Chawla pointed out that the order also wants the BST offered
by the MSO to include at least five channels of the each genre,
namely news and current affairs, infotainment, sports, kids,
music, lifestyle, movies and general entertainment in Hindi,
English and regional language of the concerned region.
argued that if five channels for every language was provided,
then the number of channels with all the genres would easily
claimed Trai had done no study to find out whether an average
viewer wanted 100 channels in the BST.
any case, he said a similar order of 2007 had been challenged
by the MSO Alliance and others before Tdsat, which had held
that that the order had failed to specify tariffs and had
only given a ceiling and slabs and that Trai needed to revisit
the exercise to fix the tariffs in a holistic manner. Tdsat
had also clearly stated that tariff meant the cost that the
consumer has to pay.
said merely because the matter had gone in appeal before the
Supreme Court which has ordered status quo till final disposal
was no reason for Trai to commit the same flaw five years
later. "Each word remains the same and we are back to
square one," he claimed.
said in any case, no formula for revenue sharing could be
laid down unless all the beneficiaries were named. In this
case, there had been no reference to the broadcaster and only
the MSO and local cable operators (LCOs) had been named. Furthermore,
he said a revenue sharing can only be talked about when a
systematically worked out revenue figure is given.
said Section 11(2) of the Trai Act 1997 stated: "The
Authority may, from time to time, by order, notify in the
Official Gazette the rates at which the telecommunication
services within India and outside India shall be provided
under this Act including the rates at which messages shall
be transmitted to any country outside India".