Indiantelevision.com's Digital Edge
Review price freeze on cable TV: Casbaa
 
Indiantelevision.com Team

(19 June 2007 6:00 pm)

 

NEW DELHI: While broadcasters, MSOs and consumer groups have taken their expected stand on whether to continue tariff control by Trai in non-Cas areas, the Asian broadcasting lobby Casbaa has said that if at all regulated pricing continues, certain measures ought to be taken to allow market economy to step in after a period of time.

 

The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) has just released the gist of the responses from 24 stakeholders to the issue of non-Cas area tariff control, wherein the three groups have reiterated their positions.

 
While all MSOs and consumers have voted a solid 'No' to the issue, and broadcasters have routinely reiterated their 'Yes', Casbaa says that the price freeze should have explicit "sunset" provisions for periodic review of the need for continuation of the rate regulations.

It also says: "Competition should be enhanced if it was possible to induce real, on-the ground competition between cable operators. Currently, there is no real competition as the consultation paper notes the local cable operator does not allow other cable operators in the area to give connection to the subscriber wanting to change the operator."

Casbaa wants Trai to develop and adopt an explicit benchmark or set of benchmarks for determining when the competitive players (either within the cable industry, or from the DTH or eventually the IPTV industries) have achieved sufficient market weight that would signify existence of effective competition.

Such benchmarks were used in both the USA and Canada as the DTH industries grew there. The point is not that the criteria adopted in these countries are the best for India; it is rather that they are examples of benchmark criteria set by other governments to deal with the same problem that the Trai faces.

Casbaa says it recognises the difficulty of relaxing rate regulation in an environment where many consumers prefer to pay low rates, without considering the sustainability of the industry or the desirability of investments for greater choice and greater digital penetration.

"We believe, however, that if the TRAI does not address this issue squarely and develop meaningful, objective benchmarks, the concept of the price freeze as a 'temporary' measure will become a mockery."

Most of the broadcasters have said that competition will take care of pricing, but the Grahak Hitavardhini Sarvajanik Sanstha has some weighty arguments against that.

This consumer lobby NGO says: "Total forbearance will lead to total exploitation of consumers. It will also defeat the very legislative intention in appointing a Regulator for Broadcasting Industry."

It argues also that the beneficiaries of competition are the broadcasters and the consumer does not benefit from this competition for various reasons:

" there is a total lack of after-sales services, (ii) Broadband and IPTV platforms are yet in an infant stage,

" there is no correlation in the price-cap in CAS and non-CAS area in terms of definition of the price. Authority should create common comparable regulations in Cas and non-Cas areas

"Though there are multiple service platforms available to the cable TV subscribers yet they doe not become comparable for the consumer due to various practical difficulties. The consumer lacks empowerment to make the market forces effective and influential.

"Till such time that the development of market is perceptible in this regard control regime of cable services are required to continue. Thus the forbearance as an option is not advisable," the NGO has argued.

The trade body US India Business Council (USIBC Washington) has sought deregulation of prices because, it says, "Price control will limit a distributor's ability to upgrade services and infrastructure a critical consideration considering that Trai appears to favour a voluntary upgrade to Cas outside the four major metro areas.

USIBC says that there should be checks and balances in case there is no forbearance.

However, it says, "The types of checks and balances that are necessary are not controls on pricing or service offerings. But instead they are greater sharing of information which will empower consumers and companies to help fulfil the promise of an open market and protect consumers against collusion or other harms that could be caused by the market.

"The types of checks and balances that should be introduced deal more with ensuring cable providers accurately disclose their subscriber bases, and also for cable operators to deliver cable bills (in writing and in clear and concise language) to consumers that break down the fees so that consumers know what makes up their bill totals."

 
 
Also Read:
 
Go to Top
Click for Digital Edge Archives