1. Efficacy Of Dispute Resolution in Broadcasting & Cable Sector © & Presented By: Ashok Nambissan Note: Views expressed are those of the author alone.

2. Achieving the “regulatory agenda” Regulatory agenda = development of a liberalised telecommunications and broadcast sector with stable and sustainable competition between operators delivering benefits to consumers. Sector-specific Rules- ‘Light Touch’ Commercial and admin laws Competition law

3. The increase and nature of disputes Power Rights Interests Disputes Between companies in contractual relations Between consumers and companies Arising out of tort Regulators Existing operators New entrants Source: Charles Russel

4. Dispute resolution framework Dispute resolution mechanisms Voluntary settlement Binding arbitration Court ProceedingsTDSAT Ad hoc Institutional Mediation and conciliation Negotiation

5. WHY TDSAT ? Civil litigation lengthy and costly for most lay consumers Huge backlog of cases Introduction of Specialised Tribunals: Consumer Protection Act, 1986 But Consumer Courts also overburdened Industry specific Regulators with exclusive jurisdiction Capital Markets, Electricity, Insurance, Oil & Natural Gas, Broadcast (proposed), etc.

6. COMPOSITION AND FUNCTIONING OF TDSAT The Tribunal comprises of a Chairperson (a retired Judge of the Supreme Court of India or a Chief Justice of a High Court) and two Members (former Secretaries to the Government of India) Adjudication within 90 days Appeal against order of TDSAT only to Hon’ble Supreme Court No appeal against consent order However interim orders challenged in High Courts Multiplicity of proceedings

7. TDSAT’S JURISDICTION Disputes between Licensor and licensee; licensors and service providers and a ‘group of consumers’ Also, appeals against directions/orders of the Sector Regulator. Excluded Disputes under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Individual consumer: civil courts/district forums Matters under MRTP Act, 1969

8. DISPUTES LCO Consumer Service Quality Billing/Price discrimination Interruption in cable services Change in channel placements Absence of effective consumer redressal system

9. DISPUTES MSO LCO Subscriber Nos. Signal piracy. Territory Non payment/under payment. Renewal of service agreements. Unpaid dues of LCO migrating to different MSO.

10. DISPUTES Broadcaster MSO Subscriber verification Territory Non payment of fees Renewal of service agreements Piracy /copyright protection Limited bandwidth capacity Channel placements Interruption of cable services

11. Dispute Resolution  Major causes of disputes: INTERCONNECTION PAYMENT SUBSCRIBER VERIFICATION TERRITORY PIRACY

12. Institution of Petitions/ Appeals before TDSAT No Of Cases

13. TDSAT – DISPOSALS OVERVIEW (2000 – 2008) DescriptionFiledDisposedPending Petitions1177876301 Review Applications37352 Appeals1209327 Cases transferred from TRAI16 0 On remand from Supreme Court 12 0 Execution Applications58544 MAs1084949135 Grand Total25042035469 Source: TDSAT Registry

14. UK regulatory landscape – Dispute resolution mechanism

15. Telecoms Adjudicator (TA) Facilitate discussions Make recommendations (0-1 wk) TA rulings Under TA Agreement (0-3 wks) TA adjudication Under Communications Act (0-4 wks) OfcomTA Facilitation Dispute resolution Referred to Ofcom if significant financial issue Binding (enforceable in courts) Source: Charles Russel

16. Also private dispute resolution organisations, approved by Ofcom Ombudsman-type negotiation e.g. OTELO: ­Independent and impartial ­User-friendly ­Transparent ­Effective ­Free of charge to customer ­Able to properly investigate disputes and award appropriate compensation.

17. Alternate Dispute Resolution

18. Important objectives for dispute resolution Speedy Redressal “Affordable” Efficacy in enforcement Certainty

19. Importance of effective mechanisms Dispute resolution integral part of TRAI Regulations. Efficient regulation and dispute resolution lead to ‘equal’ rights and obligations- ‘Level Playing Field’. Consistency needed, to level the playing field and encourage further investment. Mediation and other ADR mechanisms to be encouraged. Cooperation of Judicial bodies to ensure consistency across the industry.

20. Ideal Model Reduces legal uncertainty. Provides regulators means and powers necessary. Ensures disputes resolved as quickly as possible, within statutory limits. Has clear rules on confidentiality of business secrets. Establishes effective appeals procedures. Establishes prompt review of admin decisions. Has clear rules on locus standi and 3 rd party rights. Limits appeals on merits to one instance.

21. Suggestions Facilitation of alternate dispute resolution by use of Mediation. Disputes on subscriber base be determined on basis of data in public domain. E.g. Census data, IRS, NRS.

22. On “Must Provide” Defaulter MSO/LCO clears the arrears before the “must provide” being thrust on Broadcasters. In the absence of addressability in Non-CAS areas, negotiation for fixation of subs-base shall depend crucially on area proposed to be served. In CAS areas, the subs-base is accurately reflected by SMS.

23. Sea TV Network Ltd. Case TRAI vide its recommendation dated 1.10.2004 mandated a register of subscribers to be maintained by LCO/MSO to identify and arrive at the correct number of subs-base, to be considered by TDSAT, in disputes regarding area of operation and subs-base.

24. CONCLUSION “ Discourage litigation; persuade your neighbours to compromise whenever you can. Point out to them how the normal winner often loses in fees, expenses, cost and time.” Expanding the scope of dispute resolution will go a long way to facilitate constructive settlement of disputes by ensuring that the regulatory obligations of the Broadcasters and the MSO / LCO and other Platforms are being strictly followed in a fair and even handed manner.