No need to impose any market share-related restrictions on cable TV: Broadcasters to TRAI

Stakeholders in the broadcasting sector have told the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) that there is adequate competition in the cable TV and TV distribution market and therefore there is no need to impose any market share-related restrictions on the cable TV platforms.

In their submission to TRAI’s consultation paper 'Market Structure/Competition in Cable TV services, broadcasters, multi-system operators (MSOs), local cable operators (LCOs), direct to home (DTH) operators, and industry bodies have urged the regulator to adopt light-touch regulation on the issue of market dominance in the cable TV business as there is cut-throat competition in the market among different service providers.

According to the TRAI, the TV distribution market today comprises 70.99 million subscribers of DTH, 73 million subscribers of cable television operators, 2.15 million HITS, and an estimated 38 million users of DD Free Dish. This, the All India Digital Cable Federation (AIDCF), said is sufficient evidence that the TV content distribution industry is highly competitive with multiple players vying for the share of the consumers' wallet.

“Considering the present-day situation in the cable television industry, a stiff competition is already in existence to MSOs from alternate DPOs like DTH, IPTV players and HITS operators as well as the platforms of Free Dish and unlicensed/unregulated OTT platforms,” All India Digital Cable Federation (AIDCF) said in its submission.

The AIDCF also pointed out that there are 67 million Subscription Video on Demand (SVOD) subscribers in India. It added that the unlicensed video and audio streaming services, as well as the OTT platforms, should be accounted for the determination of market dominance.

While stating that there is ample competition amongst all the players in the broadcasting sector and any kind of monopoly is not prevailing in the cable television industry, the AIDCF said that the services offered by the DPOs are perfect substitutes in the market.

The federation also stated that the Competition Commission of India (CCI) is the apex body to monitor and regulate any instance of abuse of market power and anti-competitive arrangements.

The Indian Broadcasting and Digital Foundation (IBDF) said that there is sufficient competition in pan-India Cable Satellite Television Market. It also said that the broadcast sector would be best served by market-enabled competition forces and a very light-touch regulatory approach.

It further stated that government-owned cable operators and entities should not be encouraged. It also suggested that the authority should focus on enforcing compliance of notifications already issued, instead of bringing additional changes with little or no implementation on the ground.

The IBDF also averred that there is no evidence or market-based study to suggest that services like video-based streaming or any new technology-based services are alternate services or to assume substitutability. 

“There is no economic legal rationale or data to suggest that services like video streaming services are alternate services, or that they are in the same relevant market.”

Tata Sky submitted that there is adequate competition in the sector, however, the regulations are asymmetrical as the DTH sector is micro regulated while there is minimal scrutiny for Cable even as DD Free Dish and OTT remain unregulated.

“It is incomprehensible, that when the services being provided and the target audience is the same, with OTT having the capability to relay content exactly in the same manner as is being done by the Distribution 

Platform Operators, the regulatory and pricing restrictions are only applicable to Distribution Platform Operators,” Tata Sky submitted.

It also pointed out that any regulatory and government policy framework should ensure a non-discriminatory approach and a level playing field amongst all stakeholders to promote fair competition and provide equal business opportunity to all.

The DTH operator said that the 20% cross-media restrictions which only apply to DTH players should be either applied uniformly to all platforms or should be done away with completely. It also said that there is an urgent need to regulate LCOs to protect the interests of consumers.

Bharti Telemedia, the DTH arm of Bharti Airtel, said that the regulator should apply the principle of the same service same rule and recommend the same regulatory framework for cable and DTH players besides bringing the OTT platforms within the purview of the existing TRAI regulations and tariff orders.

It also urged the TRAI to ensure that broadcasters follow the 'must provide' principle for all types of distribution platforms including App/OTT. It also noted that the TRAI should ensure that broadcasters follow the downlinking guidelines and refrain from distributing the channels directly to consumers through their owned (directly/indirectly) online/OTT platforms.

While stating that broadcasters are offering pay channels on free to air (FTA) basis on DD Free Dish, the DTH operator suggested that all such channels that are given FTA on some platforms and Paid on some platforms are declared as FTA channels for all distributions platforms.

In response to comments that OTT should be brought under the regulatory framework, the Confederation of India (CCI) submitted that OTT services and TV distribution are different services, therefore, there cannot be regulatory parity. It also argued that competition concerns in one market cannot be the cause for regulation in another market.

The CII also submitted that ex-ante competition regulation without a market assessment throttles innovation instead of promoting competition. Finally, it argued the rise and development of OTT services is not relevant for determining the market dominance of cable TV, including DTH operators, HITS operators, and IPTV operators.

Internet & Mobile Association of India (IAMAI) submitted that video on demand (VOD) and TV are distinct sectors that cannot be considered interchangeable. The IAMAI pointed out that the 2019 Combination Registration Order by the CCI cited multiple reasons and noted that DTH services and OTT services are not substitutable/interchangeable since (i) The viewing experience on handheld sets and other devices are not comparable to TV, and (ii) The prerequisite of high-speed internet connections makes OTTs significantly more expensive.