MUMBAI: The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) has been working overtime to bring some order to the Indian pay TV ecosystem over the years by passing various regulations. But it has not been able to find a perfect solution to address the needs of broadcasters, cable TV MSOs, DTH operators and LCOs. Even its last attempt in November 2022 when it notified the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Services (Eighth) (Addressable Systems) Tariff (Third Amendment) Order, 2022 and the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Services (Addressable Systems) Interconnection Regulations (Third Amendment) Order, 2022, led to a lot of howls from all concerned.
Since then, it has been holding meetings with various bodies like the All India Digital Cable Federation (AIDCF), the Indian Broadcasting & Digital Foundation (IBDF), payTV DTH operators, LCOs all over the country. And they raised their concerns relating to the latest orders as well as earlier ones relating to tariff, interconnection and quality of service of broadcasting and cable services. In response to that, the authority today released a consultation paper seeking stakeholders’ comments.
Among the issues it is seeking industry’s feedback are:
Issues related to Tariff for Broadcasting and Cable Services
· Ceiling on Network Capacity Fee (NCF) of Rs 130.
· Network Capacity Fee and pay TV channel fees for multi-TV homes
· Ceiling of 15 per cent on discount on sum of MRP of a-la-carte channels for fixing MRP of bouquets by DPOs
· Number of SD channels equivalent to One HD channel
· Mandatory FTA News Channels in all packs formed by DPOs
· Level playing field with DD Free Dish for DPOs.
Issues related to Interconnection for Broadcasting and Cable Services
· Amendment to Reference Interconnection Offer
· Listing of channels in Electronic Programme Guide (EPG)-
· Language genre problem in EPG
· Revenue Share between LCO and MSO
· Carriage Fee
· Minimum subscription period for a channel by a subscriber
· Removal of a channel from the platform of a DPO after expiry of existing Interconnection agreement
Issues related to Standards of Quality of Service (QoS) and Consumer Protection Regulations
· Review of prescribed charges
· Display of channels in EPG and LCN listing of channels
· Issues related to billing cycle
· Regulation of Platform Service Channels
· Review of mandatory provisions of Toll-Free Number, ConsumerCorner, Subscriber Corner, Establishment of Website andManual of Practice Etc.
The Questions the new consultation paper raises are as follows:
A. Tariff related issues
Q1. Should the present ceiling of Rs.130/- on NCF be reviewed and revised?
1.If yes, please provide justification for the review and revision.
2.If yes, please also suggest the methodology and provide details of calculation to arrive at such revised ceiling price.
3. If not, provide reasons with justification as to why NCF should not be revised.
4. Should TRAI consider and remove the NCF capping?
Q2. Should TRAI follow any indices (like CPI/WPI/GDP Deflator) for revision of NCF on a periodic basis to arrive at the revised ceiling? If yes, what should be the periodicity and index? Please provide your comments with detailed justification.
Q3. Whether DPOs should be allowed to have variable NCF for different bouquets/plans for and within a state/ City/ Town/ Village? If yes, should there be some defined parameters for such variable NCF? Please provide detailed reasons/ justification. Will there be any adverse impact on any stakeholder, if variable NCF is considered?
Q4. Should TRAI revise the current provision that NCF for 2nd TV connection and onwards in multi-TV homes should not be more than 40% of declared NCF per additional TV?
1. If yes, provide suggestions on quantitative rationale to be followed to arrive at an optimal discount rate.
2. If no, why? Please provide justification for not reconsidering the discount.
3. Should TRAI consider removing the NCF capping for multi TV homes? Please provide justification?
Q5. In the case of multi-TV homes, should the pay television channels for each additional TV connection be also made available at a discounted price?
1. a) If yes, please suggest the quantum of discount on MRP of television channel/ Bouquet for 2nd and subsequent television connection in a multi-TV home. Does multi-TV home or single TV home make a difference to the broadcaster? What mechanism should be available to pay-channel broadcasters to verify the number of subscribers reported for multi-TV homes?
1.b) If not, the reasons thereof?
Q6. Is there a need to review the ceiling on discount on sum of MRP of a-la-carte channels in a bouquet (as prescribed through the second proviso to clause 4 (4) of the Tariff Order 2017) while fixing the MRP of that bouquet by DPOs?
a. If yes, what should be the ceiling on such discount? Justify with reasons.
b. If not, why? Please provide justification for not reviewing the ceiling
Q7. Whether the total channel carrying capacity of a DPO be defined in terms of bandwidth (in MBPS) assigned to specific channel(s). If yes, what should be the quantum of bandwidth assigned to SD and HD channels. Please provide your comments with proper justification and examples.
Q8. Whether the extant prescribed HD/SD ratio which treats 1HD channel equivalent to 2SD channels for the purpose of counting number of channels in NCF should also be reviewed?
1. If yes, should there be a ratio/quantum? Or alternatively should each channel be considered as one channel irrespective of its type (HD or SD or any other type like 4K channel)? Justify with reasons.
2. If no, please justify your response.
Q9. What measures should be taken to ensure similar reception quality to subscribers for similar genre of channels? Please suggest the parameter(s) that should be monitored/ checked to ensure that no television channel is discriminated against by a DPO. Please provide detailed response with technical details and justification.
Q10. Should there be a provision to mandatorily provide the Free to Air News / Non-News / Newly Launched channels available on the platform of a DPO to all the subscribers?
a. If yes, please provide your justification for the same with detailed terms and conditions.
b. If not, please substantiate your response with detailed reasoning.
Q11. Should Tariff Order 2017, Interconnection Regulations 2017 and Quality of Service Regulations 2017 be made applicable to non- addressable distribution platforms such as DD Free Dish also?
Q12. Should the channels available on DD Free Dish platform be mandatorily made available as Free to Air Channels for all the platforms including all the DPOs?
Q13. Whether there is a need to consider upgradation of DD Free Dish as an addressable platform? If yes, what technology/ mechanism is suggested for making all the STBs addressable? What would be the cost implications for existing and new consumers? Elaborate the suggested migration methodology with suggested time-period for proposed plan. Please provide your response, with justification.
B. Interconnection related issues
Q14. In case of amendment to the RIO by the broadcaster, the extant provision provides an option to DPO to continue with the unamended RIO agreement. Should this option continue to be available for the DPO?
a. If yes, how the issue of differential pricing of television channel by different DPOs be addressed?
b. If no, then how should the business continuity interest of DPO be protected?
Q15. Sometimes, the amendment in RIO becomes expedient due to amendment in extant Regulation/ Tariff order. Should such amendment of RIO be treated in a different manner? Please elaborate and provide full justification for your comment.
Q16. Should it be mandated that the validity of any RIO issued by a broadcaster or DPO may be for say 1 year and all the Interconnection agreement may end on a common date say 31st December every year. Please justify your response.
Q17. Should flexibility be given to DPOs for listing of channels in EPG?
a. If yes, how should the interest of broadcasters (especially small ones) be safeguarded?
b. If no, what criteria should be followed so that it promotes level playing field and safeguard interest of each stakeholder?
Q18. Since MIB generally gives permission to a channel in multiple languages, how the placement of such channels may be regulated so that interests of all stakeholders are protected?
Q19. Should the revenue share between an MSO (including HITS Operator) and LCO as prescribed in Standard Interconnect Agreement be considered for a review?
1. If yes:
i.Should the current revenue share on NCF be considered for a revision?
ii. Should the regulations prescribe revenue share on other revenue components like Distribution Fee for Pay Channels, Discount on pay channels etc.? Please list all the revenue components along-with the suggested revenue share that should accrue to LCO.
Please provide quantitative calculations made for arriving at suggested revenue share along-with detailed comments / justification.
2. If no, please justify your comments.
Q20. Should there be review of capping on carriage fee?
1. If yes, how much it should be so that the interests of all stakeholders be safeguarded. Please provide rationale along with supporting data for the same.
2. If no, please justify how the interest of all stakeholders especially the small broadcasters can be safeguarded?
Q21. To increase penetration of HD channels, should the rate of carriage fee on HD channels and the cap on carriage fee on HD channels may be reduced. If yes, please specify the modified rate of carriage fee and the cap on carriage fee on HD channels. Please support your response with proper justification.
Q22. Should TRAI consider removing capping on carriage fee for introducing forbearance? Please justify your response.
Q23. In respect of DPO’s RIO based agreement, if the broadcaster and DPO fail to enter into new interconnection agreement before the expiry of the existing agreement, the extant Interconnection Regulation provide that if the parties fail to enter into new agreement, DPO shall not discontinue carrying a television channel, if the signals of such television channel remain available for distribution and the monthly subscription percentage for that television channel is more than twenty percent of the monthly average active subscriber base in the target market. Does this specified percentage of 20 percent need a review? If yes, what should be the revised prescribed percentage of the monthly average active subscriber base of DPO. Please provide justification for your response.
C. Quality of Service related issues
Q24. Whether the extant charges prescribed under the ‘QoS Regulations’ need any modification required for the same? If yes, justify with detailed explanation for the review of:
1. Installation and Activation Charges for a new connection
2. Temporary suspension of broadcasting services
3. Visiting Charge in respect of registered complaint in the case of DTH services
4. Relocation of connection
e. Any other charges that need to be reviewed or prescribed.
Q25. Should TRAI consider removing capping on the above-mentioned charges for introducing forbearance? Please justify your response.
Q26. Whether the Electronic Programme Guide (EPG) for consumer convenience should display
1. MRP only
2.MRP with DRP alongside
3.DRP only?
Justify your response by giving appropriate explanations.
Q27. What periodicity should be adopted in the case of pre-paid billing system. Please comment with detailed justification.
Q28. Should the current periodicity for submitting subscriber channel viewership information to broadcasters be reviewed to ensure that the viewership data of every subscriber, even those who opt for the channel even for a day, is included in the reports? Please provide your comments in detail.
Q29. MIB in its guidelines in respect of Platform Services has inter-alia stated the following:
a. The Platform Services Channels shall be categorised under the genre ‘Platform Services’ in the EPG.
b. Respective MRP of the platform service shall be displayed in the EPG against each platform service.
c. The DPO shall provide an option of activation /deactivation of platform services.
In view of above, you are requested to provide your comments for suitable incorporation of the above mentioned or any other provisions w.r.t. Platform Services channels of DPOs in the ‘QoS Regulations’.
Q30. Is there a need to re-evaluate the provisions outlined in the ‘QoS Regulations’ in respect of:
a. Toll-free customer care number
b. Establishment of website
c. Consumer Corner
d. Subscriber Corner
e. Manual of Practice
f. Anyotherprovisionthatneedstobere-assessed
Please justify your comments with detailed explanations.
D. Financial Disincentive
Q31. Should a financial disincentive be levied in case a service provider is found in violation of any provisions of Tariff Order, Interconnection Regulations and Quality of Service Regulations?
a. If yes, please provide answers to the following questions:
i. What should be the amount of financial disincentive for respective service provider? Should there be a category of major/ minor violations for prescription of differential financial disincentive? Please provide list of such violation and category thereof. Please provide
justification for your response.
ii. How much time should be provided to the service provider to comply with regulation and payment of financial disincentive. and taking with extant regulations/tariff order?
iii. In case the service provider does not comply within the stipulated time how much additional financial disincentive should be levied? Should there be a provision to levy interest on delayed payment of Financial Disincentive?
1. If yes, what should be the interest rate?
2. In no, what other measures should be taken to ensure recovery of financial disincentive and regulatory compliance?
iv. In case of loss to the consumer due to violation, how the consumer may be compensated for such default?
b. If no,then how should it be ensured that the serviceprovider complies with the provisions of Tariff Order, Interconnection Regulations and Quality of Service Regulations?
E. Any other issue
To download the full consultation paper please click here.
