

    Recent trends indicate that Telecom operators are adopting converged platforms to deliver multimedia rich applications containing voice, video and data.

    The separation of service provisioning and its management from the underlying network infrastructure in packet based networks is further increasing the acceptability of IP based Networks. It is now possible to separate provision of service contents, configuration and modification of service attributes regardless of the network catering such service. There has been enough evidence to suggest that in future IP networks will play much important role and may ultimately encourage migration of conventional networks towards Next Generation Networks or an All IP Network.

    The regulator wants to know what should the additional entry fee, Performance Bank Guarantee (PBG) and Financial Bank Guarantee (FBG) for Internet Service providers be if they are also allowed to provide unrestricted Internet Telephony.

    It says the point of Interconnection for Circuit switched Network for various types of calls is well defined, and should the same be continued for Internet Telephony calls or there is need to change Point of Interconnection for Internet Telephony calls.

    Trai has asked whether accessing of telecom services of the TSP by the subscriber through public Internet (internet access of any other TSP) can be construed as extension of fixed line or mobile services of the TSP.

    It wants to know whether the present ceiling of transit charge needs to be reviewed or it can be continued at the same level.

    The regulation has asked what the termination charge should be when call is terminating into Internet telephony network and whether an Internet telephony subscriber be able to initiate or receive calls from outside the SDCA, or service area, or the country through the public Internet thus providing limited or full mobility to such subscriber.

    Should the last mile for an Internet telephony subscriber be the public Internet irrespective of where the subscriber is currently located as long as the PSTN leg abides by all the interconnection rules and regulations concerning NLDO and ILDO, asks Trai.

    It wants to understand the framework if Number portability is allowed for Internet Telephony numbers.

    In case it is not possible to provide Emergency services through Internet Telephony, will it be enough to inform limitation of Internet Telephony calls in advance to the consumers, asks Trai.
    Since the 1960’s when digital voice communication first emerged, the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) has been supported worldwide as the primary means of voice communication. The PSTN is a connection-oriented, circuit-switched network in which a dedicated channel (or circuit) is established for the duration of a communication. Originally transmitting only analog signals, the PSTN ultimately switched to digital communication, which offered solutions to the attenuation, noise and interference problems inherent in the analog system. The modern PSTN uses Pulse Code Modulation (PCM) to convert all analog signals into digital transmissions at the originating network and reverses the processes in the receiving network.

  • TRAI gives more time on responses to Paper on internet telephony which can affect mobile TV, IPTV

    TRAI gives more time on responses to Paper on internet telephony which can affect mobile TV, IPTV

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India today decided to give more time to stakeholders to respond to its consultation paper on internet telephony (VoIP).

    The paper had noted that unified IP based backbone and the benefits associated with the converged telecom access scenario has enabled service providers to launch more and more converged services such as Internet Telephony, IPTV, Mobile TV etc.

    TRAI has now asked stakeholders to respond by 22 August 2016 (which is exactly two months after the paper was issued on 22 June 2016) and give countercomments by 5 September 2016.

    The paper has sought to know the format of voice over internet telephony (VoIP) in India.

    The authority has pointed out that use of Internet Protocol (IP)-based networks, including the Internet, continues to grow around the world due to the multitude of applications it supports and particularly due to Voice Over IP (VoIP). IP-based networks are capable of providing real-time services such as voice and video telephony as well as non real-time services such as email and are driven by faster Internet connections, widespread take-up in broadband and the emergence of new technologies.

    The terms “IP Telephony”, “VoIP”, Internet Telephony and other variants often generates confusion as there are many different definitions used by various organizations. Some use them interchangeably while others give them distinct definitions. Further confusion is caused by using the terms to refer to both the IP-based technologies and the services that are enabled by these technologies.

    Convergence is primarily driven by increasing processing power, high capacity memory storage devices, reduced price, lesser power requirement and miniaturization of the devices. High-speed data transfer is now possible which is necessary for delivering innovative and advanced multimedia applications.

    Recent trends indicate that Telecom operators are adopting converged platforms to deliver multimedia rich applications containing voice, video and data.

    The separation of service provisioning and its management from the underlying network infrastructure in packet based networks is further increasing the acceptability of IP based Networks. It is now possible to separate provision of service contents, configuration and modification of service attributes regardless of the network catering such service. There has been enough evidence to suggest that in future IP networks will play much important role and may ultimately encourage migration of conventional networks towards Next Generation Networks or an All IP Network.

    The regulator wants to know what should the additional entry fee, Performance Bank Guarantee (PBG) and Financial Bank Guarantee (FBG) for Internet Service providers be if they are also allowed to provide unrestricted Internet Telephony.

    It says the point of Interconnection for Circuit switched Network for various types of calls is well defined, and should the same be continued for Internet Telephony calls or there is need to change Point of Interconnection for Internet Telephony calls.

    Trai has asked whether accessing of telecom services of the TSP by the subscriber through public Internet (internet access of any other TSP) can be construed as extension of fixed line or mobile services of the TSP.

    It wants to know whether the present ceiling of transit charge needs to be reviewed or it can be continued at the same level.

    The regulation has asked what the termination charge should be when call is terminating into Internet telephony network and whether an Internet telephony subscriber be able to initiate or receive calls from outside the SDCA, or service area, or the country through the public Internet thus providing limited or full mobility to such subscriber.

    Should the last mile for an Internet telephony subscriber be the public Internet irrespective of where the subscriber is currently located as long as the PSTN leg abides by all the interconnection rules and regulations concerning NLDO and ILDO, asks Trai.

    It wants to understand the framework if Number portability is allowed for Internet Telephony numbers.

    In case it is not possible to provide Emergency services through Internet Telephony, will it be enough to inform limitation of Internet Telephony calls in advance to the consumers, asks Trai.
    Since the 1960’s when digital voice communication first emerged, the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) has been supported worldwide as the primary means of voice communication. The PSTN is a connection-oriented, circuit-switched network in which a dedicated channel (or circuit) is established for the duration of a communication. Originally transmitting only analog signals, the PSTN ultimately switched to digital communication, which offered solutions to the attenuation, noise and interference problems inherent in the analog system. The modern PSTN uses Pulse Code Modulation (PCM) to convert all analog signals into digital transmissions at the originating network and reverses the processes in the receiving network.

  • Peace TV saga & absence of rule of law

    Peace TV saga & absence of rule of law

    The Peace TV saga after the Dhaka terrorist attack just before Eid and the brouhaha created over availability of an unlicensed channel in Indian television homes highlights yet again rules and regulations have to be applied uniformly and stringently.

    The Indian government woke up suddenly issuing gag orders on distribution platforms when the general media in the country went to town regarding Peace TV. The media alleged Peace TV and the Mumbai-based Islamic tele-evangelist Zakir Naik’s sermons aired on the channel could have instigated the Bangladeshi terrorists. All these allegations were based on some interpretation of a report in a Bangladeshi newspaper.

    That the Bangla newspaper subsequently clarified its report stating categorically that it had never said the terrorists were `inspired’ by Naik’s sermons is a completely another story because the Indian media, by and large news channels, ignored the clarification.

    However, the fact stands that Peace TV is not licensed to air in India and had been denied landing rights by the Indian government several times in the past. Still, the channel was available on Indian networks and the sermons online.

    Similarly, several Pakistani TV channels too are available in some parts of the country (crackdown on illegal retransmissions do happen from time to time, government officials insist) as also Chinese radio stations in border areas.

    So, the question is: how come an unlicensed TV channel officially denied permission to broadcast in India was still reaching Indian TV homes?

    The answer lies in apparent laxity in implementing and upholding existing regulations on the part of Indian policy-makers, regulators and law enforcing agencies. In some cases it may also be local-level indulgences despite knowing that a certain regulation had been breached.

    Because in India most such issues boil down to majority vs. minority yardstick with the victimisation syndrome kicking in — all in the name of certain democratic rights — regulatory breaches are overlooked or rule of the law not enforced. Until one such breach kicks up crap all round; like the Peace TV affair recently did.

    Historically speaking, as India opened up to satellite TV revolution from early 1990s and rules were lax (downlink licence or landing rights were terms not known to Indian policy-makers then) many TV channels invaded the Indian skies and homes. Some of them were bad (read propagandist), some indifferent, but largely most were entertaining.

    As successive Indian governments woke up to the power of TV propaganda in whipping up unpalatable frenzy and jingoism, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) started formulating rules and regulations to isolate TV channels, mostly uplinked from outside India, from entering Indian homes via cable or other distribution platforms, which were perceived as not conducive for India.

    One such historic policy drafting also saw a Broadcast Bill being introduced in Parliament in 1996 where the draft stated that certain categories of organisations (like political parties, NGOs, religious bodies, advertising agencies, etc) would be barred from owning and running TV channels.

    The Bill never got enacted into a law and since then half-hearted attempts by other governments to bring similar Bills in Parliament failed to get necessary traction; mostly owing to a superstitious belief that whichever government tries to regulate the broadcast sector went out of power in New Delhi.

    Historical incidents, notwithstanding, it has also been observed in India that any proposed regulation relating to cable and broadcast sector having the potential to affect powerful lobbies like political parties or religious bodies or their proxies get swept under the carpet.

    Take, for example, broadcast carriage regulator TRAI’s two recommendations on media ownership, made after wide consultations with stakeholders. I am told both the reports are gathering dust in some corner of MIB.

    Apart from suggesting many other things on the ownership issue, TRAI said in a set of recommendations in 2014, “…given that about six years have elapsed without any concrete action being taken by the Government, the Authority strongly recommends that its Recommendations of 12 November 2008 and 28 December 2012 may be implemented forthwith.”

    The regulator’s recommendations came after issues relating to media ownership issue and vertical monopoly were referred to it by MIB.

    Emboldened by the fact that MIB had put its weight behind it, TRAI (again) recommended in 2014 that political bodies, religious bodies, urban, local, panchayati raj, and other publicly funded bodies, Central and State government ministries, departments, companies, undertakings, joint ventures, and government-funded entities and affiliates be barred from entry into broadcasting and TV channel distribution sectors.

    The regulator suggested exit routes for existing entities already into business, adding such a debarment could be implemented through an executive decision by incorporating the disqualifications into rules, regulations and guidelines as necessary.

    But by 2014, MIB had already licensed many news and religious/spiritual TV channels and distribution platforms owned/managed by political parties, religious bodies (in one case a temple’s management committee) and/or their proxies for operation at pan-India and State levels.

    And so, even the 2014 TRAI recommendations remain ignored, while at another level technology has outpaced or threatens to make obsolete the Indian process of policy making.

    A colleague, while outlining the potential of Facebook Live (and other such techs like Twitter’s Periscope), recently commented it’s matter of time when Facebook Live will kick into India, dipping into the country’s smart-phone user base (250 million on last count) to give birth to the possibility of “hundreds of news channels on FB dishing out unadulterated, independent updates of developments.” Very few in Indian government would be tracking developments like FB Live.

    In an age when technology is moving faster than policy-making, flat-footedness of Indian policy-makers and our general apathy towards rule of the law will hasten policy chaos resulting in arbitrary decisions being implemented.

  • Peace TV saga & absence of rule of law

    Peace TV saga & absence of rule of law

    The Peace TV saga after the Dhaka terrorist attack just before Eid and the brouhaha created over availability of an unlicensed channel in Indian television homes highlights yet again rules and regulations have to be applied uniformly and stringently.

    The Indian government woke up suddenly issuing gag orders on distribution platforms when the general media in the country went to town regarding Peace TV. The media alleged Peace TV and the Mumbai-based Islamic tele-evangelist Zakir Naik’s sermons aired on the channel could have instigated the Bangladeshi terrorists. All these allegations were based on some interpretation of a report in a Bangladeshi newspaper.

    That the Bangla newspaper subsequently clarified its report stating categorically that it had never said the terrorists were `inspired’ by Naik’s sermons is a completely another story because the Indian media, by and large news channels, ignored the clarification.

    However, the fact stands that Peace TV is not licensed to air in India and had been denied landing rights by the Indian government several times in the past. Still, the channel was available on Indian networks and the sermons online.

    Similarly, several Pakistani TV channels too are available in some parts of the country (crackdown on illegal retransmissions do happen from time to time, government officials insist) as also Chinese radio stations in border areas.

    So, the question is: how come an unlicensed TV channel officially denied permission to broadcast in India was still reaching Indian TV homes?

    The answer lies in apparent laxity in implementing and upholding existing regulations on the part of Indian policy-makers, regulators and law enforcing agencies. In some cases it may also be local-level indulgences despite knowing that a certain regulation had been breached.

    Because in India most such issues boil down to majority vs. minority yardstick with the victimisation syndrome kicking in — all in the name of certain democratic rights — regulatory breaches are overlooked or rule of the law not enforced. Until one such breach kicks up crap all round; like the Peace TV affair recently did.

    Historically speaking, as India opened up to satellite TV revolution from early 1990s and rules were lax (downlink licence or landing rights were terms not known to Indian policy-makers then) many TV channels invaded the Indian skies and homes. Some of them were bad (read propagandist), some indifferent, but largely most were entertaining.

    As successive Indian governments woke up to the power of TV propaganda in whipping up unpalatable frenzy and jingoism, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) started formulating rules and regulations to isolate TV channels, mostly uplinked from outside India, from entering Indian homes via cable or other distribution platforms, which were perceived as not conducive for India.

    One such historic policy drafting also saw a Broadcast Bill being introduced in Parliament in 1996 where the draft stated that certain categories of organisations (like political parties, NGOs, religious bodies, advertising agencies, etc) would be barred from owning and running TV channels.

    The Bill never got enacted into a law and since then half-hearted attempts by other governments to bring similar Bills in Parliament failed to get necessary traction; mostly owing to a superstitious belief that whichever government tries to regulate the broadcast sector went out of power in New Delhi.

    Historical incidents, notwithstanding, it has also been observed in India that any proposed regulation relating to cable and broadcast sector having the potential to affect powerful lobbies like political parties or religious bodies or their proxies get swept under the carpet.

    Take, for example, broadcast carriage regulator TRAI’s two recommendations on media ownership, made after wide consultations with stakeholders. I am told both the reports are gathering dust in some corner of MIB.

    Apart from suggesting many other things on the ownership issue, TRAI said in a set of recommendations in 2014, “…given that about six years have elapsed without any concrete action being taken by the Government, the Authority strongly recommends that its Recommendations of 12 November 2008 and 28 December 2012 may be implemented forthwith.”

    The regulator’s recommendations came after issues relating to media ownership issue and vertical monopoly were referred to it by MIB.

    Emboldened by the fact that MIB had put its weight behind it, TRAI (again) recommended in 2014 that political bodies, religious bodies, urban, local, panchayati raj, and other publicly funded bodies, Central and State government ministries, departments, companies, undertakings, joint ventures, and government-funded entities and affiliates be barred from entry into broadcasting and TV channel distribution sectors.

    The regulator suggested exit routes for existing entities already into business, adding such a debarment could be implemented through an executive decision by incorporating the disqualifications into rules, regulations and guidelines as necessary.

    But by 2014, MIB had already licensed many news and religious/spiritual TV channels and distribution platforms owned/managed by political parties, religious bodies (in one case a temple’s management committee) and/or their proxies for operation at pan-India and State levels.

    And so, even the 2014 TRAI recommendations remain ignored, while at another level technology has outpaced or threatens to make obsolete the Indian process of policy making.

    A colleague, while outlining the potential of Facebook Live (and other such techs like Twitter’s Periscope), recently commented it’s matter of time when Facebook Live will kick into India, dipping into the country’s smart-phone user base (250 million on last count) to give birth to the possibility of “hundreds of news channels on FB dishing out unadulterated, independent updates of developments.” Very few in Indian government would be tracking developments like FB Live.

    In an age when technology is moving faster than policy-making, flat-footedness of Indian policy-makers and our general apathy towards rule of the law will hasten policy chaos resulting in arbitrary decisions being implemented.

  • TDSAT directs Star India to reconnect signals to Ortel on receipt of half of due amount

    TDSAT directs Star India to reconnect signals to Ortel on receipt of half of due amount

    NEW DELHI: Star India was directed by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal to reconnect the signals to Ortel Communications within 24 hours as Ortel counsel gave cheques for Rs 3,34,93,967 to Star India counsel Rajsekhar Rao.

    The petition had been filed against disconnection of signals by Star with effect from 2 July 2016 in view of various notices issued under relevant regulations for both DAS and non-DAS areas.

    In his order, member B B Srivastava on 11 July 2016 said Ortel was desirous to have the interconnect agreement renewed but on RIO terms of Star.

    The cheques submitted were for 50% of the outstanding amount till June 2016 (Rs 6,77,71,172). The balance amount of Rs.342,77,205 as well as the installment agreed to be paid by 31 July 2016, will be paid by 25 July 2016 and 31 July 2016 respectively. The petitioner would a lso adhere to the payment schedule as agreed to earlier.

    The petitioner’s desire to have a fresh agreement on RIO basis for DAS areas would be on the basis of RIO and for non-DAS areas, the two sides will negotiate and sign an appropriate interconnect agreement as per TRAI Regulations within two weeks.

    In the meanwhile, the terms and conditions of the old agreement would continue to govern the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent and the petitioner will abide by the payment schedule and other terms of the previous agreement.

    Ortel meanwhile denied any charges of piracy for which FIRs had been lodged.

    Earlier, the petitioner had come before the Tribunal against these notices and when the matter was taken up on 27 May 2016, the petitioner submitted that the parties had arrived at an agreement and therefore, it withdrew the petition.

    The mutual agreement arrived at between the parties had been documented in the form of emails dated 26 May 2016 and a communication to the petitioner on 17 June 2016.

    However, the matter came up again in view of the amount of Rs 6,77,71,172 of which half was paid by chequest which the Bank refused to accept as there was “stop payment” instructions by the petitioner to the bank in view of the disconnection.

    (Updated on 20 July 2016 6:25 pm)

  • TDSAT directs Star India to reconnect signals to Ortel on receipt of half of due amount

    TDSAT directs Star India to reconnect signals to Ortel on receipt of half of due amount

    NEW DELHI: Star India was directed by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal to reconnect the signals to Ortel Communications within 24 hours as Ortel counsel gave cheques for Rs 3,34,93,967 to Star India counsel Rajsekhar Rao.

    The petition had been filed against disconnection of signals by Star with effect from 2 July 2016 in view of various notices issued under relevant regulations for both DAS and non-DAS areas.

    In his order, member B B Srivastava on 11 July 2016 said Ortel was desirous to have the interconnect agreement renewed but on RIO terms of Star.

    The cheques submitted were for 50% of the outstanding amount till June 2016 (Rs 6,77,71,172). The balance amount of Rs.342,77,205 as well as the installment agreed to be paid by 31 July 2016, will be paid by 25 July 2016 and 31 July 2016 respectively. The petitioner would a lso adhere to the payment schedule as agreed to earlier.

    The petitioner’s desire to have a fresh agreement on RIO basis for DAS areas would be on the basis of RIO and for non-DAS areas, the two sides will negotiate and sign an appropriate interconnect agreement as per TRAI Regulations within two weeks.

    In the meanwhile, the terms and conditions of the old agreement would continue to govern the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent and the petitioner will abide by the payment schedule and other terms of the previous agreement.

    Ortel meanwhile denied any charges of piracy for which FIRs had been lodged.

    Earlier, the petitioner had come before the Tribunal against these notices and when the matter was taken up on 27 May 2016, the petitioner submitted that the parties had arrived at an agreement and therefore, it withdrew the petition.

    The mutual agreement arrived at between the parties had been documented in the form of emails dated 26 May 2016 and a communication to the petitioner on 17 June 2016.

    However, the matter came up again in view of the amount of Rs 6,77,71,172 of which half was paid by chequest which the Bank refused to accept as there was “stop payment” instructions by the petitioner to the bank in view of the disconnection.

    (Updated on 20 July 2016 6:25 pm)

  • TRAI open house on DAS interconnect opens up differences amongst stakeholders

    TRAI open house on DAS interconnect opens up differences amongst stakeholders

    NEW DELHI: An Open House Discussion (OHD), organised by regulator TRAI on inter-connection framework for broadcasting TV services distributed through addressable systems (DAS), brought out the fact that yawning gaps still exist between broadcasters and distribution platforms.

    The OHD, organised on Wednesday to garner final viewpoints of stakeholders after they have already submitted their stand on the issue, highlighted that the industry is still fighting for short to medium term gains instead of seeing the big picture.

    While the broadcasting fraternity stood its ground saying, by and large, that interconnect agreements are private matters between two parties after mutually agreeing on certain terms, distribution platforms maintained that “more transparency is needed.”

    “How can it be that a matter related to a broadcaster is private and nobody can ask about them, while those relating to us (distribution platforms) are supposed to be made public?” Jawahar Goel, managing director, Dish TV asked.

    Goel’s probing query came after Star India, quoting various laws and regulations, said that the regulator should not encroach upon or erode broadcasters’ “right to freedom of contract in negotiating with distribution platform operators (DPOs).”

    In its submission Star India had said, “The proposed regulations must allow freedom to negotiate to broadcasters so as to meet the peculiar demands of the market. Universal treatment to all seekers of signals— despite intelligible differences — is not an obligation imposed by law nor is it desirable.”

    Issue like discounts offered by broadcasters, pay channels turning FTA, cloning of existing content to start another TV channel, regulation of OTT platforms managed and owned by broadcasters, cost of spectrum charges paid by consumers for accessing OTT services, the vagueness of interconnect agreements without geographical locations mentioned and the pitfalls of a proposed Interconnect Management System (IMS) whereby commercial data and information could be put in an encrypted form in limited public domain were amongst many issues brought up by stakeholders.

    Pointing out broadcasters “impose stringent packaging restrictions” on DPOs, Videocon d2h, expressed its concerns on HD channels and their pricing, highlighting the fact that the difference in cost of the same content in standard definition and high-definition is hard to explain to price-sensitive consumers.

    While TRAI chairman RS Sharma in the beginning observed that transparency, non-discrimination and consumer interests were paramount, amongst other things, when the regulator proposes a regulation, some MSOs and LCOs (led by a vocal Roop Sharma of Cable Operators’ Federation of India) vociferously said it’s transparency that’s lacking.

    Dish TV also highlighted the discrimination between the licensing regime of DTH operators and cable ops — DTH licensee pays an annual fee, while a cable op doesn’t pay any licence fee on registration .

    Bharti Telemedia, part of the telecoms-to-media giant Bharti group, reiterated Dish TV’s point on DTH ops being treated differently saying a “non-level playing field amongst the various types of service providers” exists.

    In its submission to the TRAI earlier, Bharti had stated that DTH operators pay a higher tax of 34.5% and have a transparent business operation, while “digital cable operators, who have a similar nature of business, are not transparent and are also not liable to pay any licence fee.”

    Though global trends indicate there’s convergence of services and service providers, in India there seems to be hardly any convergence of ideas or consensus amongst the various stakeholders and this would make any regulator’s job that much tougher. Unless one leaves market dynamics to take care of many issues that were raised at the OHD.

  • TRAI open house on DAS interconnect opens up differences amongst stakeholders

    TRAI open house on DAS interconnect opens up differences amongst stakeholders

    NEW DELHI: An Open House Discussion (OHD), organised by regulator TRAI on inter-connection framework for broadcasting TV services distributed through addressable systems (DAS), brought out the fact that yawning gaps still exist between broadcasters and distribution platforms.

    The OHD, organised on Wednesday to garner final viewpoints of stakeholders after they have already submitted their stand on the issue, highlighted that the industry is still fighting for short to medium term gains instead of seeing the big picture.

    While the broadcasting fraternity stood its ground saying, by and large, that interconnect agreements are private matters between two parties after mutually agreeing on certain terms, distribution platforms maintained that “more transparency is needed.”

    “How can it be that a matter related to a broadcaster is private and nobody can ask about them, while those relating to us (distribution platforms) are supposed to be made public?” Jawahar Goel, managing director, Dish TV asked.

    Goel’s probing query came after Star India, quoting various laws and regulations, said that the regulator should not encroach upon or erode broadcasters’ “right to freedom of contract in negotiating with distribution platform operators (DPOs).”

    In its submission Star India had said, “The proposed regulations must allow freedom to negotiate to broadcasters so as to meet the peculiar demands of the market. Universal treatment to all seekers of signals— despite intelligible differences — is not an obligation imposed by law nor is it desirable.”

    Issue like discounts offered by broadcasters, pay channels turning FTA, cloning of existing content to start another TV channel, regulation of OTT platforms managed and owned by broadcasters, cost of spectrum charges paid by consumers for accessing OTT services, the vagueness of interconnect agreements without geographical locations mentioned and the pitfalls of a proposed Interconnect Management System (IMS) whereby commercial data and information could be put in an encrypted form in limited public domain were amongst many issues brought up by stakeholders.

    Pointing out broadcasters “impose stringent packaging restrictions” on DPOs, Videocon d2h, expressed its concerns on HD channels and their pricing, highlighting the fact that the difference in cost of the same content in standard definition and high-definition is hard to explain to price-sensitive consumers.

    While TRAI chairman RS Sharma in the beginning observed that transparency, non-discrimination and consumer interests were paramount, amongst other things, when the regulator proposes a regulation, some MSOs and LCOs (led by a vocal Roop Sharma of Cable Operators’ Federation of India) vociferously said it’s transparency that’s lacking.

    Dish TV also highlighted the discrimination between the licensing regime of DTH operators and cable ops — DTH licensee pays an annual fee, while a cable op doesn’t pay any licence fee on registration .

    Bharti Telemedia, part of the telecoms-to-media giant Bharti group, reiterated Dish TV’s point on DTH ops being treated differently saying a “non-level playing field amongst the various types of service providers” exists.

    In its submission to the TRAI earlier, Bharti had stated that DTH operators pay a higher tax of 34.5% and have a transparent business operation, while “digital cable operators, who have a similar nature of business, are not transparent and are also not liable to pay any licence fee.”

    Though global trends indicate there’s convergence of services and service providers, in India there seems to be hardly any convergence of ideas or consensus amongst the various stakeholders and this would make any regulator’s job that much tougher. Unless one leaves market dynamics to take care of many issues that were raised at the OHD.

  • TRAI commences exercise to explore growth of internet through Wi-fi networks

    TRAI commences exercise to explore growth of internet through Wi-fi networks

    NEW DELHI: Noting that Wi-Fi networks offer affordable, scalable and versatile technologies that can facilitate the spread of Internet access in rural and urban areas alike, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India today issued a consultation paper on Proliferation of Broadband through Public Wi-Fi Networks.

    Through a set of twelve questions, the Authority has sought to get the opinion of stakeholders including internet and telecom service providers on how best Wi-fi (an acronym for Wireless Fidelity) can grow in the country. Comments have been invited by 10 August with counter-comments by 24 August.

    At the outset, the regulator has noted that the growth of Internet penetration in India and realisation of its full potential is closely tied to the proliferation of broadband services. “Broadband” is currently defined to mean a data connection that is able to support interactive services, including Internet access, with the capability of a minimum download speed of 512 kbps. It therefore refers to a means of delivering high-speed Internet access services.

    Broadband services can be delivered through a number of different access technologies, both wired and wireless, including Digital Subscriber Lines (DSL), optical fibre technology, cable TV networks and mobile broadband services like 2G/3G/4G. In addition to these, radio frequency signals (or spectrum) can also be used for the creation of “wireless local area networks” (WLANs), offering an effective mechanism for extending the “last-mile connectivity” of broadband connections to a wider segment of users.

    Trai says Modern technology makes it possible to integrate a server with high storage capacity with the Wi-Fi hotspot equipment. As the cost of such servers has come down significantly, along with the cost of storage, and the form factors of such devices are very small, it should be possible to cache or download content for easy browsing even when the backhaul connectivity is not available. Such an arrangement can find great application in storing children’s study materials, educational data, agricultural and health related information, as well as movies and entertainment content, for the benefit of Wi-Fi users in areas with irregular connectivity, such as rural areas.

    The regulator said that strictly speaking, Wi-Fi is a certification provided by the Wireless Broadband Alliance1 (WBA), which owns and controls the “Wi-Fi Certified” logo that can be applied to products that satisfy certain interoperability criteria.

    WBA is a non-profit organization, formed in 1999, that promotes Wi-Fi technology and certifies Wi-Fi products if they conform to certain standards of interoperability.

    The questions raised by Trai are:

    Q1. Are there any regulatory issues, licensing restrictions or other factors that are hampering the growth of public Wi-Fi services in the country?

    Q2. What regulatory/licensing or policy measures are required to encourage the deployment of commercial models for ubiquitous city-wide Wi-Fi networks as well as expansion of Wi-Fi networks in remote or rural areas?

    Q3. What measures are required to encourage interoperability between the Wi-Fi networks of different service providers, both within the country and internationally?

    Q4. What measures are required to encourage interoperability between cellular and Wi-Fi networks?

    Q5. Apart from frequency bands already recommended by TRAI to DoT, are there additional bands which need to be de-licensed in order to expedite the penetration of broadband using Wi-Fi technology?

    Q6. Are there any challenges being faced in the login/authentication procedure for access to Wi-Fi hotspots? In what ways can the process be simplified to provide frictionless access to public Wi-Fi hotspots, for domestic users as well as foreign tourists?

    Q7. Are there any challenges being faced in making payments for access to Wi-Fi hotspots? Please elaborate and suggest a payment arrangement which will offer frictionless and secured payment for the access of Wi-Fi services.

    Q8. Is there a need to adopt a hub-based model along the lines suggested by the WBA, where a central third party AAA (Authentication, Authorization and Accounting) hub will facilitate interconnection,
    authentication and payments? Who should own and control the hub? Should the hub operator be subject to any regulations to ensure service standards, data protection, etc?

    Q9. Is there a need for ISPs/ the proposed hub operator to adopt the Unified Payment Interface (UPI) or other similar payment platforms for easy subscription of Wi-Fi access? Who should own and control such payment platforms?

    Q10. Is it feasible to have an architecture wherein a common grid can be created through which any small entity can become a data service provider and able to share its available data to any consumer or user?

    Q11. What regulatory/licensing measures are required to develop such architecture? Is this a right time to allow such reselling of data to ensure affordable data tariff to public, ensure ubiquitous presence of Wi-Fi Network and allow innovation in the market?

    Q12. What measures are required to promote hosting of data of community interest at local level to reduce cost of data to the consumers?