TDSAT order quashing TRAI directive on landing page – wither goest TRPs?

The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) judgement on landing page comes as a relief for distribution platform operators (DPOs) as well as broadcasters. In its judgement last week, TDSAT had quashed the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India’s (TRAI) directive dated November 8, 2017 that put a restraint on all broadcasters and distributors of TV channels from placing any registered TV channel, whose TV ratings is released by a TV rating agency, on the landing Logical Channel Number (LCN) or landing channel or Boot-up Screen. 

The TDSAT judgement came after petitions filed by Bennett, Coleman & Co, All India Digital Cable Federation and Mumbai-based JPR Channel. The common grievance of all the appellants in these appeals is that the impugned direction has serious adverse effects on the incoming revenue stream of the appellants for no good reasons. TDSAT its judgement noted, “It neither serves the interest of service providers and consumers nor leads to orderly growth of the sector. The appellants claim that their right to carry on trade and business without undue and uncalled for interference has been put to jeopardy without providing any tangible or measureable benefit to the consumers or to service providers.” 

TDSAT further stated that, the appellants maintained that it would impeded the orderly growth of the sector by affecting the lawful source of income of the broadcasters and distributors because to compensate for such loss they will have to ultimately put more burden on the consumers. 

Maninder Singh, senior counsel representing BCCL further stated in his arguments that TRAI directions were without jurisdiction as they did not relate to interconnection at all. He further maintained that TRP as a subject lies within the domain and responsibility of the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, which has permitted some broadcasters and advertisers to generate and circulate TRPs, but it is not the concern of the Department of Telecommunications or TRAI. 

TDSAT noted that TRP is not affected by the contents of the landing page because the viewer has the choice of shifting to any other page of his choice and under the new regulations, any channel on the landing page must also be a channel opted by the viewer. 

The final submission of all the appellants is that the content of the landing page can at best amount to advertisements, which is legally permissible and there is no appreciable and measureable injury on account of alleged distortion of TRP. It was also submitted that BARC is an agency representing 60 per cent broadcasters, 20 per cent advertisers and 20 per cent advertising agencies, and if BARC has any problems relating to TRP, it should be allowed to take initiative for remedies if the problem is genuine.

TDSAT also touched upon the subject of the ownership of the landing page. “Does it belong to the subscriber or to the DPO who brings the signals to the subscriber or to none of these?” it asked. The Tribunal pointed out that such a question of law has been canvassed neither by the appellants, which include DPOs and broadcasters, nor by TRAI, which claims to have also acted in the interest of consumers. 

According to Maninder Singh, the landing page belongs to DPOs, who have full rights on what to place on the landing page. 

TDSAT also asked whether it would not be a best practice if the subscriber is given a choice to “opt”. It raised quite a few questions: “Should the landing page be a default or a separate page in its own right? Can the subscriber be presented with a default, be it a rated or unrated channel?”