MAM
Day 3 of TDSAT ad cap hearings
MUMBAI: The queue of channels waiting their turn to present their individual cases on the so-called crippling TRAI 12 minute ad cap to the Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has not really got any shorter even as the hearings got into the third day. The reason: the News Broadcasters Association’s (NBA) lawyers continued with their arguments in the presence of TDSAT’s Justice Aftab Alam and member Kuldeep Singh.
And with their presentation referencing statutory laws as relating to the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act and the TRAI Act 1997 completed they have now progressed to bringing in references about media freedom as written in the Article 19A of the Indian Constitution.
The NBA counsel referred to the ‘Sakal Papers And Others vs The Union Of India on 25 September, 1961’ case. The Supreme Court had then affirmed that a newspaper should have the liberty to carry as many advertisements as it would want to because ‘curtailment of advertising is a curtailment of free speech as guaranteed by the Constitution of India.
The declaration of this case reads: ‘the state could not make a law which directly restricted one guaranteed freedom for securing the better enjoyment of another freedom. Freedom of speech could not be restricted for the purpose of regulating the commercial aspect of the activities of newspapers.’
According to the NBA, since such a ruling exists for print newspapers, it should also apply to the broadcast medium. However, Alam tended to disagree and opined that that the electronic medium is different from print.
The NBA also contended that broadcasters don’t actually get a ‘license’ from the central government under The Telegraph Act 1885 but rather a ‘registration’ under the uplinking/downlinking policy guidelines. However, the justice doubted that the broadcasters don’t get a licence, and he also felt that broadcasters don’t come under the cable TV act as the NBA is claiming.
During the 12 November hearing, the NBA had argued that TRAI had not done the laying requirements as per section 37 of the TRAI Act which it should have in order to carry out enforcement of ad cap and prosecution of erring channels.
The hearings are slated to continue tomorrow morning with the NBA and its lawyers presenting their arguments. For the other channels, the wait continues.
MUMBAI: The queue of channels waiting their turn to present their individual cases on the so-called crippling TRAI 12 minute ad cap to the Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has not really got any shorter even as the hearings got into the third day. The reason: the News Broadcasters Association’s (NBA) lawyers continued with their arguments in the presence of TDSAT’s Justice Aftab Alam and member Kuldeep Singh.
And with their presentation referencing statutory laws as relating to the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act and the TRAI Act 1997 completed they have now progressed to bringing in references about media freedom as written in the Article 19A of the Indian Constitution.
The NBA counsel referred to the ‘Sakal Papers And Others vs The Union Of India on 25 September, 1961’ case. The Supreme Court had then affirmed that a newspaper should have the liberty to carry as many advertisements as it would want to because ‘curtailment of advertising is a curtailment of free speech as guaranteed by the Constitution of India.
The declaration of this case reads: ‘the state could not make a law which directly restricted one guaranteed freedom for securing the better enjoyment of another freedom. Freedom of speech could not be restricted for the purpose of regulating the commercial aspect of the activities of newspapers.’
According to the NBA, since such a ruling exists for print newspapers, it should also apply to the broadcast medium. However, Alam tended to disagree and opined that that the electronic medium is different from print.
The NBA also contended that broadcasters don’t actually get a ‘license’ from the central government under The Telegraph Act 1885 but rather a ‘registration’ under the uplinking/downlinking policy guidelines. However, the justice doubted that the broadcasters don’t get a licence, and he also felt that broadcasters don’t come under the cable TV act as the NBA is claiming.
During the 12 November hearing, the NBA had argued that TRAI had not done the laying requirements as per section 37 of the TRAI Act which it should have in order to carry out enforcement of ad cap and prosecution of erring channels.
The hearings are slated to continue tomorrow morning with the NBA and its lawyers presenting their arguments. For the other channels, the wait continues.
MAM
Reed Hastings to exit Netflix board as company posts steady growth
Shares dip 8 per cent as cofounder exits; revenue up 16 per cent to $12.25 billion.
MUMBAI- When the man who taught the world to binge decides to log off, the credits don’t just roll, they reset the script. Reed Hastings is set to step away from Netflix, marking the end of a defining chapter for a company that reshaped global entertainment even as its latest numbers suggest a business finding firmer footing.
Hastings, who co-founded Netflix nearly three decades ago and transformed it from a DVD-by-mail service into a streaming powerhouse, will not stand for re-election at the company’s annual meeting in June. While the company offered little detail on his next move beyond philanthropy and personal pursuits, the symbolic weight of his departure was immediate. Shares fell around 8 per cent following the announcement, underlining how closely Hastings remains tied to investor confidence and the company’s long-term vision.
The exit comes at a moment of recalibration. Netflix has been working to stabilise growth after a period of strategic turbulence, including the loss of a high-profile $72 billion deal involving Warner Bros. Discovery to Paramount Skydance, a setback that raised fresh questions about its ambitions in large-scale content consolidation. Yet, if the deal slipped, the fundamentals appear to be holding.
For the first quarter, Netflix reported revenue growth of 16 per cent to $12.25 billion, slightly ahead of expectations, while earnings per share nearly doubled to $1.23 from 66 cents a year ago. The company reaffirmed its full-year outlook, projecting double-digit revenue growth, expanding margins and strong free cash flow signals aimed squarely at calming post-announcement jitters.
In its shareholder communication, Netflix struck a careful balance between legacy and continuity. Its mission, it reiterated, remains unchanged: to serve a global audience with diverse storytelling across languages and cultures. The message was clear—while a founder may exit, the playbook stays in motion.
At the same time, the company is quietly redrawing that playbook. Netflix is leaning into newer formats such as video podcasts and live programming, including events like the World Baseball Classic in Japan, reflecting a broader industry shift where streaming, television and live experiences increasingly overlap. Advertising, once an afterthought in its subscription-first model, is now moving centre stage, with the company projecting ad revenues of $3 billion in 2026 roughly double current levels.
Still, some questions linger in the wings. Chief among them is how Netflix plans to deploy the $2.8 billion termination fee from the collapsed Warner Bros deal. With competition for premium content intensifying, capital allocation decisions in the coming quarters could prove as consequential as the leadership transition itself.
For now, Netflix finds itself in a familiar paradox: a company built on disruption navigating continuity. Hastings may be stepping off the stage, but the show by design goes on.
