Tata Sky supports offering Rs.5/- per channel as in CAS. It says when every other contents etc are same the price must also be same. Here are the extracts
CHAPTER III: ISSUES RAISED BY M/S.
TATA SKY LTD.
3.1 As already mentioned in Chapter – I, the Authority has initiated the present consultation process in order to comply with the directions of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court as per their judgment dated 21st August, 2008 and the order passed on 9th December, 2008 while disposing of C.M. No. 18017 of 2008 in W.P. No. 16097 of 2007. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court gave a direction to the Authority that “…in case the petitioners file a comprehensive representation before the TRAI within two weeks from today, the respondents shall decide the same within a period of six weeks thereafter and while deciding the representation, all aspects as raised in the present writ petition as also in the representation would be considered by the competent authority.”
3.2 M/s. Tata Sky Ltd. have only filed a copy of their earlier representation dated 18th March, 2008 and requested the Authority for treating the same as a fresh representation in the context of the above order. The representation received from M/s. Tata Sky Ltd. is annexed as Annexure – V to this consultation paper. M/s. Tata Sky Ltd. have sought regulatory intervention to fix content tariffs for DTH in line with tariff fixation for similar addressable systems like CAS. M/s. Tata Sky Ltd. have raised the issue of level playing field conditions for DTH platform. It has been stated by M/s. Tata Sky Ltd. that in order to develop the capacity to cater to the divergent demands of consumers, at reasonable affordable prices, a DTH operator requires the following essential requisites:-
• Availability of popular content at reasonable prices.
• Flexibility to DTH operator to package popular content for mass scale consumption.
18
• Flexibility to package channels of different broadcasters and maximizing choice to the consumers
3.3 M/s. Tata Sky Ltd. have also pointed out the difference between the CAS rate and the then DTH RIO rate of ETC Punjabi channel in their representation. It has been submitted by M/s. Tata Sky Ltd. that a-la-carte prices now offered in the DTH RIOs are substantially higher than the existing prices being offered to DTH platforms prior to the RIOs. M/s. Tata Sky Ltd. have claimed that availability of same/ similar content at different prices on different distribution platforms is a facet of discriminatory pricing. It has been claimed that consequence of the RIO would result in higher cost to a DTH subscriber.
3.4 M/s. Tata Sky Ltd. have compared DTH service with addressable cable
TV services in CAS areas and claimed that the fundamental attributes of both the systems are similar. M/s. Tata Sky Ltd. have alleged that absence of wholesale content tariff regulation for DTH platform is creating a significant entry barrier for DTH and also creating pricing and packaging disadvantages vis-à-vis CAS operators.
3.5 The directions of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court as recorded in the order passed on 9th December, 2008 while disposing of C.M. No. 18017 of 2008 in W.P. No. 16097 of 2007 require the Authority to consider all aspects as raised in the Writ Petition as also in the representation to be filed by M/s. Tata Sky Ltd. A copy of the Writ Petition filed by M/s. Tata Sky Ltd. is annexed as Annexure – II to this consultation paper.
3.6 In the Writ Petition, M/s. Tata Sky Ltd. had sought issue of directions to M/s. ETC. Punjabi and M/s. Zee Turner Ltd. to make available the ETC. Punjabi channel on the DTH platform of M/s. Tata Sky Ltd. apart from seeking directions to the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India to discharge its obligations under the TRAI Act to ensure level playing field conditions including fixing content tariffs for DTH and to ensure that similarly placed systems, namely CAS and DTH are treated equally and viewers/ subscribers of these systems/ platforms are not denied popular content, due to anti-competitive practices or otherwise.
3.7 M/s. Tata Sky Ltd. have raised the issue of level playing field between the two addressable platforms, namely CAS and DTH. A reference has also been made to para 5.26 of CAS tariff order dated 31st August, 2006 wherein, it was, inter alia, stated that the prices on two addressable platforms should normally be same, if other conditions are uniform. The issue of offering of channels by the broadcasters only in the form of bouquets has also been raised in the petition. M/s. Tata Sky Ltd. have also referred to the observation of Hon’ble TDSAT in the case of M/s. Tata Sky Ltd. Vs. M/s. Zee Turner Ltd. in its order dated 31.3.2007 stating that TRAI should come out with price fixation and regulation as early as possible. M/s. Tata Sky Ltd. have alleged that non availability of ETC. Punjabi channel on the DTH platform of M/s. Tata Sky Ltd. is contrary to the mandate of Interconnection Regulations.
3.8 It has also been alleged in the petition that the amendment dated 3rd September, 2007 to the Interconnection Regulations and the Quality of Service Regulations for DTH issued on 31st August, 2007 do not address the issues raised in the petition and do not facilitate level playing field conditions.
3.9 The petition states that the regulator should have taken into account the ground realities of vertical monopoly in the industry and rampant under-declaration in the cable industry. It also referred to the consultation paper dated March 2, 2007 and the fact that the issue of DTH commercial pricing was not covered in the same.
3.10 To sum up, the request made by M/s. Tata Sky Ltd. in its representation, is for fixation of wholesale rate of pay channels at Rs. 2.25 per channel per subscriber per month at par with CAS or 20% of the prevailing “cable a-la-carte rate”, subject to an overall ceiling. It has been further stated that an analysis of RIOs submitted by the broadcasters clearly demonstrates the deployment and use of onerous and unjustifiable conditions and exorbitant pricing.
Note : I have in my suggestions mentioned the rate as 30% here Tatasky mentions it as 20%.
link to the web page of TRAI -annexure v (tatasky petition referred above as annexure v)
http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/trai/upload/ConsultationPapers/170/Annex5.pdfrelevant
