GECs
FCC moots a la carte model for pay-TV platforms
MUMBAI: US media regulatory body the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has issued a Further Report on the packaging and sale of video programming services to the public on the issue of an a la carte model for delivery of video services.
The Further Report finds that US consumers could be better off under a la carte and explores several a la carte options that could provide substantial benefits to subscribers by increasing their choices in purchasing programming.
The report argues that American consumers could save up to 13 per cent on their pay-TV bills if they were given the option of a la carte pricing. The Further Report re-examined the conclusions and underlying assumptions of the earlier Media Bureau report on a la carte submitted to Congress in November 2004.
In particular, the Further Report describes a number of errors in the Booz Allen Hamilton Study that the Media Bureau relied upon to support the conclusion of the earlier report that a la carte is not economical.
The FCC says that the average television household only watches 17 channels. If platforms were to offer a la carte pricing, consumers could save anywhere between 3 and 13 percent on their cable bills.
The current industry practice of bundling programming services may drive up retail prices, making video programming less affordable and keeping some consumers from subscribing to multichannel video programming distributor (MVPD) services.
The Further Report found that the 2004 report also relied upon unrealistic assumptions and presented biased analysis in concluding that a la carte “would not produce the desired result of lower MVPD rates for most pay-television households.”
For many popular networks, advertising and subscription fees might rise as viewers shift to those programming options, even as consumers who opt to watch only those channels enjoy significant savings on their MVPD bills.
Some type of a la carte option could prove better than todays bundling practices in fostering diverse programming responsive to consumer demand. A la carte could make it easier for programming networks valued by a minority of viewers to enter the marketplace states the report.
GECs
Sebi sends show-cause notice to Zee over fund diversion, company responds
Regulator questions 2018 letter of comfort and governance lapses; company vows robust legal response
MUMBAI: India’s markets watchdog has reignited its long-running scrutiny of Zee Entertainment Enterprises, issuing a sweeping show-cause notice that drags the broadcaster and 84 others into a widening governance storm.
The notice, dated February 12, has been served by the Securities and Exchange Board of India to Zee, chairman emeritus Subhash Chandra and managing director and chief executive Punit Goenka, among others. At its heart: allegations that company funds were indirectly routed to settle liabilities of entities linked to the Essel Group.
The regulator’s probe traces its roots to November 2019, when two independent directors resigned from Zee’s board, flagging concerns over the alleged appropriation of fixed deposits by Yes Bank. The deposits were reportedly adjusted against loans extended to Essel Group entities, triggering questions about related-party dealings and board oversight.
A key flashpoint is a letter of comfort dated September 4, 2018, issued by Subhash Chandra in his dual capacity as chairman of Zee and the Essel Group. The document, linked to credit facilities availed by certain group companies from Yes Bank, was allegedly known only to select members of management and not disclosed to the full board—an omission SEBI believes raises red flags over transparency and governance controls.
Zee has pushed back hard. In a statement, the company said it “strongly refutes” the allegations against it and its board members and will file a detailed response. It expressed confidence that SEBI would conduct a fair review and signalled readiness to pursue all legal remedies to protect shareholder interests.
The notice marks the latest twist in a saga that has shadowed the broadcaster since 2019. What began as boardroom unease has morphed into a full-blown regulatory confrontation. The final reckoning now rests with SEBI—but the reputational stakes for Zee, and the message for India Inc on governance discipline, could scarcely be higher.
