Thakur
Banned
- Joined
- 30 Aug 2013
- Messages
- 14,856
- Reaction score
- 8,575
NEW DELHI:Eight cable operator associations from all over the country have intervened in the
appeal challenging the legality
of tariff orders allowing the increase of 27.5 percent inflationary rise in the wholesale
prices prevailing as on 31 March 2004.
Even as the Telecom Disputes Settlement and
Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has listed the
matter for further hearing on 4 August, the
Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI)
has also filed its response to the appeals and it
is learnt that both Dish TV and Videocon d2h
are filing interventions in the petition filed by
Home Cable Network and the consumer
organisation Centre for Transforming India.
Meanwhile, the broadcasters will retain a
separate account for any payment received as
tariff, as this would be subject to the final
order of the Tribunal.
The appeals wanted TRAI to be directed to
carry de-novo exercise in accordance with the
statutory provision for price fixation for
addressable system de-linking the same from
the wholesale price of channels for non
addressable system.
Those who have filed interventions are cable
associations of Gujarat, Greater Guwahati,
Uttar Pradesh, Chandigarh, All Delhi Cable
Operators Association, Sai Cable Operators
Association, Karnataka State Cable Operators
Association, and Amritsar Cable Operators
Sangharsh Samiti.
In the appeals, the legality of Tariff Order
(Telecommunications (Broadcasting and Cable)
Services (Second) Tariff (Eleventh Amendment)
Order 2014 dated 31 March this year allowing
the increase of 27.5 per cent inflationary rise
in the wholesale prices prevailing as on 31
March 2004 has been challenged.
The Appellants have also challenged the
impugned tariff order dated 31 March 2014 on
the ground that the same has been passed in
violation of Section 11(4) without affording any
hearing opportunity to the stakeholders and
without considering the relevant material and
reports.
Furthermore, the impugned tariff order is
without jurisdiction because it still provides
for adhoc measure of price freeze as on 31
March 2014 even after 10 years of second
tariff order dated 1 October 2004 while
abdicating its regulatory duty to fix the tariff.
The impugned tariff order has adversely
impacted the interest of the addressable
platform because the wholesale pricing of the
addressable system is based on the wholesale
pricing of the non addressable platform;
Fourthly that the impugned tariff is heavily
tilted towards broadcasters and seriously
prejudices the interest of the consumers, MSOs
and stifles orderly growth of the cable and
broadcasting sector.
It was earlier argued that TRAI ignored the fact
that the wholesale pricing of non addressable
system and addressable system are inter
related. The wholesale price for addressable
platform is derived from the wholesale price
of non addressable system. By its order, TRAI
indirectly and in substance increased the
wholesale price for addressable platform / DAS
notified area. The said increase in the
wholesale price for addressable platform is
affected in violation of section 11(4) of the
Act.
TRAI completely disregarded the fact that by
changing the content pricing and increasing
the same by 27.5 per cent with reference to
the price existed immediately prior to 31
March 2014, this will immediately increase the
price of content for addressable platform. The
authority did not provide any hearing
opportunity to the stakeholders including the
appellants to represent its view as a
stakeholder in the consultation process.
It was stated that TRAI in disregard of the
valuable rights of the stakeholders including
the appellant and the consumers provided
under Section 11(4) of the Act, rushed to issue
the impugned order thereby increasing the
wholesale price for addressable platform by 15
per cent with effect from 1 April 2014. Thus
the impugned order failed to take into account
the inputs from such stakeholders.
2
appeal challenging the legality
of tariff orders allowing the increase of 27.5 percent inflationary rise in the wholesale
prices prevailing as on 31 March 2004.
Even as the Telecom Disputes Settlement and
Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has listed the
matter for further hearing on 4 August, the
Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI)
has also filed its response to the appeals and it
is learnt that both Dish TV and Videocon d2h
are filing interventions in the petition filed by
Home Cable Network and the consumer
organisation Centre for Transforming India.
Meanwhile, the broadcasters will retain a
separate account for any payment received as
tariff, as this would be subject to the final
order of the Tribunal.
The appeals wanted TRAI to be directed to
carry de-novo exercise in accordance with the
statutory provision for price fixation for
addressable system de-linking the same from
the wholesale price of channels for non
addressable system.
Those who have filed interventions are cable
associations of Gujarat, Greater Guwahati,
Uttar Pradesh, Chandigarh, All Delhi Cable
Operators Association, Sai Cable Operators
Association, Karnataka State Cable Operators
Association, and Amritsar Cable Operators
Sangharsh Samiti.
In the appeals, the legality of Tariff Order
(Telecommunications (Broadcasting and Cable)
Services (Second) Tariff (Eleventh Amendment)
Order 2014 dated 31 March this year allowing
the increase of 27.5 per cent inflationary rise
in the wholesale prices prevailing as on 31
March 2004 has been challenged.
The Appellants have also challenged the
impugned tariff order dated 31 March 2014 on
the ground that the same has been passed in
violation of Section 11(4) without affording any
hearing opportunity to the stakeholders and
without considering the relevant material and
reports.
Furthermore, the impugned tariff order is
without jurisdiction because it still provides
for adhoc measure of price freeze as on 31
March 2014 even after 10 years of second
tariff order dated 1 October 2004 while
abdicating its regulatory duty to fix the tariff.
The impugned tariff order has adversely
impacted the interest of the addressable
platform because the wholesale pricing of the
addressable system is based on the wholesale
pricing of the non addressable platform;
Fourthly that the impugned tariff is heavily
tilted towards broadcasters and seriously
prejudices the interest of the consumers, MSOs
and stifles orderly growth of the cable and
broadcasting sector.
It was earlier argued that TRAI ignored the fact
that the wholesale pricing of non addressable
system and addressable system are inter
related. The wholesale price for addressable
platform is derived from the wholesale price
of non addressable system. By its order, TRAI
indirectly and in substance increased the
wholesale price for addressable platform / DAS
notified area. The said increase in the
wholesale price for addressable platform is
affected in violation of section 11(4) of the
Act.
TRAI completely disregarded the fact that by
changing the content pricing and increasing
the same by 27.5 per cent with reference to
the price existed immediately prior to 31
March 2014, this will immediately increase the
price of content for addressable platform. The
authority did not provide any hearing
opportunity to the stakeholders including the
appellants to represent its view as a
stakeholder in the consultation process.
It was stated that TRAI in disregard of the
valuable rights of the stakeholders including
the appellant and the consumers provided
under Section 11(4) of the Act, rushed to issue
the impugned order thereby increasing the
wholesale price for addressable platform by 15
per cent with effect from 1 April 2014. Thus
the impugned order failed to take into account
the inputs from such stakeholders.
2
