Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11.1 It has been further averred that the allegation that the answering opposite party is indulging into anti-competitive tie-in arrangements is also contrary to the findings of the report dated 25.01.2010 of the DG in the instant matter. A bare perusal of the report would reveal that it has been specifically acknowledged in the said report that the answering opposite party is the only DTH operator which is providing technical and commercial interoperability and the answering opposite party has also provided CAMs. The said report appreciates the initiative of the answering opposite party to launch CAMs in the open market as well in order to achieve the objective of interoperability. 11.2 The answering opposite party has also raised an objection that the Commission does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. It has been submitted that the complaint in hand pertains to the issues relating to the regulatory positions in the telecommunication and broadcasting industry for which a specific statutory authority has been created and formed under a separate legislation, viz., the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 has established the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) which has been vested with the jurisdiction and responsibility to govern and regulate the telecommunication industry covering telecom, broadcasting and cable TV services which, inter alia, include DTH Broadcasting Services and the jurisdiction to entertain/settle/ resolve any dispute arising out of the same vests with the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) created by the said statute. 11.3 It has been urged by the answering opposite party that DTH Broadcasting Service Licenses are granted by the Central Government under Section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and accordingly, if there is an allegation of non- compliance of any terms & conditions of the licence, the complaint is required to be made to TRAI and it is the function of TRAI to ensure compliance of terms & conditions of the DTH licence.

14.7 It has been submitted that DTH services are similar to cable TV and other types of services such as IPTV and HITS and to the extent that they all involve distribution of multi- channel television programees they are interchangeable and substitutable and hence the Commission should take note of this while making its assessment of the market for the purpose of this investigation.

14.8 Besides, it has been argued that the TRAI has also acknowledged the technical and economic constraints in providing DTH services and in achieving complete technical inter-operability amongst different service providers. 14.9 It has also been stated that the TRAI has sought to ensure effective commercial interoperability by requiring the DTH service providers to give an option to their consumers for obtaining the CPE on outright sale, hire-purchase or rental basis and the answering opposite party has complied with the requirements of the TRAI both in letter and spirit. 14.10 It is also stated that with respect to technical interoperability, the TRAI requires that DTH service providers supply such STBs which conform to the BIS standards and it was submitted the answering opposite party conforms to the said standards and also provides the common interface slot in the STBs.