GREAT NEWs HOPE IT SEE LIGHT OF THE DAY

[Vivek Sharma]

CHECT THIS NEWS ITEM THIS IS INDEED GREAT


Trai proposes BIS standards for advanced DTH



Trai proposes BIS standards for advanced DTH
BS Reporter / New Delhi January 30, 2008Ignoring the concerns of over 4.5 million direct-to-home (DTH) consumers, broadcast regulator Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) has urged the government to direct the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) to formulate technical standards for set top boxes (STBs) for advanced DTH technologies adopted by the yet-to-be launched DTH services from Reliance Entertainment and Bharti Telemedia.

This means exising consumers will not be able to access DTH services from companies like Big DTH (Reliance ADA Group) and Bharti DTH on their existing STBs as both the new DTH entrants use MPEG-4 transmission technology that is superior to MPEG-2 technology used by dish TV and Tata Sky.

According to current DTH regulations, all DTH service providers should provide set top boxes to consumers (device that decoded DTH signals) that are technically interoperable. This means that a consumer having a Tata Sky set top box can watch dish TV, Reliance, Sun Direct or Bharti's DTH services via the same STB.

The DTH rules state that any DTH set top box should be able to access the DTH services from any other DTH service provider. But citing the difficulties associated with upgrading millions of set top boxes already sold to the subscribers, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) has made two recommendations.

One, the issue of revision of standards for DTH set top boxes should be taken up by the Government with BIS.

Two, the revision of standards should be prospective and should apply to DTH subscribers who are enrolled after six months from the date of such revision.

Such revision should not compulsorily require the DTH operators to upgrade the STBs of existing subscribers to conform to revised standards, though they would be free to do so on their own, Trai said in its recommendation.

Making a clarification on the use to DTH services to cable operators, Trai has recommended that the DTH operators cannot provide their transmission to any cable operators as proposed by another technology called Head-end in the Sky or HITS.

The HITs model, recently proposed by Trai, allows HITS operators to send digital quality channels via satellite to the cable operators instead of the consumers. Both DTH and HITS are similar technologies except that end user in DTH is the consumer while its the cable operators in HITS.

 

[Vivek Sharma]

ALSO CHECK OUT THIS ITEM ALSO
Indiantelevision.com's > Digital Edge > Trai rules out 'must carry' on DTH, recommends STB interoperability
Trai rules out 'must carry' on DTH, recommends [COLOR=blue! important][COLOR=blue! important]STB[/COLOR][/COLOR] interoperability
Indiantelevision.com Team(30 January 2008 5:00 pm)
NEW DELHI: The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) in its latest recommendations has held that there is no "must carry" implied in the regulation related to DTH operations, adding that subscribers must be given the option of technical interoperability of set-top boxes (STBs) upon changing the [COLOR=blue! important][COLOR=blue! important]service [COLOR=blue! important]provider[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR].
Trai has recommended to the government of India that no DTH service provider be bound to carry all the channels offered by broadcasters as part of their bouquet, and said that the DTH provider is not a seeker of channels.
Rather, it says that the broadcasters are the ones who seek to be given the platform for their channels to be provided to subscribers. Trai says that the words in Clause 7.6 ("The Licensee shall provide access to various content providers/channels on a non-discriminatory basis") does not imply a "must carry clause" though Zee Turner, in a case in the sector tribunal, had argued that "must carry" is implied as a license condition.
Trai has pointed out the Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal's (TDSAT) judgement in the Zee Vs Tata Sky case has held that it could not read a "must carry" provision within the ambit of Clause 7.6 of the regulation.
"The phrase 'must carry' has not been used in the DTH license agreement," Trai has clarified.
It also says that "because of transponder capacity constraints, it is technically not feasible for the DTH service providers to carry all the channels on the DTH platform as there are nearly 312 TV channels permitted under uplinking/ downlinking guidelines by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting."
In the recommendation, Trai has quoted TDSAT as saying that a "must carry" provision is "anti consumer."
The TDSAT had held, "If a DTH operator has to take all the channels of every broadcaster, it may not be physically possible to do so. Moreover, if every channel has to be taken it means that it will have to be paid for.
"This will increase the cost for the DTH operator. Ultimately, the cost will get passed on to the consumer.
"If DTH becomes expensive consumers will keep away from it. It will not be able to compete with CAS or cable. Thus, such an interpretation of clause 7.6 may be anti consumer."
Trai says that the market forces and competition will ensure that the DTH platforms will select the channels in a non-discriminatory manner so as to maximise satisfaction for the viewers.
"The commercial terms will be accordingly determined by the DTH service provider. The DTH platform has to carry the popular content of competing broadcasters also so as to ensure non-discriminatory and transparent treatment," Trai says.
It argues that if a DTH platform is not sensitive to its subscribers in terms of content and price, the subscribers have the choice of subscribing to other DTH operators, cable operators or [COLOR=blue! important][COLOR=blue! important]IPTV[/COLOR][/COLOR].
While the issue of "must carry" is a contention between broadcasters and DTH operators, the issue of interoperability is a contention encompassing rival DTH players as well as cable and IPTV service providers.
Trai says, "The requirement of technical interoperability essentially protects the interest of the subscribers by enabling them to shift from one DTH service provider to another without having to buy new hardware."
At present, DTH license agreement does not provide for commercial interoperability of set-top boxes.
However, the Direct to Home Broadcasting Services (Standards of Quality of Service and Redressal of Grievances) Regulation, 2007 requires the DTH service providers to give an option to their subscribers for obtaining the DTH hardware on hire purchase or rent basis.
"Thus, the DTH subscribers have an option to change their service provider through commercial interoperability as provided by the quality of service regulation," Trai has recommended.
On that issue, Trai notes, "As of now, the Conditional Access Modules (CAM) are not being supplied by the DTH operators as the Conditional Access Modules (CAM) presently cost almost as much as a new set top box. Therefore, technical interoperability has not been very successful.
"However, it is expected that the new DTH service providers, who may be interested in taking over the DTH subscribers of existing DTH operators, will start making available Conditional Access Modules (CAM). Moreover, presently the DTH market is at a nascent stage with a small subscriber base."
Trai feels that with a small subscriber base, the churn or shift from one service provider to another is going to be even smaller.
"Therefore, the demand for Conditional Access Modules (CAM) is also very limited. Once, the subscriber base of DTH grows and the churn becomes substantial, the demand for Conditional Access Modules (CAM) will also increase and it is expected that increase in volumes will result in drastic fall in prices of Conditional Access Modules (CAM).
"Hence, it is essential to ensure that all the set top boxes have the CI slot mandated by the BIS specifications in order to benefit from the technical interoperability in near future," Trai argues.
Therefore, the Trai recommends that there is no need for doing away with the existing technical interoperability conditions.

 

[gregory house]

Must carry is a nonsensical idea. If it is enforced (TRAI says no, but who listens to it), some one should start a channel called 'Mundan Tv' and cover barber shops 24x7 to show why it is so. As for technical interoperability, I am in two minds about it. Enforcing this guideline will make moving across DTH providers easier. But it will also make it impossible for companies to bring in better technology. Otherwise, TRAI will have to do what it is doing now - shift goalposts every time something happens.TRAI (or the government) should not put in technological barriers in the broadcasting space. If DTH and HITS are similar technologies, why have two licenses for the same? And when there is a shortage of satellite space, why make it worse? This ploy has more to do with business interests than with technology or consumers.

 

[~Hami~]

oh thats a good news.... But as of now, TRAI only recommends it. I want TRAI to enfore those rules as soon as possible :thumbsup:

 

[aju_atma]

thats a good news.... Tata(Sky should upgrade to mpeg4 STB ...

 

[Crazysah]

Ahh... Some good news!

 

[SVK]

Must carry is a nonsensical idea. If it is enforced (TRAI says no, but who listens to it), some one should start a channel called 'Mundan Tv' and cover barber shops 24x7 to show why it is so.

As for technical interoperability, I am in two minds about it. Enforcing this guideline will make moving across DTH providers easier. But it will also make it impossible for companies to bring in better technology. Otherwise, TRAI will have to do what it is doing now - shift goalposts every time something happens.

TRAI (or the government) should not put in technological barriers in the broadcasting space. If DTH and HITS are similar technologies, why have two licenses for the same? And when there is a shortage of satellite space, why make it worse? This ploy has more to do with business interests than with technology or consumers.

Technical interoperability is possible only if TRAI force all operators to use common encryption & video compression technology, which is not happening at moment as each operator is using different CAS. Other option like providing CA module interface like DISHTV STB, but by this STB may able to receive interactive services from operator. For this TRAI can propose that basic channel reception should be allowed on any STB with CA module interfaces and for special services customer can purchase STB from operator
DTH & HITS are different concepts and hence there is need for different license

 

[SVK]

For more info on HITS visit: https://broadband.forum/direct-home-cable-fm-iptv-television/22310-hits-details/#post155519

 

[power]

Is Mpeg-4 better than Mpeg-2 ? I think they are just formats and quality is not affected by either . Interoperability will be a boon for customer but at the same time make it hard to introduce new features .

 

[scorpion484]

Is Mpeg-4 better than Mpeg-2 ? I think they are just formats and quality is not affected by either . Interoperability will be a boon for customer but at the same time make it hard to introduce new features .
Picture Quality of MPEG-2 is better than MPEG-4 as compression is less plus one major difference is that while changing the channel MPEG-4 STB takes more time than MPEG-2 STB.