Breaking TDSAT orders BECIL to hold commerical and technical audit of Tata Sky's system qua Sony's channel

[Siva]

Channel row: TDSAT gives Sony, Tata Sky 4 weeks to find solution

The Telecom Disputes Settlement & Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has directed Sony Pictures Networks India and Tata Sky to find an amicable solution in four weeks.The broadcaster and the direct-to-home (DTH) company are currently embroiled in a tiff over revenue-share and pricing of channels.

“We direct both the parties to sit across the table and try to work out a mutually acceptable negotiated agreement within a period of four weeks from today. If required the parties may seek extension of the period,” said a TDSAT order. The matter is next listed for November 11, when the outcome of the fresh round of negotiations between the two companies will be considered.

Channel row: TDSAT gives Sony, Tata Sky 4 weeks to find solution

Bro when will you learn about posting patterns. After 5 pages of discussion, you are posting exactly same information as 1st post in this thread!!??

 

[avipersistent]

Well Brother, how charging 1.5 (50% More) times more justified for just few channels

8950 Vs 5999

and Tata Sky itself is not ready to pay 7.5 rs. extra to sony for per user that too when sony has 18 extra channels.

@TheFearLess I dont want to Justify everything but yes Tata Sky is a premium DTH and charges more than peers. On a whole it has more of everything be it more SD and HD channels ,+1 channels which Airtel does not have which you will agree with me.Its same as like Iphone on one side and other phones . This is only my personal view bro and I am not defending Tata Sky.

 

[TheFearLess]

@TheFearLess I dont want to Justify everything but yes Tata Sky is a premium DTH and charges more than peers. On a whole it has more of everything be it more SD and HD channels ,+1 channels which Airtel does not have which you will agree with me.Its same as like Iphone on one side and other phones . This is only my personal view bro.

No hard feelings bro, I am with Tata Sky for last 11 years, I know where they excel, and where they lag Infact I has mostly defended Tata Sky but this time they are wrong and I am in no mood to stand in their corner.

If Tata Sky offers+1 channels that only for few channels, Airtel is providing recording Free so that takes out that advantage as well.

 

[ayanc99]

Bhai, just calculate the amount they have invested in buying sports properties post losing IPL plus additional costs involved. Also factoring the increase in number of channels & money spent on them + substantial jump in subscriber base of Tata Sky , the amount they r demanding is quite reasonable. Just remember out of the new channels launched by Sony during 2015 to 2018 many were in HD segment & it's a costly affair to start + run them.

Regarding ur question about Sony asking for a similar increase from other operators too , well each dth or cable operator is carrying different number of channels from a broadcaster so agreement price will depend on bouquet taken by them + total subscriber base. We cannot make a generalised statement on it but surely increase will happen in that case too.

TDSAT has simply said that it's upto operator to decide what's in customer interest & making them forcefully take all channels under RIO would be incorrect. Sony has still not presented the points i have mentioned infront of TDSAT, let's wait what observation TDSAT gives after these arguments are put forward[/QUOTE

Sony has lost IPL which is the most viewed property that bouquet had. It won’t get anywhere close to what it is demanding. Viewership of other properties it has is negligible. After Australia series ends in Jan, next India series it has is in July only.

Just because they have 32 channels which has properties viewed by negligible people it can’t demand double. No one will pay that.

 

[avipersistent]

Why is 1700 crore not fair bro? Look at the increase in number of sony channels & 60 % jump in Tata Sky subscriber base + compare pack prices of Tata Sky in July 2015 & now. If Tata Sky had no problem to pay Rs. 800 crore at that point then what's the problem now? Additionally hasn't everything become costly too in this period so inflation will also be counted in. I see no problem if they r demanding a 100 % raise. Tata Sky is resisting this bcoz they fear competition from Jio & OTT , all the premium and urban audience will start jumping the boat and their ARPU will sink. They want to save the money as buffer to reduce loses in the foreseen future. This is the real reason which unfortunately regular people will not understand. Simply blaming or protesting is easy thing but understanding the crux is time consuming & requires patience which is scarce these days. Please guys, let's not fall for rhetoric & support right thing based on merit

The same channels they give to OTT for much lower price.If there is too much inflation instead of 15-20 % hike you can go for max 30%(which is 100% of 15% on old deal). You cannot demand 100%.It can be any commodity/thing at a point costing 1 Rs and you suddenly demand 100 Rs for it the other day. No one will buy that theory .

 

[TheFearLess]

As the exact figures are out now, so lets find out who is real culprit. Sony, Tata Sky or Both. Lets not jump the gun by just looking at amounts. Lets be fair and do a little math.

3 Years Back - 800 Crore, 10 Million Subscribers, 14 Channels

Now - 1700 Crore, 16 Million Subscribers, 32 Channels

Lets 1st Evaluate Sony's Statement, that they have not increased channel prices.

So According to previous contract - 800 crore for 10 Million Customers = 800 Per Subscriber

New Contract - 1700 Crore for 16 Million Customers = 1063 Per Subscriber

Cost per channel,

Previous Contract = 800/14=57.14 Per Channel Per Customer
New Contract = 1063/32=33.22 Per Channel Per Customer


So its obvious Sony is not lying, if you see cost per channels is lesser by around Rs. 25 per channel per subscriber. That's takes all IPL and others factors

Now lets Evaluate Tata Sky's Statement - "what they were seeking would have forced us to hike our prices"

So according to new contract (what's Sony asking) = 1700 Crore for 16 Million Customers = 1063 Per Subscriber

It Comes down to 1063 Per Subscriber, Now the contract is for 36 months, so eventually they will be paying

1063/36=29.53 per month per subscriber for 32 Channels = 99 paisa per channel

So Tata Sky is lying here, sony is asking Rs. 29.53 per month per user for all 32 channels , and Tata Sky is charging twice the amount of this for its one use less active service. Also if you want to subscribe to Ten 1 only as ala-carte, Tata Sky is charging Rs. 60.

@avipersistent

What about this calculation bro, Is there anything wrong in it, please let me know

 

[avipersistent]

@avipersistent

What about this calculation bro, Is there anything wrong in it, please let me know

@TheFearLess bro The calculations may be correct but as I said there are FTA channels along with paid channels where broadcaster pay to Dth operators and in a fixed deal this matters .Also on which LCN the channels are placed with respect to competitors channels . Also channels are placed in which package is also considered.There may be other factors which I may not be aware of as I am not an expert and an insider who deals in these things may put more light on this. I will also close this here as this is not relevant to the thread.

 

[hemant]

As the exact figures are out now, so lets find out who is real culprit. Sony, Tata Sky or Both. Lets not jump the gun by just looking at amounts. Lets be fair and do a little math.

3 Years Back - 800 Crore, 10 Million Subscribers, 14 Channels

Now - 1700 Crore, 16 Million Subscribers, 32 Channels

Lets 1st Evaluate Sony's Statement, that they have not increased channel prices.

So According to previous contract - 800 crore for 10 Million Customers = 800 Per Subscriber

New Contract - 1700 Crore for 16 Million Customers = 1063 Per Subscriber

Cost per channel,

Previous Contract = 800/14=57.14 Per Channel Per Customer
New Contract = 1063/32=33.22 Per Channel Per Customer


So its obvious Sony is not lying, if you see cost per channels is lesser by around Rs. 25 per channel per subscriber. That's takes all IPL and others factors

Now lets Evaluate Tata Sky's Statement - "what they were seeking would have forced us to hike our prices"

So according to new contract (what's Sony asking) = 1700 Crore for 16 Million Customers = 1063 Per Subscriber

It Comes down to 1063 Per Subscriber, Now the contract is for 36 months, so eventually they will be paying

1063/36=29.53 per month per subscriber for 32 Channels = 99 paisa per channel

So Tata Sky is lying here, sony is asking Rs. 29.53 per month per user for all 32 channels , and Tata Sky is charging twice the amount of this for its one use less active service. Also if you want to subscribe to Ten 1 only as ala-carte, Tata Sky is charging Rs. 60.

Very Well said, I completely agrees with you. Tatasky is paying Rs 29.53 for all the sony channels per subscriber per month when they are charging so much from it's subscribers, all subscribers are paying more than this including ala carte subscribers, it is very reasonable demand from Sony.

 

[Abhi]

@Abhi Bro Kindly check the comparison thread of channels present on Tata Sky and Airtel.I dont want to comment further as it is not a Tata sky vs Airtel thread .Also check my post 44.There are many costly HD channels missing from Airtel. Check the rates of MTV HD+, MTV Beats HD, VH1 HD on broadcaster website.Also to add if I am not wrong Tata Sky has more subscribers than Airtel

Yes I know that Bro That this is not Tata sky vs Airtel thread and I also know that MTV HD , vh1hd , beats hd and many more Viacom 18 channels missing in adtv and let me tell you this is because of the some issues between the Viacom and airtel and not because of its prices. Please check that adtv general discussion thread. Please check the facts before posting. And now lots of subscribers moving from tata sky in my area but not sure about others. And Also I am fully agreed with all the points of @TheFearLess bro and See the difference between the annual prices of Airtel and Tata sky and then comment on this. Tata Sky provides all channels and services at Rs.8900 per year whereas Airtel provides all channels and services @ just Rs.5,999 per year
And then also Tata aky makes excuses. I am sorry to say But your statement is not justified at least for me.
Also one more thing to say ADTV has only missing only some hd Channels which are present on tata sky from which some/ many of the channels may get removed in near future due to their fight with the major broadcasters including zee , times network and Indiacast too And also currently adtv and tata sky is providing equal number of hd channels with huge difference in prices which is again the big injustice with their subscribers.

 

[dino29]

Agree that TataSky subscriber base have grown. But do we know how many of them are using higher cost packages? TataSky's recent growth has come from the regional & rural subscribers. They have introduced cost effective packs like Thalaiva, Kayika Sadhya and similar packs focusing on particular region and these packs are not very costly and they have contributed to TataSky's Growth.

I agree with ur point bhai. You are saying that if Tata Sky earlier had more premium subscribers willing to pay for higher packs then they had no problem to pay more to broadcasters but now most growth is coming from small towns or rural plsces where people mostly chose lower level packs hence ARPU decreases.

Firstly let me be absolutely clear that Tata Sky has maximum premium subscribers at present too , if this was not the case then how their revenue would have seen such drastic jump as seen in the figures released recently? Tata Sky has share of 25% in DTH sector as compared to 42% combined base of Dish d2h but revenue earned by Tata Sky is much more which clearly means premium subscribers are paying them lots of money, all money from rural/semi urban is additional benefit. Even if they see a potential decrease in premium base or there is a decrease in number of people opting for higher packs in recent months then any broadcaster is not forcing them to take all channels part of their bouquet, they can simply select a less costly bouquet comprising less channels & pay accordingly to them. Tata Sky can't say that we want to have all channels but will pay for just 60% of total cost. If u r working in an office & given a promotion from manager to VP position with added responsibilities, will u accept if the boss says that we will pay u just 20% more in ur new role? Things don't work like that, running a business is a difficult thing. Tata Sky may face challenges in future from Jio & OTT but why are they punishing Sony for it?

About ur statement that Tata Sky has started giving special cost effective packs for South Subscribers & hence revenue has grown but profit margin per subscriber is less, Well brother these are the actual rates they should charge and now forced to provide bcoz in southern areas cable tv is very strong thanks to policies of government which keep prices controlled. Infact they have revised prices of these packs too few times since launch. If Tata Sky was so generous then why are they not expanding such benefit for Northern People too? Also the discounts they offer on various add on packs when we request them to drop it is also not something special. These are the actual prices we r paying for these channels in our base pack. For example if i am having Bumper Pack then for watching English Movies/News/Entertainment i have to opt for Grand Sports Pack which costs Rs. 560 while if u r having the special 3 month discount packs for these genres in ur account then also total amount add up same amount (40 +35+45). It's the trick used by e-commerce companies too where they show inflated price as MRP & offer mega discounts on it, so do not get overjoyed with these marketing gimmicks, everything is well planned to look attractive but in actual is same thing wrapped in new avatar.