latest news?

coolbal

Regulars
[OP]
Regulars
Jul 15, 2006
509
1
has any one got latest news on suntv and tatasky deal that is said to have taken place today
 

coolbal

Regulars
[OP]
Regulars
Jul 15, 2006
509
1
i know tamil and i will read itthanks for the link
 


babu_koolguy

Regular
Regulars
May 3, 2007
109
0
It basically says that the interim order gives right to tata sky to pick channels whatever they want at a 50% prices till the final hearing which will be on May 11 th
 


coolbal

Regulars
[OP]
Regulars
Jul 15, 2006
509
1
yeah!!!!but how come only dinamalar knows this?i had not seen the exact thing in anyother news paper
 

amish

Star gazer
Regulars
Jul 3, 2006
24,645
1,059
Mumbai
interim order was passed looooong back. and sun got stay on that too.. so why was same order passed again on may 1st? i think the dinamalar is giving old news or link is old.
 

ajuravi007

Regulars
Regulars
Aug 11, 2006
21,015
1,499
If you guys know tamil

then this what todays Dinamalar says

Dinamalar.com-Companyseithigal

This is a old news dated March 19 which they have translated and put it in the tamil news paper on May 3rd. Check out the link: TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

The petitioner is licensed by the Government of India to provide Direct-To-Home (DTH) services to television viewers across India. The respondent is a broadcaster offering multiple channels for viewing by subscribers of cable as well as DTH operators as per a list filed by the petitioner as Annexure PI. As per the said Annexure, the respondent has 20 channels under its umbrella each of which is offered at the individual rates given in the said Annexure. This Annexure is not disputed. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent has refused access to its channels on non-discriminatory basis to the petitioner. The petitioner prays for direction to the respondent to discharge its statutory obligation under the Inter connection Regulations framed by the TRAI dated 10th December, 2004 to provide signals of its channels to the petitioner on reasonable terms and conditions. The petitioner sought interim relief by way of direction to the respondent to make available to respondent all its channels on a-la-carte basis. While considering this request we observed vide our order dated 24th January, 2007, that an interim order was not possible in view of divesrsity of the respective stands of the parties. As an alternative the main case was directed to be listed for final hearing. Accordingly, the main case was listed on 7th March, 2007 in the list of final hearing matters. However, it was not possible to take up the matter on that day in view of certain other part heard cases which were going on before the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, mentioned that in view of the fact that the final hearing was not likely to take place, the Tribunal may consider his prayer for interim relief. We intimated to counsel for parties that the matter will be taken up for consideration of interim relief on 8th March, 2007.
At the time of hearing the first objection taken on behalf of the respondent was that the prayer for interim relief had been already rejected vide order dated 24th January, 2007 and it could not be considered all over again at this stage. In response to this objection, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order dated 24 January, 2007 will show that the prayer was not entertained on the said date in view of the fact that the case was being listed for final hearing. However, when final hearing was not possible as directed by the Bench, he was entitled to renew his prayer for interim relief particularly because in the absence of interim relief, the Petitioner is suffering irreparable loss. We have considered the rival submissions. Interim relief was denied to Petitioner in view of the fact that the case was being listed for final hearing. However, urgent final hearing of this case is not possible in view of the fact that some part heard cases are going on and one of the Members of the Bench is retiring at the end of this month. Further the Tribunal is closed from 17th to 25th March, 2007 on account of holidays. Keeping in view all these aspects and in the interest of justice we are inclined to entertain the prayer for interim relief made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The objection of respondent in this connection is therefore, rejected.
On merits the main controversy revolves around the fact that the respondent wants to give all its 20 channels mentioned on page 154 of the paper book as a package and on a price quoted by it, whereas the petitioners’ case is that the respondent has not made all its channels as part of a package or a bouquet. They are being offered on a-la-carte basis and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to take whatever channels it wants to take on the price quoted by respondent as part of a-la-carte rates reduced by 50%.
In support of the submission that the respondent is offering all its channels on a-la-carte basis, the petitioner has relied on an affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent on 12th February, 2007 before this Tribunal. The relevant portion in the affidavit is quoted as under:
“The Answering Respondent states that the channels provided by the Respondent cannot be stated to be a bouquet in as much as the amount charged by the Answering Respondent for the package of channels is the sum total of the charges of individual channel”.

The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent tried to argue that they were offering all the channels as a package. However, he was unable to refute the above averment in their affidavit nor was he able to point out anything in the pleadings to suggest that all their channels were part of a package and were not being offered on a-la-carte basis. Thus, at least at this stage we are unable to accept the contention of the respondent that the petitioner has to accept all the channels of the respondent as a package. The respondents relied on alleged agreement entered into with Dish TV in November, 2006 to say that they had offered all the said channels to the said DTH operator as a bouquet. In response to this averment, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said agreement appears to be sham, particularly, for the reason that till today even though about four months have elapsed, Dish TV is not showing any of the channels of the respondent except one or two channels which viewers of Dish T.V. are able to see because they become available on DD’s Free-to-Air channels network and as both parties i.e. DD and Dish TV are using the same transponder.
At this stage it is difficult to say whether the alleged agreement of the respondent with Dish TV is real or sham. However, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the argument that Dish TV is still not showing any of the channels of respondent inspite of alleged agreement of November, 2006, has not been controverted by the counsel appearing for the respondent. Therefore, for present purposes we can take it as correct that Dish TV is not showing any of the respondent’s channels on its DTH platform. This casts a doubt about the argument that another DTH operator i.e. Dish TV has taken the entire bouquet of respondent.
The learned counsel for the respondent also argued that the petitioner is carrying bouquets of channels of other broadcasters and therefore, petitioner should have channels of respondent also in bouquet only. In our view, this argument is totally misconceived. The arrangement of the petitioner with each distributor is a matter of negotiation between the parties and whatever may be the arrangement with a particular party it cannot be said that same arrangement has to be with another party. Moreover, the respondent has not given any concrete instance in this behalf except making a bald statement. The respondent is offering its channels on a-la-carte basis as per affidavit quoted above, which leaves no scope for such an argument. This argument is therefore, rejected.
Next it was argued on behalf of the respondent that allowing petitioner to take channels of respondent on a-la-carte basis will create a discriminatory regime because the respondent is not offering its channels on that basis to any other party. This argument is factually contrary to the stand of the respondent in its own affidavit which has been quoted hereinbefore. Moreover, the respondent has not placed any material before us nor anything was referred to in support of the stand that it was offering its channels only as a bouquet/package to its customers. Such argument being advanced without laying any factual foundation for it, is neither here nor there.
So far as the question of rates of the channels of the respondent is concerned, the respondent has admittedly given these rates to the TRAI also and the rates given on page 154 of the Paper Book were not even disputed by the counsel appearing for respondent. Therefore, as an interim measure we direct the respondent to make available signals of all its channels to the petitioner on a-la-carte basis at 50% of its declared rates. It is made clear that view expressed in this order is only for purposes of passing this interim order and it is not an expression of final opinion on the controversy between the parties in this case.
The matter to be listed for final hearing on 11th May, 2007.
 

babu_koolguy

Regular
Regulars
May 3, 2007
109
0
but the link is ydays news only i have also seen the hard copy of the newspaper dont know what is really happening

This is a old news dated March 19 which they have translated and put it in the tamil news paper on May 3rd. Check out the link: TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

The petitioner is licensed by the Government of India to provide Direct-To-Home (DTH) services to television viewers across India. The respondent is a broadcaster offering multiple channels for viewing by subscribers of cable as well as DTH operators as per a list filed by the petitioner as Annexure PI. As per the said Annexure, the respondent has 20 channels under its umbrella each of which is offered at the individual rates given in the said Annexure. This Annexure is not disputed. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent has refused access to its channels on non-discriminatory basis to the petitioner. The petitioner prays for direction to the respondent to discharge its statutory obligation under the Inter connection Regulations framed by the TRAI dated 10th December, 2004 to provide signals of its channels to the petitioner on reasonable terms and conditions. The petitioner sought interim relief by way of direction to the respondent to make available to respondent all its channels on a-la-carte basis. While considering this request we observed vide our order dated 24th January, 2007, that an interim order was not possible in view of divesrsity of the respective stands of the parties. As an alternative the main case was directed to be listed for final hearing. Accordingly, the main case was listed on 7th March, 2007 in the list of final hearing matters. However, it was not possible to take up the matter on that day in view of certain other part heard cases which were going on before the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, mentioned that in view of the fact that the final hearing was not likely to take place, the Tribunal may consider his prayer for interim relief. We intimated to counsel for parties that the matter will be taken up for consideration of interim relief on 8th March, 2007.
At the time of hearing the first objection taken on behalf of the respondent was that the prayer for interim relief had been already rejected vide order dated 24th January, 2007 and it could not be considered all over again at this stage. In response to this objection, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order dated 24 January, 2007 will show that the prayer was not entertained on the said date in view of the fact that the case was being listed for final hearing. However, when final hearing was not possible as directed by the Bench, he was entitled to renew his prayer for interim relief particularly because in the absence of interim relief, the Petitioner is suffering irreparable loss. We have considered the rival submissions. Interim relief was denied to Petitioner in view of the fact that the case was being listed for final hearing. However, urgent final hearing of this case is not possible in view of the fact that some part heard cases are going on and one of the Members of the Bench is retiring at the end of this month. Further the Tribunal is closed from 17th to 25th March, 2007 on account of holidays. Keeping in view all these aspects and in the interest of justice we are inclined to entertain the prayer for interim relief made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The objection of respondent in this connection is therefore, rejected.
On merits the main controversy revolves around the fact that the respondent wants to give all its 20 channels mentioned on page 154 of the paper book as a package and on a price quoted by it, whereas the petitioners’ case is that the respondent has not made all its channels as part of a package or a bouquet. They are being offered on a-la-carte basis and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to take whatever channels it wants to take on the price quoted by respondent as part of a-la-carte rates reduced by 50%.
In support of the submission that the respondent is offering all its channels on a-la-carte basis, the petitioner has relied on an affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent on 12th February, 2007 before this Tribunal. The relevant portion in the affidavit is quoted as under:
“The Answering Respondent states that the channels provided by the Respondent cannot be stated to be a bouquet in as much as the amount charged by the Answering Respondent for the package of channels is the sum total of the charges of individual channel”.

The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent tried to argue that they were offering all the channels as a package. However, he was unable to refute the above averment in their affidavit nor was he able to point out anything in the pleadings to suggest that all their channels were part of a package and were not being offered on a-la-carte basis. Thus, at least at this stage we are unable to accept the contention of the respondent that the petitioner has to accept all the channels of the respondent as a package. The respondents relied on alleged agreement entered into with Dish TV in November, 2006 to say that they had offered all the said channels to the said DTH operator as a bouquet. In response to this averment, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said agreement appears to be sham, particularly, for the reason that till today even though about four months have elapsed, Dish TV is not showing any of the channels of the respondent except one or two channels which viewers of Dish T.V. are able to see because they become available on DD’s Free-to-Air channels network and as both parties i.e. DD and Dish TV are using the same transponder.
At this stage it is difficult to say whether the alleged agreement of the respondent with Dish TV is real or sham. However, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the argument that Dish TV is still not showing any of the channels of respondent inspite of alleged agreement of November, 2006, has not been controverted by the counsel appearing for the respondent. Therefore, for present purposes we can take it as correct that Dish TV is not showing any of the respondent’s channels on its DTH platform. This casts a doubt about the argument that another DTH operator i.e. Dish TV has taken the entire bouquet of respondent.
The learned counsel for the respondent also argued that the petitioner is carrying bouquets of channels of other broadcasters and therefore, petitioner should have channels of respondent also in bouquet only. In our view, this argument is totally misconceived. The arrangement of the petitioner with each distributor is a matter of negotiation between the parties and whatever may be the arrangement with a particular party it cannot be said that same arrangement has to be with another party. Moreover, the respondent has not given any concrete instance in this behalf except making a bald statement. The respondent is offering its channels on a-la-carte basis as per affidavit quoted above, which leaves no scope for such an argument. This argument is therefore, rejected.
Next it was argued on behalf of the respondent that allowing petitioner to take channels of respondent on a-la-carte basis will create a discriminatory regime because the respondent is not offering its channels on that basis to any other party. This argument is factually contrary to the stand of the respondent in its own affidavit which has been quoted hereinbefore. Moreover, the respondent has not placed any material before us nor anything was referred to in support of the stand that it was offering its channels only as a bouquet/package to its customers. Such argument being advanced without laying any factual foundation for it, is neither here nor there.
So far as the question of rates of the channels of the respondent is concerned, the respondent has admittedly given these rates to the TRAI also and the rates given on page 154 of the Paper Book were not even disputed by the counsel appearing for respondent. Therefore, as an interim measure we direct the respondent to make available signals of all its channels to the petitioner on a-la-carte basis at 50% of its declared rates. It is made clear that view expressed in this order is only for purposes of passing this interim order and it is not an expression of final opinion on the controversy between the parties in this case.
The matter to be listed for final hearing on 11th May, 2007.
Then what happenend to the hearing posted on MAY 1st that is also based on the TDSAT Website
http://www.tdsat.nic.in/Daily%20Cause%20List/Cause%20list%20of%2001.05.2007.htm