Applications
Arguments on appeals against Tariff Order conclude
NEW DELHI: Arguments over appeals challenging the Trai Tariff Order concluded before the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Arbitration Tribunal (Tdsat) on Friday.
Trai (Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) has agreed to provide on Monday some clarifications that have been sought by Tdsat Chairman S B Sinha and Member P K Rastogi. After Trai gives the clarifications ,which order of the tribunal will be awaited on the appeals by multi-system operators (MSOs) and local cable operators (LCOs) against the Tariff Order.
The Tariff Order has also prescribed the revenue sharing ratio between (MSOs) and local cable operators (LCOs), and MSOs and broadcasters.
Counsel for MSOs and LCOs contended in their counter arguments that the Tariff Order and Regulations were aimed at helping the television broadcasters and the direct-to-home (DTH) platforms while TRAI counsel said detailed study had gone into the Tariff Order and the regulations.
Counsels Rajan Bakshi on behalf of United Cable Operators Welfare Association and C S Vaidyanathan on behalf of MSO Digicable Networks said they were not opposed to introduction of digital addressable systems (DAS) but some infirmities had to be corrected. They also alleged that the broadcasters were deliberately not revealing their retail tariff per channel, which was essential before the switch to digital delivery of television channels from 1 November.
Counsel Bakshi claimed that Trai‘s Reference Interconnect Offer document showed that the rates of popular channels had gone up by an average of up to 315 per cent per channel from the rate of Rs 5.45 set initially by TRAI.
Both Bakshi and Vaidyanathan in separate arguments wondered why TRAI had not chosen the formula worked out for the conditional access systems in 2006, which had even been approved by the Supreme Court, and instead opted for amending the Tariff Order of 2010, which was challenged before the apex court and the court had order a status quo.
Vaidyanathan said TRAI could have used any of three other options – the 2004 Order, the 2006 Order, or the 2010 Order which also applied to DTH and was pending in court – but chose the option of 2004 relating to non-addressable systems with some elements of the 2010 order for reasons not explained in the Explanatory Memorandum.
He said there was no rationale for not taking the order for conditional addressable systems, which had even been upheld by the apex court. By not doing this, TRAI has also equated MSOs and DAS with DTH. If it had to take the DTH model, then it should not have set a revenue sharing ratio between MSOs and LCOs and should have let market forces decide. It was also odd that while DAS was regulated, DTH got away scot-free.
He added that while laying down the mandate for building a capacity for 500 channels, TRAI had made no study and it was clear that there was no need for so many channels since most viewers saw 15 to 20 channels. He said that while the capacity building for 250 channels had cost Rs 30 million, MSOs will have to spend around Rs 120 million for building the capacity for 500 channels even if they decide to keep only 200 or so, on their network.
He read out various paragraphs of the 2006 Order to say that the Tariff for CAS could easily have been applied to DAS since most of the criteria were the same.
He said basically all this is being done because Trai does not want to regulate the broadcasters. He read from a page on the TRAI website that one channel on Golf cost around Rs 750.
He argued that one reason why the 2004 order was not applicable here was that there was no concept of ala carte channels at that time, with all channels coming in bouquets.
He also wondered why TRAI wanted to ‘micro-manage‘ the choice of the consumer, who should have been left to make his own choices. The whole scheme was disproportionate to public interest.
He also pointed out that the 2006 Order amended in 2007 had fixed city-wise tariffs, which had not been done here.
Earlier, counsel Gopal Jain for intervener NDTV said the appeals would prove to be an impediment to a system that appeared very good as Trai had taken a forward-looking approach. In any case, TRAI had the power of periodic revision.
He also claimed that the resistance from MSOs and LCOs was only because of the undue advantages inherent in the analogue system, and not the abolition of placement fee or restrictive carriage fee. The earlier system was skewed in favour of the MSOs.
Mr Tejvir Bhatia, counsel for Times Global and India TV, wanted the ‘must carry‘ clause to be enforced.
At one stage, TDSAT member P K Rastogi (sitting with Chairman Justice S B Sinha) observed that the broadcaster was interested in his advertisement revenue and so paid carriage fee, while the aggregator could only earn through subscription.
Applications
Inshorts Group chief Deepit Purkayastha joins IAB video council for Southeast Asia and India
The co-founder and chief executive of the short-form content platform has been inducted into the IAB SEA+India Video Council, giving India a stronger voice in shaping digital video frameworks
NOIDA: India has long been the world’s most chaotic, multilingual and mobile-first digital market. Now, one of its most prominent short-video executives is getting a seat at the table where the rules are written.
Deepit Purkayastha, co-founder and chief executive of Inshorts Group, has been selected as a member of the IAB SEA+India Video Council for 2026. Run by the Interactive Advertising Bureau, the council brings together senior leaders from Southeast Asia and India to shape standards, best practices and measurement frameworks for the fast-evolving video and digital advertising ecosystem.
The timing is pointed. According to the IAMAI-Kantar Internet in India Report 2025, over 588 million Indians are now consuming short-video content, with growth increasingly driven by rural and non-metro audiences. India’s active internet user base has crossed 950 million, with 57 per cent of users now coming from rural markets. Yet the frameworks that govern how video consumption is measured and monetised were largely designed for single-language, Western markets and have struggled to keep pace with the scale, diversity and complexity of India’s digital landscape.
Purkayastha is no stranger to these debates. He already serves on the AI Council at Marketing and Media Alliance India and as co-chair of the Digital Entertainment Committee at the Internet and Mobile Association of India. His induction into the IAB SEA+India Video Council extends that influence into the global video standards arena.
Inshorts Group sits squarely at the intersection of these forces. Its flagship product, Inshorts, India’s highest-rated short news app, reaches 12 million active users with 60-word news summaries. Its sister platform, Public App, reaches 80 million monthly active users across more than 700 districts and 12 languages, serving communities that most global platforms barely register.
Purkayastha said the opportunity was about building something more representative. “India today sits at the centre of the global video ecosystem, but the frameworks that define how value is created and measured have not always kept pace with the realities of our market,” he said. “Being part of the IAB SEA+India Video Council is an opportunity to contribute to a more representative and future-ready approach, one that accounts for diversity in language, context, and user intent.”
As a council member, Purkayastha will contribute to shaping regional standards across video advertising, measurement and platform governance, with a focus on frameworks that are native to India’s multilingual, mobile-first ecosystem rather than imported from global benchmarks designed elsewhere.
For years, India has been content to play by rules written for other markets. Purkayastha’s induction is a signal that it is done waiting to be consulted and ready to start writing them.
