The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) has issued a consultation paper on a new regulatory framework for the cable TV services, seeking primarily to address the changes in distribution technologies like DTH (direct-to-home), HITS (Headend-In-The-Sky) and IPTV.

The paper, “Restructuring Cable TV“, seeks opinion from stakeholders on various issues in the wake of convergence and technological advancement.

Trai has clearly put the question: ‘Is there a need to modify the Cable Act or Cable Rules?‘

Trai stresses that the technological advancements, convergence, and increasing popularity of value added services and applications “require more vibrant and effective regulation for cable TV industry.”

Trai is known to have received many quality of service complaints, especially in the Cas areas, where the mode has moved from analogue to digital.

Trai says that present eligibility criteria do not clearly define a ‘person‘ as was defined in the original Cable Act, 1995

“It also does not take into account financial strength, technical strength and experience of the applicant to provide cable TV services, says Trai and asks: do you feel that present regulatory framework requires change.

One other critical issue raised in the paper is whether stakeholders believe that more than one operator should be allowed in one area, so as to foster competition, and hence create the base for better subscriber service.

The paper holds that the present cable TV industry is subjected to minimum supervisory guidance and control.

“Do you feel that there is a need to streamline registration process, data collection and monitoring to ensure better cable TV services to customers? Is there a need to have a centralized/ decentralised authority where all the information relating to cable TV sector and also monitoring is managed?” Trai has asked.

Stakeholders who agree with this are required to suggest the structure and scope of work of such an agency.

“Present cable TV registration, the Cable Act and the Cable Rules do not cast any specific responsibility for effective customer grievance redressal. What changes do you suggest to bring in effective consumer grievance redressal mechanism?” is another important issue raised in the paper.

In particular, the regulator has asked for suggestions on a proper regulatory framework on the following issues, among others:

* Correct determination of subscriber base

* Laying a good quality network

* Permission and monitoring of ground-based channels offered by MSOs and LCOs.

On the issue of MSOs, Trai says that they are as of now treated in regulation as cable service sector and has asked whether they should come under a distinct and separate regulation.

On this issue the paper says: “The suggestions may specifically cover, among others, the issues relating to registration of multi-city MSOs, monitoring mechanism, number of MSOs in a city/state etc.”

Trai has also sought suggestions on QoS (quality of service) parameters for non-Cas (conditional access system) areas to address concerns of the customers keeping in view the present status of networks.

In view of technological advancement, convergence, and increasing competition upgradation of cable TV operators network will be desirable; however it may require significant investments, says Trai and asks for suggestions on how cable TV operators can be encouraged to upgrade their network, both in their business interest and in interest of customers to provide better services.

The regulator has asked for comments on whether it is feasible to standardise encryption and subscriber management software.