Discussion TRAI announced important changes in the Tariff Order

[HitesH]

they didn't suggested removal of ₹12 cap, but suggested that if TRAI could postpone ₹12 capping for one month. This means HC is okay to implement NTO 2.0 rules except the ₹12 capping.
if tomorrow TRAI agree postpone the ₹12 cap for 1 more month then HC will definitely go in favor of TRAI & will give order to implement NTO 2.0 by 1st march!

BombayHC asks TRAI to take instruction in whether the 2020 regulation where pay channel price is capped at Rs. 12 in a bouquet can be deffer for a month.

Read bold, color and underline sentence.

No where HC disagree with TRAI, they simple asks TRAI for one month delay, neither they said anything about "stay" nor they disagree on capped price of channel at Rs. 12.

now i think this is enough to understand.

 

[Ksk]

BombayHC asks TRAI to take instruction in whether the 2020 regulation where pay channel price is capped at Rs. 12 in a bouquet can be deffer for a month.

Read bold, color and underline sentence.

No where HC disagree with TRAI, they simple asks TRAI for one month delay, neither they said anything about "stay" nor they disagree on capped price of channel at Rs. 12.

now i think this is enough to understand.

Y they are asks one month delay, wat is the reason?

 

[Slu]

The court reportedly also asked TRAI whether hearing on the matter on the implementation of TRAI 2.0 could be deferred by a month since hearing the matter will take time

 

[HitesH]

Guys, let's wait for tomorrow hearing and let's see what trai gives in reply to hc

 

[Slu]

Bombay high court has asked TRAI councel in the case to take instruction from Trai whether the NTO 2.0 can be deferred for 1 more month because it will take time in hearing. If trai does not instruct counsel tomorrow for 1 month delay then matter will be concluded tomorrow itself... Either granting stay or asking broadcaster's to implement NTO 2.0..

 

[satyajeet]

Taking more time to warm pocket enough..
They will keep extending, delaying till SC. HC will not fully uphold NTO 2.0. final solution will come at SC after months/years..

 

[IamTRoy4]

No where HC disagree with TRAI, they simple asks TRAI for one month delay, neither they said anything about "stay" nor they disagree on capped price of channel at Rs. 12.

I never said the HC disagreed with NTO 2.0's ₹12 cap of bouquets.
I meant to say the HC is ready to give order on implementation of NTO 2.0, BUT asked TRAI if they can postpone the "₹12 rule" for 1 more month or not (as the broadcasters are greedy, and doesn't want their huge earning for NTO 1.0 to be stopped)

tomorrow if TRAI doesn't want to postpone the "₹12 rule" and if HC give order to implement NTO 2.0 by 1st march, THEN we'll again going to see Star Sports channels priced at ₹65/m.!!

 

[satyajeet]

THEN we'll again going to see Star Sports channels priced at ₹65/m.!!

I wish it happens and nobody subscribe them. This is only way to bring down unreasonably high live sports rights cost. Ultimately auction cost falls on consumers. Eg Cost of very ad run during ipl is paid by user of product. Money gets funneled from masses to few enterprises/individuals. This increases economic inequality of masses.
I know that many wont understand, so may not agree...

 

[hulk]

Meanwhile another case is filed in Kerala High Court. The case is filed by consumers this time on the following grounds:
1. NCF is just defined in NTO 2.0, but no clause gives power to DPOs to levy NCF.
2. TRAI cannot put cap on maximum discount, so they want to do away with 33% cap.
3. DPOs cannot force BSTs on their subscribers.

Finally some consumers are also going to court now.

Source: https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates...ty-fee-basic-service-tier-broadcasters-153182

 

[satyajeet]

Meanwhile another case is filed in Kerala High Court. The case is filed by consumers this time on the following grounds:
1. NCF is just defined in NTO 2.0, but no clause gives power to DPOs to levy NCF.
2. TRAI cannot put cap on maximum discount, so they want to do away with 33% cap.
3. DPOs cannot force BSTs on their subscribers.

Finally some consumers are also going to court now.

source?
1. already decided by SC during NTO1.0 case
2. demanding NTO1.0 provision
3. This rule already there but not implemented strictly.