MxMIndia

Tag: Telecom Regulatory Authority of India

  • The introduction of a telecom regulatory regime for OTT service providers would be an act of over-regulation, notes IAMAI

    Demands for imposing revenue share by OTTs smack of ‘rent-seeking’: IAMAI

    By Our Staff

     

    The Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI) has in its counter comments submitted to the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) on the consultation paper ‘Regulatory Mechanism for Over-The-Top (OTT) Communication Services, and Selective Banning of OTT Services’ said that demands for imposing revenue sharing mechanisms between internet companies and telecom service providers (TSPs) smack of rent-seeking.

     

    IAMAI also flagged demands made by the Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI) and the Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER). The COAI has called for regulatory intervention to ensure “largest traffic originators” pay a ‘fair share charge’ to telecom companies to account for capital investments made by the latter to “accommodate surging data traffic”. Similarly, ICRIER has called for the imposition of a ‘Broadband Infrastructure Levy’ to be applied at 3% of India operations of “significant” OTT service providers based on “specialised contracts” between service providers and network operators.

     

    According to IAMAI members, by requiring “largest” OTT service providers to pay TSPs for data used by consumers, TSPs would effectively be charging twice for the same service – as they already charge consumers for data. In any case, “surging data traffic” is merely data consumed by consumers that they have already purchased from telecom companies. Therefore, the “strain” on infrastructure of TSPs occurs when they sell data to consumers beyond their infrastructural capacity – a fact that has been conveniently ignored.

     

    Opposing demands to bring OTT service providers under regulations typically reserved for telecom companies, IAMAI highlighted that such demands fail to recognise that telecom service providers are subject to a special regulatory and licensing regime by virtue of the control that they exercise over valuable national resources such as spectrum. Therefore, the introduction of a telecom regulatory regime for OTT service providers would be an act of over-regulation.

     

    Over-the-top service providers have provided high quality content for little-to-no cost to users. This in turn has spurred the rapid growth of data consumption and economic activity in India. Mandating revenue-sharing mechanisms between OTTs and TSPs would effectively reverse this phenomenon by disincentivising growth for OTT based businesses, for whom a volume-based revenue sharing mechanism would be a glass ceiling for continuing growth and may prove to be an entry barrier for startups.

     

  • It's high time that research organisations provide M&E with a comprehensive overview, writes Indrani Sen

    TV Industry Needs a Better Household Establishment Survey

     

     

    By Indrani Sen

     

    Indrani SenAs per the latest Performance Indicator Report (PIR) released by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), subscription to the private DTH service continues to decline. A comparison between Q4 2021 and Q1 2022 shows a collective loss of 1.6 million paid active subscribers to DTH. It seems the various marketing initiatives introduced by the private DTH operators in 2021 have failed to arrest the slow and steady decline of the subscribers.

     

    The same TRAI report shows that the cumulative active pay subscriber base of the top 13 cable and HITS platforms rose Marginally from 4.58 crore to 4.59 crore in Q12022, while the subscriptions to some other smaller MSOs declined. On the whole, it can be said that there is a stagnation in the subscriptions to cable TVs.

     

    The dark horse in the arena of DTH operators is the DD Free Dish. According to various reports available, increase in number of channels available through DD Free Dish between 2017 and 2021 as well as addition of better-quality channels has doubled its subscribers from 22 million in 2017 to 43 million in 2022. Different Government sources have been claiming that DD Free Dish is the largest Dish operator in India covering more than 25% of the TV viewing households. The growth of users of DD Free Dish presents a totally different picture from the slow decline seen in the private DTH subscriptions. However, we have no clue regarding who are the users of DD Free Dish or what is their demographic profile. We often assume that the use of DD Free Dish is prevalent in the lower income groups in small towns or rural areas, but the actual penetration of DD Free Dish may be quite different from our assumptions.

     

    We need to take into account three additional factors for a complete understanding of the source of TV viewing in India. First is the rapid growth of the OTT market in India; the second is the growth of smart TV sets and the third is the partnership of the telecom operators with the OTT players which are providing the TV viewers with alternative platforms for viewing TV content.

     

    According to the Ormax OTT Audience Report 2021, the Indian OTT space has 353 million users and 96 million active paid subscribers. Most of the TV content is available today through various OTT platforms promoted by the TV Channels. The growth of internet and introduction of smart TV sets have eliminated the need for separate subscriptions to the TV content through Dish operators or Cable TV operators. So, the decline in direct subscription to TV through DTH or cable TV needs to be reviewed along with the growth in OTT subscription and smart TV sets by households.

     

    Today, all telecom operators offer free access to more than one OTT platforms along with their pre-paid and post-paid services. A typical telco-OTT partnership is an ideal example of a symbiotic relationship which allows both parties to benefit. The strategy enables the telecom operator to ensures customer retention and adoption and the OTT players to enlarge the viewership of their content.

     

    However, when we try to get an overview of TV viewership in India, we find that we do not have a complete understanding of the source of TV viewing. It is high time that research organisations provide the Media & Entertainment Industry with a Household Establishment Survey which indicates the type of TV subscription along with the ownership of TV, so that the users of the data get a clarity on the total picture. We have come a long way from the time when such household establishment surveys used to provide information on B&W and colour TV sets. We now need to know about the platform used for viewing TV contents, the type of TV set owned by the households as well as the type of subscriptions made by the household. Both BARC and MRUC should plan for household establishment surveys accordingly.

     

  • As BARC celebrates the big milestone, CEO Sunil Lulla gets up, close and candid with Pradyuman Maheshwari

    Five years of BARC. Looking Back. Looking Forward

     

    The Broadcast Audience Research Council (BARC) celebrates five years of operations today (April 29, 2020).

     

    Many of us know the circumstances in which BARC was envisaged and established, and given that audience measurement doesn’t come cheap, it was indeed wise to have a joint industry body doing the exercise.

     

    With BARB from the United Kingdom as inspiration, BARC was incorporated in 2010. Operations though took off only after some five years and the first set of data was published on April 29, 2015. In the very year of launch, it also announced rural audience measurement and now measures 185,000 individuals over 44,000 homes, and that number is set to grow to 55,000. Well it was scheduled to, if Covid-19 hadn’t happened.

     

    Viewership, as measured by BARC, grew 38% till 2019 and a total of 48.4 trillion viewing minutes were consumed in 2019 alone. BARC currently measures 634 channels. The future is bright given that 100 million homes still to get a TV set.

     

    It’s unfortunate that the celebrations are dampened by an ill-placed recommendations from the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI)

     

    Sunil Lulla, a veteran mediaperson who has worked across the M&E spectrum, took charge at BARC in October 2019. With broadcast – entertainment, news, with advertising and with a large production house. He has also spent some quality with a large digital venture. He spoke with Pradyuman Maheshwari, Editor-in-Chief, MxMIndia on a wide range of issues. Check out the video. It’s nearly 30 minutes. So pull out the popcorn or whatever. And enjoy.

     

     

  • Last week, captains of leading broadcasters came together to speak to the media and express reasons for their opposition to the tariff order

    Broadcasters move Bombay HC against TRAI on NTO 2

    By A Correspondent

     

    The Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF), the apex body of television broadcasters, and a few broadcasters have petitioned the Bombay High Court on Monday, opposing the newest changes to tariffs as imposed by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI). The tariff (referred to as NTO2) was announced on January 1 and will be effective February 1, 2020.

     

    Last week, captains of leading broadcasters came together to speak to the media and express reasons for their opposition to the tariff order.

     

    According to a report, the petition is expected to come up for hearing today (Jan 14) before a division bench of Justices S C Dharmadhikari and R I Chagla.

     

     

  • And conversely, is BARC right in showing the finger to the broadcast regulator?

    Is TRAI justified in damning BARC?

     

     

    By Your Editor

     

    The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI, in short) has been accorded the dual responsibility of the broadcast policy-maker and regulator. Note broadcast (and radio) are the only media entities that are governed so actively and aggressively. Print is dealt with kid gloves, as always. Radio also has suffered thanks to excessive government intervention, and an active social media has ensured that the government can’t do much with digital media. Save GST.

     

    Hum Aapke Hain Koun?

    For many, many years, there existed a measurement system governed by TAM – a joint venture owned by WPP-owned Kantar and independent research major Nielsen. TAM won the mandate of broadcasters, advertisers and ad agencies to run the measurement system, and although there may not have been very active handholding by industry representatives, the fact that TAM owed its survival to subscription monies from broadcasters and other stakeholders, it couldn’t afford to mess things. Hence, the market ensured that it behaves and operates well.

     

    But, first, let’s understand who and why we need audience measurement?

    In order to get to the bottom of the problem, let’s understand why we need measurement. It’s simple: broadcasters air content. They say their wares are very popular, but there needs to be some tool for them to convince advertisers about this. This tool could be inhouse, but then will advertisers trust it? Hence, a third party measurement system. Now, if I am a large network of media agencies – like GroupM or IPG Mediabrands or a large advertiser like Hindustan Unilever or even the annoying Trivago, I can have my own team or firm doing this exercise of measurement. But these media agencies chose not to do so and relied on another body – in the case of television, TAM earlier and now BARC.

     

    If GroupM/ IPG Mediabrands/ HUL… even Trivago had their own measurement firms, could the government/TRAI police them?

    Of course not! How advertisers spend their money is their business. And how media agencies spend the money of their advertiser clients is their problem. Ditto with the measurement mechanism. Clearly, there is no role for government to police measurement. Yes, the government can set up its own measurement mechanism – like TAM or BARC – and hope and pray that they have enough paying subscribers to be able to run a tool. But they’ve been running Air-India, operating hotels and doing several things they shouldn’t be getting into.

     

    The genesis of the problem?

    What if you get bad marks in an exam? You grin and bear it. Curse your luck. Resolve to study harder. Or complain to some authority. The government. The local goon. Whosoever. Now this is what happened in the not-too-distant past. There were some influential channels which complained against TAM about the measurement mechanism. They said the process was flawed. That the boxes could be tampered with. That some broadcasters got to know where the boxes were placed and hence influenced the individuals living them. There were also a few people who complained that the content of news and entertainment channels had dipped considerably as some channels were tailoring content only to garner higher ratings. “Hey, we’d love to have shows talking about the chick pea crop, but kya karein, thanks to ratings we need to focus on chicks instead,” was the kind of reply one would get.

     

    Both situations were not far from the truth. Yes, there was tampering, and, yes, there some broadcasters who influenced panel homes. But does this mean that the government should get into the act? Should the government concern itself with the content quality of channels? If there are takers for dumbed down content, let there be.

     

    Hey, aren’t there industry bodies for broadcasters, ad agencies, advertisers?

    Of course they exist. And they are all headed by very senior and respected industry folk. One must also reiterate: not only are they currently headed by senior/respected folk, even in the past they were spearheaded by senior/industry folk. So why did they allow the government to intervene (or interfere)? Why did they allow policy-makers to let TRAI to govern them. We don’t have answers to these questions.

     

    Broadcasters do owe it to the government for uplinking/downlinking…

    Since the government gives the licence to broadcasters to uplink and downlink signals, it can lay conditions. But in the case of BARC… what’s the government got to do with viewership measurement?

     

    If broadcasters, advertisers and advertising agencies are unhappy with BARC, they’ve got the remote control in their hands. They can express a loss of confidence, debate/ discuss, put them on notice and if they are still unhappy, they can stop their subscriptions. It’s as simple as that.

     

     

    Could the problems have been eliminated if BARC wasn’t a monopoly?

    Competition always helps, but it must be remembered that television viewership measurement is an expensive proposition. Setting up measurement meter boxes isn’t cheap. Clearly there is no stopping multiple bodies in the business of viewership measurement. But, then, will people subscribe to them?

     

    When TAM existed, there was another measurement firm called aMap which existed but thanks to lack of patronage, it had to shut shop. So, while the more the merrier, does the industry have the appetite to pay for multiple players?

     

    So should the government/TRAI intervene?

    This question doesn’t need a wordy response. The answer is simple. No. Let me repeat: No. Yet again: No. Nahin, Nako, Na, Illai….

     

    Now what’s the current problem?

    The government, via the TRAI, thought it would be a good idea to administer a new Tariff Regime for channel subscriptions. That one can pick and choose channels, a la carte. All of this has led to some upheavel in the availability of channels and millions of homes have now been subject to the non-availability of some popular channels. While the problem is not as severe for DTH subscribers, for those connected to cable operators (like this writer), things are not as simple.

     

    Therefore, the viewership of many channels has been impacted with the change of regime. Since it typically takes four to eight weeks for life to settle down, various broadcast stakeholders decided that it would be incorrect to base buying decisions on the current set of numbers, and BARC decided that while it will give out viewership numbers to its subscribers, it will not publish them on its website or via Twitter.

     

    TRAI wants BARC to publish on website?

    We don’t really know why. The numbers on the BARC website are only very indicative, and are topline. Advertisers and agencies do not base their buying decisions based on these numbers.

     

     

    If the website data is inconsequential, why raise BP levels… just go ahead and publish them!

    True. But it’s got nuisance value. And if a channel has dropped its leadership position only because of some subscription issues, it’s unfair to make things public because they could be misused.

     

    The questions posed in the headline and summary: Is TRAI justified in damning BARC? Conversely, is BARC right in showing the finger to the broadcast regulator?

    No, TRAI isn’t justified. And, yes, BARC is right in showing the middle finger. But, but, but, BARC’s stakeholders must share the blame for the current stand-off. If they had resisted all the pressures earlier, they (and we) wouldn’t have suffered today.

     

  • The implementation will have to be effected wef February 1

    TRAI pushes new tariff regime deadline to Jan 31

    By A Correspondent

     

    There is some respite for the media ecosystem as the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) has offered a respite till January 31, 2019 for the transition to the new tariff regime.

     

    The TRAI has also planned to unveil a migration plan to allay fears of constituents especially among distributors on a threat to their livelihood and from consumers who have not been able to take the decision on selecting their channels.

     

     

  • It will be unfair if the pioneers satellite TV distribution get marginalised, writes Indrani Sen

    Cable Operators Up in Arms

     

    By Indrani Sen

     

    Recently, cable operators have raised an objection to the new tariff order issued by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) as they feel that the new directives would have more negative impact on their business. The All Cable Operators Association of India (ALCOAI) has brought their problems to the notice of TRAI in writing twice during the last one month. The Association claims that the cable operators have suffered losses running into crores in the last financial year due to the promotion of the OTT platforms by the broadcasting companies and the consumers taking advantage of the alternative viewing options.

    In its tariff order, TRAI has directed broadcasters to declare the maximum retail price (MRP) and nature of all their channels within 60 days from the date of notification issued on 03.07.2018.  However, there is no directiveon the tariff rates for telecasting the same programme content on internet via over the top (OTT) platforms. As per the current rules, the broadcasting companies can stream the channels on internet without having to worry about the tariff order or any permission from the government for downlnking the content.

    The ALCOAI has pointed out that due to technological changes, they have lost first a significant share of their customer base to Dish TV operators and more recently to OTT platforms, particularly after the launch of JIO leading to fall in internet data rates.

    The Association claims that according to information available with them, most of the OOT and IPTV operators have neither got permission from Indian Government to provide services in India nor are they registered as Distribution Platform Operators (DPO) by the I&B Ministry.  In this connection ALCOAI has citied an old notice of the Ministry of I&B dated 23.12.2015 restricting the broadcasters from giving access to their signals to any non-registered distribution platform operators. The cable operators have also claimed that pornographic content and non-permitted channels are being distributed without any regulatory control through the OTT as well as IPTV services.

    These allegations by the cable operators are serious if they are found to be correct. Our media lawmakers need to investigate into the complaints ASAP and take corrective measures.  However, it is difficult to believe that any prominent OTT/ IPTV player would start their services without completing the required legal formalities for operating in India. The consequence of such actions would be leading to legal actions against them with financial implications.

    Earlier this year, we learnt from media reports that TRAI was planning to regulate online video streaming platforms by inviting consultants’ views on the same. The sooner TRAI introduces such regulations would be better for all concerned. The technological changes which are sweeping over the global markets cannot be stopped or stalled by introducing media regulations. So, TRAI needs to ensure a fair playing ground for all the different types of operators involved in the distribution of the content of the broadcasting organisations as well as independent video content competing with the content of TV channels. TV will be enjoying the highest share of the advertising expenditure pie for quite a few years to come. It will be unfair for the cable operators, who pioneered the distribution of satellite TV channels in India,  if they get marginalised in the process of TV distribution through legal rigmaroles.

     

    Indrani Sen is a veteran mediaperson and educator. The views here are personal

  • Comments received by the TRAI throw up insights on which broadcaster stands where on the controversial landing page issue

    Who stands where on Landing Pages?

     

    By A Correspondent

     

    Should there be a regulation on landing pages? There is a strong sentiment, which we at MxMIndia are also partly in agreement with, that there should be none. The use of landing pages is a marketing tool is the view of some broadcasters and channel distributors, but there is also a strong belief that because it is routed through the distribution channel, there ought to be a restriction on its usage. There is also a view that use of landing pages is an unfair means of hooking viewers. The counter to it is that it is a legitimate tool to promote a channel and it’s a bit like using advertising in other media to let the public know.

     

    Well, that’s not an analogy that works, and certain indiscriminate use of the landing page tool in the recent and not-so-recent past has ensured that the matter is now in the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India’s ambit.

     

    The TRAI issued a consultative paper and invited suggestions, the last date for which was last week. Counter-comments can now be made and this will close on May 11.

     

    Read the various comments at http://trai.gov.in/consultation-paper-review-mobile-number-portability-mnp-process to check who stands where on the Landing Pages issue. And perhaps who has invested in it or wishes to invest in it…

     

     

  • According to information received by MxMIndia, some intra-industry complaints have precipitated this action

    TRAI to pass guidelines on landing page too?

    By A Correspondent

     

    The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India is understood to be actively considering further regulation of broadcast distribution by banning the use of landing pages on distribution platforms.

    According to information received by MxMIndia, some intra-industry complaints have precipitated this action.

    While MxMndia has received a few  records of landing pages used by channels to boost viewership, since we haven’t been able to verify these via independent or multiple sources, we will not publish themor even name the broadcasters who have been using this landing pages.

    But suffice to say that if the information on the landing pages that was shared with us is true, then the Week 22 data that is scheduled to be out tomorrow (Thu, June 8) will definitely see a skew towards whoever has managed to spend more on landing pages and/or continues to maintain multiple LCNs.

    While as a stated policy, MxMIndia believes that governments and regulators must not be pulled into policy-making for what can be governed by industry bodies and self-regulators, in the case of news broadcasters, there has been a sentiment that only the presence of a government or quasi-government body like TRAI can bring order to the house.

    The landing page guidelines are expected to be brought to force with immediate effect, and while the onus will continue to be on cable and DTH operators, channels could also be made responsible.

     

  • The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India has released a supplementary consultation paper on Issues related to New DTH Licences

    TRAI seeks views on issue of new DTH licences

    By A Correspondent

     

    The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) has today released a supplementary consultation paper on Issues related to New DTH Licences.

     

    Earlier, in response to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) reference to the Authority, dated September 3, 2013, TRAI had issued a consultation paper on Issue/Extension of DTH Licences on October 1, 2013, seeking comments/ views of the stakeholders. The key issues discussed in the consultation paper pertained to the entry fee, bank guarantee and period of licence. Subsequently, during the consultation process, industry stakeholders requested the Authority that it would be in the interest of the sector that a comprehensive review of the existing DTH licence conditions be taken up. Accordingly, this supplementary consultation paper has been released wherein, amongst others, the issue of ‘control’, licence fee, migration fee and interoperability of DTH set-top-boxes have been discussed.

     

    As part of the consultative process, this supplementary consultation paper has been uploaded on the TRAI website (trai.gov.in), seeking comments/view of the stakeholders. Stakeholders have been requested to offer their views/comments latest by November 25, 2013.

     

  • Telecom Regulatory Authority of India has released guidelines for the television ratings business in India

    TRAI recommendations on guidelines for TV rating agencies

    The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) has released its guidelines for television rating agencies.

     

    The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) had asked requested TRAI to provide its recommendations on issues related to guidelines/ accreditation mechanism for accreditation of television rating agencies in the country.

     

    Accordingly, TRAI issued a Consultation Paper on “Guidelines/Accreditation Mechanism for Television Rating Agencies in India” on April 17, 2013, seeking comments/views of the stakeholders. Open House discussions were also held on July 1, 2013. Based on comments received in the consultation process and its own analysis, the Authority has finalised its recommendations. The salient features of the recommendations are:

     

    i. The Authority supports self-regulation of television ratings through an industry-led body like Broadcast Audience Research Council (BARC).

    ii. To ensure that the shortcomings of the present system are addressed guidelines have been recommended.

    iii. Any agency meeting the eligibility conditions can apply and get registered with MIB for doing the rating work.

    iv. MIB to notify the guidelines for regulating the television rating agencies based on TRAI’s recommendations, within two months.

    v. All rating agencies are required to comply with the guidelines.

    vi. Guidelines to cover registration, eligibility norms, cross-holding, methodology, complaint redressal, sale & use of ratings, audit, disclosure, reporting requirements and penal provisions.

    vii. The number of panel homes for collecting television viewership data will be a minimum of 20,000; to be set up within 6 months of the guidelines coming into force. Thereafter, the number of panel homes shall be increased by 10,000 every year until panel size reaches 50,000.

    viii. The panel homes to be selected from a pool of households, selected through an establishment survey which shall be at least 10 times the number of panel homes for audience measurement.

    ix. Voluntary code of conduct by the industry for maintaining secrecy and privacy of the panel homes.

    x. Restrictions on ‘substantial equity holding of 10% or more’ between rating agencies and broadcasters/advertisers/ advertising agencies.

    xi. The rating agency to set up an effective complaint redressal system.

    xii. Data/reports generated by the rating agency to be made available, on paid basis, to all interested stakeholders in a transparent and equitable manner.

    xiii. The rating agency to get its entire methodology/processes audited internally on quarterly basis and through an independent auditor annually. All audit reports to be put on the website of the rating agency.

    xiv. Penal provisions for non-compliance of guidelines including financial penalty from Rs 10 lakh to Rs1 crore and cancellation of registration.

    xv. Six months time given to the existing rating agency to comply with the guidelines.

     

    Notes a communiqué: “Since 2008, the authority has been giving its recommendations/ clarifications on implementing a reliable and transparent television rating system. For over four years little to no progress has been made by the industry and MIB, in implementing the Authority’s recommendations aimed at institutionalizing a credible and transparent rating system. Since policy intent has not been translated into action for too long, the timeframe for implementation has now become a critical factor. Guidelines are designed to correct the aberrations in the existing system and prevent it from deteriorating further. Early implementation of guidelines, therefore, has become a necessity. As sector regulator responsible for overall development of the sector, the Authority cannot be a mute spectator to continued inaction and may suo motu intervene in larger public interest.”

     

    The full text of the recommendations is available on TRAI’s website at: http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/Recommendation/ Documents/FINALReco%2011Sept2013.pdf

     

  • To meet the growing demand of Digital cable in the country with DAS being implemented from Nov 1, Hathway Cable and Datacom Ltd has decided to scale up its inventory and procure an additional 10 lakh Set Top Boxes

    Hathway scales up to meet demand for digitization

    By A Correspondent

     

    Hathway Cable and Datacom Ltd is set to scale up the availability of set top boxes (STBs) over the next four months. In addition to the previously planned deployment of 20 lakh STBs, Hathway has decided to procure another 10 lakh STBs to meet the growing demand.

     

    Hathway’s move is in line with the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting’s latest order on implementation of DAS (Digital Addressable System) from November 1 in the four metros-Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai and Kolkata. By infusing additional STBs in the market, Hathway believes it is poised to meet the fresh deadline, as well as ensure a smoother transition from analogue to digital for consumers across the four metros.

     

    Commenting on the development, Mr K Jayaraman, MD & CEO, Hathway Cable and Datacom Ltd said: “Hathway has always been committed to providing consumers with the best digital cable experience and we have been preparing to bring consumers a seamless move from analogue to digital cable TV. The modified deadline presents us with a unique opportunity to reach out to and impact a greater segment of the market. Hathway plans to procure the additional 10 lakh STBs to gear up and leverage this opportunity. Therefore, in total, we plan to deploy 30 lakh digital set top boxes across the Mumbai and Delhi. The rush for digital services will peak around the last fortnight of October and we do not want to disappoint the consumers and drive them towards the costlier option of DTH services.”

     

    In the first phase of digitization of cable television, all four metros- Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata and Chennai – will switch from analog to digital transmission from November 1. The rest of the country will move to digital cable by 2014 as per the regulations laid down by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) in consultation with the MIB. Due to lack of preparedness of the industry, the Ministry had recently postponed the sunset date for Phase I from June 30 to October 31.