Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3.29 On the issue of giving/granting preferential treatment to their subsidiaries by Opposite Party No.1 and2, DG has reported that in terms of Clause 3.2 of TRAI Regulation all the broadcasters have to deal on non-discrimination basis and to file RIO in terms of Regulation 13.2. Any person aggrieved on account of discrimination by the broadcaster or its agent can get its grievances redressed by approaching appropriate forum i.e. TDSAT for redressal of his grievances. Thus, the allegation of Informant of granting preferential treatment to its group of companies thereby forcing the small players to shut down their business or join hands with them does not hold good as there is an obligation on the part of JV to must provide all the channels to MSOs/ DTHOs, however, there is no must carry obligation for downstream players.

11. It is further noted that due to the TRAI‟s Inter Connect Regulation clause 3.6, the broadcasters or the aggregators have to supply the channels on a non-discriminatory basis to all the distributors and in case of any discrimination the concerned aggrieved party may approach to the TDSAT. Further, as per the said regulations, every broadcaster is required to file with TRAI its Reference Interconnect Offer (RIO) and interconnect agreement with MSOs / LCOs and the same are reviewed by the TRAI. Due to the said regulations, the distribution of the channels and their pricing by the broadcasters/aggregators is totally regulated. Therefore, the Commission notes that the apprehension of the Informant, regarding the preferential treatment to their own MSOs and LCOs by the Opposite Parties is not genuine.