Pay channels caught napping

Normally not one to be shaken, the broadcasting industry was caught napping by the short injunction order issued by the Andhra Pradesh High court, restraining all pay channels from charging subscription fees for channels that consumers do not want to see. What is most surprising is that some of the leading channels were not even aware that such a hearing was on in one of the courts in the country.

The judgement was delivered on a public interest petition filed by a resident of Andhra Pradesh against the information and broadcasting ministry, Prasar Bharti, Doordarshan (the state-owned television channel) and major pay channels such as Star TV, Sony Entertainment Television, ESPN and Turner Broadcasting (to name a few). The petition demanded that the pay channels be stopped, under section 151 of the civil procedure code, from charging subscription fees from consumers for those channels that the latter do not want to watch.

Under the current system that is largely prevalent across the country, consumers pay a flat rate of Rs 100 to Rs 300 per month to cable operators for a bundle of up to 70 channels, both encrypted pay channels as well as free-to-air. The pay channels on the other hand have no direct contact with the consumer, but collect the subscriber fees from the cable networks directly.

In the interim judgement delivered by it, pending final disposal of the hearing, the Andhra Pradesh court has said, "The respondents, which in this case are the broadcasting companies, are restrained from charging for the pay channels which the petitioner/subscriber does not propose to subscribe, irrespective of the fact whether the subscriber is participating through the cable operator or not."

According to Mr. P.D Gandhi, vice president finance and legal affairs and company secretary of Sony Entertainment (which was aware of the case), "The order was passed ex-parte and we are going to seek some more time." Mr. Gandhi is however confident of tackling the case and getting it suitably amended in favour of the industry. He says that the case has been addressed to the wrong set of people i.e. the broadcasters. "We do not deal with the consumers directly. That is in the cable operators' domain". He adds that, if anything, it is the cable operator who should be asked to cut off channels the viewer does not want.

However, Star TV has certainly been taken by surprise. It was not aware of the case and did not till the day of the judgement, seen the contents of the petition. When contacted, the Star spokesperson said that the channel had received a copy of the judgement and the channel’s lawyers were looking into it. The channel’s initial reaction, however, is the same as that of Sony TV, in that it is for the cable operator to show or not to show a particular channel.