TelecomLive January-2019

New Broadcasting Regime www.telecomlive.com 36 Telecom LIVE January 2019 The Supreme Court heard the SLP on Jan 3, 2019 and orally observed that the powers of Trai to frame the regulations and tariff order have already been upheld in its judgment dated Oct 30, 2018 and Trai can discharge its func- tions accordingly. In view of this, Trai withdrew its SLP and the same was dismissed as with- drawn. In the meantime, Fastway Transmission Pvt Ltd filed another Broadcasting Appeal No.3 of 2018 seeking a direction to Trai to enforce Regulations and Tariff Order, particularly raising the issue of non-compliance of the third proviso to clause 3(3) of the Tariff Order by the broadcasters. However, TDSAT vide its Order dated 17.12.2018 declined to inter- fere at this stage as the issue was pending before the Supreme Court. Thus, new regulatory frame- work has already come into force and is being complied with by the Service Providers. However, Trai for some unfounded fear is hesi- tant in implementing the third proviso to clause 3(3) for capping the discount at 15 per cent. As a result, the tariff to the consumers will go up when the new regime comes in play effective from Feb 1, 2019. Trai also clarified to all the service providers that the third proviso to clause 3(3) of the Tariff Order 2017 is not being enforced by Trai for the time being and all the service providers were advised to take necessary action, as per Press Note dated Jul 3, 2018, towards compliance of Intercon- nection Regulation 2017, Quality of Service Regulations 2017 and remaining provisions of Tariff Order 2017, in a timely manner. No postponement Amidst confusion, Trai has asserted that there will be no post- ponement or modification of the implementation of the new regula- tory framework. The distribution platform operators (DPOs) have time till Jan 21, 2019 to collect the new package details of customers. Further, the customers who have exercised their choice will be migrated to the new framework from Feb 1, 2019. “Now it has been brought to the notice of the Authority that certain rumours / messages are being floated that the implementation of the new framework has been post- poned or stopped or is being modi- fied,” Trai said in a statement. “Trai clarifies that the new framework has come into effect on Dec 29, 2018. The schedule of activities has been duly communi- cated to all the service providers for reaching out to the consumers and obtaining choices.” It also asked all subscribers to exercise their options without waiting for the last minute to avoid any inconvenience and to ensure that they continue to view their favourite channels. Trai further stated that it has been monitoring the progress in regards to availability of consumer corner, choices to the consumers, provision of consumer care chan- nel, and the percentage of con- sumers whose choice has been obtained on day to day basis. It also noted that almost all the ser- vice providers have started pro- viding consumer care channel on Channel Number 999. Tariff Order is arbitrary and not enforceable. The SLP filed by Trai in Supreme Court was listed on Jan 3, 2019. The judgment of the Madras High Court vide which a provision of the Tariff Order 2017 capping the price of bouquet at 85 per cent of the sum of prices of a- la-carte channels constituting the bouquet, was held arbitrarily and not enforceable, was challenged in this SLP. The SLP was more in the nature of clarification from the Supreme Court in view of different interpretations of the Supreme Court judgment dated Oct 30, 2018 by various service providers. In the SLP, Trai pointed out that the discounts on bouquets are generally more than 50 per cent, which is unreasonably high and prone to distortion. Trai has also highlighted that there is no ceiling on channels that are offered on à la carte and the broadcasters are free to price their channels, which are offered only on à la carte basis. The petition said the high court committed a grave error by hold- ing the 15 per cent discount cap on bouquet rates as arbitrary and non-enforceable as the scope of the challenge before the court was the power and jurisdiction to frame the tariff order and the interconnection regulation.