Sports Channels in India (Current & Upcoming) - Broadcast Rights, General Discussion, News & Updates

  • Thread starter Zaxotes
  • Start date
  • Replies: Replies 10,413
  • Views: Views 1,443,308

Should Sports Networks have Regional Channels?


  • Total voters
    560
Amazon had entered into an arrangement with Prasar Bharati and had been sharing of live braodcasting signals of the on-going series for telecast by Prasar Bharati only on the DD Free Dish platform.

The petitioners cannot be permitted the contents of the Series and if so done shall be a gross violation of the copyright of Amazon. The arrangement between Amazon and Prasar Bharati is in view of the powers of Prasar Bharati to enter into any commercial arrangement.
 
SITI and Dish argued that Prasar Bharati as a broadcaster is bound by the Interconnection Regulations of bus-provide, non-discrimination and non-exclusivity. Any arrangement by Prasar Bharati with a third party in violation of the aforesaid is untenable. Prasar Bharati by transmitting the signals of DD Sports only to its own DTH platform i.e., DD Free Dish to the exclusion of all other distribution platforms is in violation of the Regulations. Furthermore, in terms of Section 8 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, SITI and DISH are mandatorily required to carry DD Sports on its platform in terms of the notification of the MIB passed in 2013. Prasar Bharati had been supplying encrypted signals to the parties since 2013 till on 22.11.2022, without any notice, Prasar Bharati encrypted the signals and restricted viewership.

After hearing the parties, the Hon’ble TDSAT held that SITI and DISH have a prima facie case in its favour and the balance of convenience also lies in its favour. In terms of the Cable Television Networks Act, 1995 the must carry obligation is a statutory requirement. In view of the above, Hon’ble TDSAT directed Prasar Bharati to forthwith provide encrypted signals of DD Sports channel to SITI and DISH till the pendency of the matter.
 
Don't know how OTTs and Private broadcasters accept if National importance mandatory for Streaming Rights too with DD Streaming and digital platforms.
 
SITI and Dish argued that Prasar Bharati as a broadcaster is bound by the Interconnection Regulations of bus-provide, non-discrimination and non-exclusivity. Any arrangement by Prasar Bharati with a third party in violation of the aforesaid is untenable. Prasar Bharati by transmitting the signals of DD Sports only to its own DTH platform i.e., DD Free Dish to the exclusion of all other distribution platforms is in violation of the Regulations. Furthermore, in terms of Section 8 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, SITI and DISH are mandatorily required to carry DD Sports on its platform in terms of the notification of the MIB passed in 2013. Prasar Bharati had been supplying encrypted signals to the parties since 2013 till on 22.11.2022, without any notice, Prasar Bharati encrypted the signals and restricted viewership.

After hearing the parties, the Hon’ble TDSAT held that SITI and DISH have a prima facie case in its favour and the balance of convenience also lies in its favour. In terms of the Cable Television Networks Act, 1995 the must carry obligation is a statutory requirement. In view of the above, Hon’ble TDSAT directed Prasar Bharati to forthwith provide encrypted signals of DD Sports channel to SITI and DISH till the pendency of the matter.
Whatever Amazon biggest looser this time, Tough time ahead for OTTs like Amazon and Netflix too if they acquire sports Rights in India, Did you saw currently DD Sports airing match on Digital Streaming platforms free of cost ?
 
Last edited:
Whatever Amazon biggest looser this time, Tough time ahead for OTTs like Amazon and Netflix too if they acquire sports Rights in India, Did you saw currently DD Sports airing match on Digital Streaming platforms free of cost ?
Totally agreed. Its really unfair for Pvt. broadcasters who have spent ton of money on these rights.
 
Totally agreed. Its really unfair for Pvt. broadcasters who have spent ton of money on these rights.
How is it unfair to them? They chose not to broadcast on private channels. They knew in advance that feed has to be shared with dd due to national importance. Still if they bid so high then it is their matter.
 
How is it unfair to them? They chose not to broadcast on private channels. They knew in advance that feed has to be shared with dd due to national importance. Still if they bid so high then it is their matter.
Feed to be shared to DD as long as it was limited to Free Dish but now it's everywhere. They pay premium for exclusivity. Infact, the most pertinent question should be that if the government believes that the games of National importance should be available to all, then why don't they themselves bid aggressively bid for these rights. Why ride on a Pvt. Broadcaster like a freeloader?
 
Feed to be shared to DD as long as it was limited to Free Dish but now it's everywhere. They pay premium for exclusivity. Infact, the most pertinent question should be that if the government believes that the games of National importance should be available to all, then why don't they themselves bid aggressively bid for these rights. Why ride on a Pvt. Broadcaster like a freeloader?
My point is If you bid for digital streaming as well as tv broadcast rights, but don't broadcast at all on tv then it is like a deliberate tv blackout. National importance event can't be OTT exclusive. There is law for it, deal with it.
Nobody asked anyone to bid aggressively, its their own choice. Keep this freeloader argument aside because feed has to be shared by law since 2007. Again i say law doesn't limit it to freedish. Just sc did so to protect private channel. There is no private channel in this case.
 
My point is If you bid for digital streaming as well as tv broadcast rights, but don't broadcast at all on tv then it is like a deliberate tv blackout. National importance event can't be OTT exclusive. There is law for it, deal with it.
Nobody asked anyone to bid aggressively, its their own choice. Keep this freeloader argument aside because feed has to be shared by law since 2007. Again i say law doesn't limit it to freedish. Just sc did so to protect private channel. There is no private channel in this case.
It's not OTT exclusive as it was already being shared on DD Freedish. And the freeloader argument still stands even if there's a law. What if these private broadcasters stop procuring these premium rights altogether. Will the government step in and purchase the rights for the sake of 'national interest'? I guess the answer is no. Why not make such laws like those in the UK and Australia, where it is mandatory to broadcast sporting events Free to Air? Let DD Bid for free to air rights like BBC and Channel 7 do in the UK and Australia respectively?

Your point of holding TV rights and still not broadcasting would be valid if Prime owned a TV Channel in India. They may have entered into private negotitiations but may not have been able to secure a justifiable amount.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom
AdBlock Detected

We get it, advertisements are annoying!

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks useful features of our website. For the best site experience please disable your AdBlocker.

I've Disabled AdBlock