Advertisement


Advertisement

Thread Rating:
  • 6 Vote(s) - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Order is erroneous and unreasonable
Advertisement
#1
The telecom regulator's order is neither fair to the broadcaster who is the actual content provider nor does it benefit the subscriber. Going by the order, a broadcaster must offer its channels to distributors of television channels using addressable systems on a-la-carte rate that should not be more than 35% of the rate of the channel as specified by the broadcaster for non-addressable systems against the current 50% rate. The basis of the tariff structure for addressable systems is erroneous and devoid of reason. The point that needs consideration in the case of an a-la-carte channel is whether the DTH operator can ask for the same discount as they would expect when they were distributing the channel the way non-addressable cable operators do, but without the disadvantages of under-declaration.

To start with, TRAI had to regulate tariffs in the broadcasting sector to protect the interests of the consumer because there was lack of competition and the market was not mature. But competition has intensified in the broadcasting industry today, which has grown manifold, giving the viewer an abundant choice.

But broadcasters have been at the receiving end of TRAI notifications over the last few years. The business of broadcasters in general and sports broadcasters in particular - who spend millions of dollars to acquire marquee sports events rights across the globe - has eroded. So, should content creators or broadcasters be obliged to offer their channels at a universal discount irrespective of volumes and content?


Is it then fair to make it mandatory for private sports broadcasters, already making huge losses, to share events of 'national importance' as determined by the government with Prasar Bharati? Is regulation necessary given the fact that there is sufficient competition in each genre and the prices for each of these genres can be determined by market forces? Based on the tariff regime prescribed by TRAI, a consumer can watch three channels of a broadcaster for 24 hours per month, and pay half the price than he would pay for watching a movie for two hours. Is this fair?

Reply
Thanks given by:
Advertisement
Advertisement




Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  DTH News: Delhi High Court nullifies TRAI order; bans long term plans for DTH users nairrk 1 806 05-18-2019, 11:03 AM
Last Post: Hassan Syed
  TRAI’s new tariff order to fuel the DTH-cable war IndianDTH 0 1,202 01-04-2013, 06:40 PM
Last Post: IndianDTH
  TRAI’s new tariff order to fuel the DTH-cable war IndianDTH 0 1,768 05-03-2012, 10:55 AM
Last Post: IndianDTH
  Help: Dark horses disrupt DTH race order Sathish 0 1,997 08-26-2011, 10:51 AM
Last Post: Sathish
  Help: TRAI asks six broadcasters to adhere to its tariff order Sathish 0 2,055 07-16-2011, 11:22 AM
Last Post: Sathish
  Help: Apex court stays TDSAT order, raises DTH rates Sathish 1 1,415 04-20-2011, 04:50 AM
Last Post: prankey
Thumbs Down Help: SC order on DTH tariff unlikely to impact consumers Mr.AB 0 1,195 04-18-2011, 10:45 PM
Last Post: Mr.AB
  DTH News: SC sets aside Kerala High Court order luxury tax on DTH Sathish 1 1,729 02-04-2011, 11:17 AM
Last Post: greatsadiq
  Help: Tdsat asks Trai to review tariff order for DTH Mr.Bhat 0 896 12-21-2010, 07:42 AM
Last Post: Mr.Bhat
  Help: Govt to file civil appeal against Tdsat order on DTH licence fee Sathish 1 1,223 11-16-2010, 11:03 AM
Last Post: nairrk

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
Advertisement