(13 August 2007 6:00 pm)

NEW DELHI: The Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission has issued an order, saying that the government and the regulatory authority (Trai) should extend Cas (conditional access system) across the country. And when this is done, all subscribers would be bound to get channels on an a la carte basis.

Part of the order says: "It is for the Regulatory Authority and also for the Government under the legislative provisions to extend this scope further in different parts of the country by issuing appropriate notifications.

The scope that the commission talks about is that of Cas, as noted by the order, where it says: The complaint has been dismissed in view of legislative provisions like CAS Regulations, existence of TDSAT and Trai."

The order comes on a case filed in 2001 against Indusind Media & Communications Ltd by one Nirmal Jain on the ground that the company, an MSO, was not giving him channels a la carte, and was charging him beyond rational proportions. All this amounted to unfair trade practices.

The order further reads: "As and when the notifications are issued even in respect of those areas where presently the provisions of the Legislation do not extend, it would become incumbent on the operators to provide the channels as preferred by the customers on rates not exceeding the fixed rates and thus, the pith of the grievance would automatically get addressed."

When Jain had filed the case, the Commission had issued an order on 8 January 2002, directing the Director General of Investigation and Registration to carry out a detailed investigation into various allegations of restrictive and unfair traded practices carried out by the cable industry players, including MSOs and broadcasters.

These included IMCL, Star India Pvt Ltd, Sony Entertainment, Turner International, Discovery Communications, ESPN and Modi Entertainment Network Ltd.

IMCL had submitted in their reply that they were bound by the trade practices of broadcasters, who never gave channels on an a la carte basis, and as an MSO, it could exercise no independent options in the matter.

The DGIR also went through the Cable Act, 1995 and had an overview of proposed section 4A (as this section was not incorporated at that point of time).

Later the DGIR reported to the Commission on 30 November 2006, reiterating its position and mentioned the latest developments including introduction of section 4A, Trai as regulator, implementation of Cas in Chennai and its likelihood in Delhi, Mumbai, and Calcutta.

The crux of both the DGIR reports was that the Jain Vs IMCL dispute would not be covered under the MRTP Act and there is specific forum for the redressal of grievances viz., Tdsat (Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal), because it is a telecom dispute.

On the basis of the DGIR report, the Commission in its order of 10 July this year closed the matter "with liberty to approach the appropriate forum, if so advised."

The complaint has been dismissed in view of legislative provisions like Cas Regulations, existence of Tdsat and Trai.

However, it is on this that the Commission has enjoined the Government and Trai to extend Cas across the country.