New cable TV Tariffs to put a hole in your pocket!

Are you saving money with this New TRAI rule?

  • Yes (Saved more than ₹100/mo)

  • No (My bills have increased)

  • Don't see any change! I pay the same


Results are only viewable after voting.

meetdilip

Well-Known Member
Adept
Oct 9, 2011
668
105
81
My cable operator told that current plan will continue in January. He will give a list of new channels in February. If I didn't do anything they will offer their special combo by default. Which is lesser than what I am paying now.
 

vivek.krishnan

If you cant see the green dot, I'm offline :P
Veteran
Dec 18, 2009
7,424
1,655
253
Ghatkopar, Mumbai
plus.google.com
In continuation with what I have written before.
In simple terms earlier the operators charged flat fee for a channel or a bouquet of channels. Then came the HD access fee thing where again they charged some flat fee annually or monthly for HD channel access if that channel was already in your package.
Then came the special Services stupidty. lets keep that aside for now.

Now they are asked to charge network capacity fees which is calculated based on number of channels subscribed. But d2h only transmits 1 channel at a time right? Not all channels at once. The STB decodes the freq based on the requested channel and displays the video on output. So they should either be charging only for 1 channel's network capacity or they should allow users to view multiple channels at once from same STB without any multi TV charge.
These kind of absurd charges just makes my belief more stronger that all this is being done to help JIO.
When JIO fiber will launch as a paid service(currently its free). They will not be liable to charge this Network Capacity fee as its a wired service and they are not transmitting OTA its a cable based where they transfer all the data as IP traffic. Not even as video data.
All d2h operators use to shield their services as data and software services to avoid some entertainment tax long time back and poor local cable guys who used analog video channels had to pay those.
Golmaal hain.....
I agree, the HD thing is pure crap. Its the same channel, in HD and we pay more.

Coming to the network capacity fee, I am in 2 minds. Unbundling the system is good, we can see all the costs. Plus great for startups. But, I think the operators are doing their best to screw it, but trying to max out everything. The way I see the TRAI proposal is that its anti operator and anti broadcaster.

I am not sold on this being something to help the Ambani's.
 

Lord Nemesis

Overlord
Veteran
Jun 3, 2005
5,935
2,403
377
If I buy less and have to pay more, I will blame the people who sell it.
Yeah, Most ignorant people do that only as its simple for them to blame the last link in the chain without trying to go deeper and understand the actual reasons.

For example, high fuel prices are blamed on petroleum companies even though the dealer charges only (as of 14th Dec 2018) Rs 35 for petrol including dealer margin of Rs 3.5 and remaining cost is taxes which are steep mostly because the present central govt raised them to keep prices high when the crude prices fell down significantly.

Similarly, they blame Airtel/Vodafone for for not reducing prices when its TRAI that ensures it stays that way. When Airtel slashed prices on SMS which is a very cheap service to run and few others followed suit, TRAI imposed a Rs 1000 crore penalty on them
 
  • Like
Reactions: Julian

Lord Nemesis

Overlord
Veteran
Jun 3, 2005
5,935
2,403
377
The way I see the TRAI proposal is that its anti operator and anti broadcaster.

I am not sold on this being something to help the Ambani's.
Just for the record, TRAI is around to protect the interests of the govt, not of the people. These regulations on DTH are meant to bring better transparency in costing and maximize taxation. Its not doing this with people's interests in mind. They are against bundling because operators offer different channels at different prices and the bundling process involves discounts and takes out the transparency in taxation. If it were up to them and it went as per plan, there would be no bundling at all. They would like the subscriber to pay full cost to subscribe to individual channels they desire and pay tax on it accordingly. You want 5 channels, you pay Rs 100 for it (in addition to distributor costs) and pay tax accordingly.

There is nothing wrong with what broadcasters or at the very least the operator is doing with it now. The operator is passing on the cost of the channels at whatever is decided by broadcaster. So a premium channel like Ten sports which is priced at Rs 25 from broadcaster and sold at Rs 50 by operator would now be charged Rs 25 by operator and a regular channel which is priced at Rs 18 and sold at Rs 10 by operator in a bundling deal would now be charged at Rs 18 and a channel that costs Rs 1 bundled for free would be charged at Rs 1 and taxed.

In the past, protecting the interests of the govt included protecting the interests of the national carrier BSNL, but the present govt gives more importance to Reliance, so TRAI was forced to work for their interests too. Otherwise there would be no chance hell that Airtel or any other operator would have been allowed to get away with the things that Jio was allowed to get away with, but in this case at least, I don't see how it will benefit Reliance. But people are definitely in for a shock if they think that a govt regulator would do anything with the interests of the citizens in mind. They will let anybody fleece the hide off your back as long as it helps the govt get its tax revenues.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Julian

rdst_1

Well-Known Member
Veteran
May 10, 2009
2,507
1,110
253
31
It will be interesting to see if I can subscribe and unsubscribe to A-la-carte channels at will.
I mean, like Pay-per-view, I would only subscribe to the sports channels when the matches I want to watch are on. That would mean maximum 8-10 days in a month. If they are going to charge at pro-rata daily basis, then someone like me can bring the pricing way down as my TV watching is mostly limited to sports on the weekends.
 

technofast

Well-Known Member
Adept
Aug 26, 2011
336
81
67
Chennai
It will be interesting to see if I can subscribe and unsubscribe to A-la-carte channels at will.
I mean, like Pay-per-view, I would only subscribe to the sports channels when the matches I want to watch are on. That would mean maximum 8-10 days in a month. If they are going to charge at pro-rata daily basis, then someone like me can bring the pricing way down as my TV watching is mostly limited to sports on the weekends.
As for airtel DTH that is not possible. Checked with them and any A-la-carte channels once subscribed need to be paid for the whole month even if discontinued in the middle.
 

Pat

Well-Known Member
Adept
Oct 11, 2007
1,996
116
152
34
Mumbai
www.inspeero.com
Minimum lock-in for a-la-carte is one month. For me this is a good opportunity to save some money. I see this as a good opportunity to save some money and show the channels your middle-finger by not subscribing to over-priced packs. I, for one, will just opt for Star Plus HD + Sony HD + Colors HD + Sony SIX HD (for cricket) or Star Sports HD. This and all the FTA channels will mean my monthly expense will be < Rs. 250.

FWIW, I think this was a great move by TRAI and if Madras High Court had not intervened, the prices would have come down drastically. I hope TRAI can still get this order overturned in Supreme Court.

PS: I would love if people use this thread for only discussion on topic rather than commenting on politics. There are enough threads already to discuss politics or create a new one for just politics if you feel like.
 

meetdilip

Well-Known Member
Adept
Oct 9, 2011
668
105
81
Why should I complain when I am getting 150 channels for ₹ 50 less than what I am paying now ? I think whoever did it, did a great thing. TRAI introduced pay per second just like this.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Julian

om nom nom
Veteran
Jul 31, 2008
1,829
718
201
37
Navi Mumbai
Can someone tell something. How can the price go up when we use lesser no. of channels than before ?
I think we should skip all paid channels for a couple of months. They will see sense and make them free to air.
Why should I complain when I am getting 150 channels for ₹ 50 less than what I am paying now ? I think whoever did it, did a great thing. TRAI introduced pay per second just like this.
So you're not just an ignoramus, but a liar and hypocrite as well. But this isn't new, we've seen your rabid illogical posts elsewhere as well.
 

Lord Nemesis

Overlord
Veteran
Jun 3, 2005
5,935
2,403
377
Why should I complain when I am getting 150 channels for ₹ 50 less than what I am paying now ? I think whoever did it, did a great thing. TRAI introduced pay per second just like this.
^^ Then why were you whining about the cost of pay channels. If you believe TRAI acted in your best interests, then you should also agree to their call on the premium channels, right? So, if you are so happy and content, why don't you just shut up and pay Rs 50 less for the 150 channels and be done? Let others who want to discuss further, do it. You have every right to be ignorant and/or even be stupid enough to believe that TRAI does things in the interests of the people, but you don't get to put decide what can be discussed here. Leave it to the mods to step in if the discussion goes off topic.

With regard to the 1 sec billing scheme that you are happy about, TRAI merely mandated that there should be at least one plan in the operators portfolio that is billed per sec. However they allowed the operators to set the tariff for it different/higher than per min plans. This mandate was based on the study that people are likely to make calls more if they are charged per sec plan and guess why they want people to make use of the phones more often for outgoing voice calls? Because, whenever you make a call and get billed or buy talk time, govt will get taxes.

Just not so long ago, this TRAI came very close to legalizing the OTT tariff system whereby an operator can block your key data apps like WhatsApp, Skype, Facebook etc and charge you separately for it on top of the data plan. The telecom lobby was so cocksure of getting it passed that some of them even started offering such plans. It required a massive push back from the people to stop it. Same for net neutrality in general and even now sneaky attempts are being made to put holes in it and being pushed back. Guess how all that massive push back came from? It started with people venting their frustrations online. It is the least you can do. Whining about such issue's is better than shutting up and asking others to shut up.
 

RS4

Well-Known Member
Veteran
May 16, 2010
1,893
261
123
India
For the people who are following this thread for facts: TRAI will be in Supreme Court this week to get that important 15% clause reinstated in the Original order which was struck down by Madras High Court favouring the broadcasters like Star. Basically the pricing between channel packs like Star Value pack and Alacarte cannot have more than 15% difference.

This 15% clause was the only thing which would have lowered Alacarte channel pricing to cheap levels, the alacarte pricing has already come down from the highs of Rs 75 to now Rs 19 for popular HD channels and after this 15% clause is reinstated prices will fall by another 50%. The old DTH 400-500 channels packs are the biggest scam and it is good the TRAI is booting this thing out.
 

bigbyte

Well-Known Member
Adept
May 14, 2007
1,194
99
152
The current pricing regime when the DTH/cable operator is forced to offer only the broadcaster bouquets may not be suitable for all. Every broadcaster will offer most discount with it's largest pack. Now any subcscriber who like only say sports and english movies will be at disadvantage as there won't be a genre based bouquet containing channels of same genre across different broadcasters.
Moreover, at current pricing level the bill is surely going to increase. Just take a look at TRAI suggested bouquet, the first bouquet priced at 321 plus taxes i.e 378.78 contains only major Hindi GEC, sports channel only from star network and absolutely no english GEC/movies channels. None of them are HD channel.

In previous pricing regime, you could have close to 70 HD channels ( all Hindi GEC and movies in HD, all English GEC in HD, most info channels in HD, most sports channels in HD, some regional HD channels) plus some FTA channels ( Airtel 99 plan topped with MAX HD 225 top up, costing only 324).

Broadcaster Channel pricing needs to be brought down by at least 50-60% else most channels will loose customers. Sports channels will get subscription only during major events. And with more than 100 packs to choose from, it will be a headache of subscriber to design a suitable pack.
 

pratikb

Well-Known Member
Adept
Mar 2, 2011
2,018
179
102
Looking at this thread and the new e-commerce policy, I realized, that now Mota bhai is looking to make a foray into both these fields, the govt is suddenly keen on shutting down loopholes and making things more transparent so that he gets a level playing field. All this is being done under the garb of transparency of pricing details for the subscriber but it actually means DTH operators can no longer enter into fixed amount deals with broadcasters. Such a disgrace.
So you mean mota bhai acted via madras high court to get this on his favour?
 

Lord Nemesis

Overlord
Veteran
Jun 3, 2005
5,935
2,403
377
For the people who are following this thread for facts: TRAI will be in Supreme Court this week to get that important 15% clause reinstated in the Original order which was struck down by Madras High Court favouring the broadcasters like Star. Basically the pricing between channel packs like Star Value pack and Alacarte cannot have more than 15% difference.

This 15% clause was the only thing which would have lowered Alacarte channel pricing to cheap levels, the alacarte pricing has already come down from the highs of Rs 75 to now Rs 19 for popular HD channels and after this 15% clause is reinstated prices will fall by another 50%. The old DTH 400-500 channels packs are the biggest scam and it is good the TRAI is booting this thing out.
Wrong interpretation. Here is what TRAI asked for.

upload_2019-1-2_17-18-1.png


Basically, the TRAI is against the concept of bundling and wants pricing transparency if providers do bundle channels. As part of this.

1. They have setup rules against bundling free channels with pay channels.
2. The MRP of the bundle must be clearly indicated by broadcaster.
3. The MRP of a bundle should not be less than 85% the of the sum of cost of individual channels in that bundle.

So, its the other way around. if the clause is reinstated, the broadcasters will be required to change the cost of bundles so that they within 85% of the cost of individual channels in that pack.
The clause is made to discourage steep discounts on bundles.

For example, if they release a bundle of 5 sports channels, its cost must be between Rs 80.75 and Rs 95. They cannot offer it at less than Rs 80.75.[DOUBLEPOST=1546430873][/DOUBLEPOST]

Here is a annexure from TRAI's document on how bundles are to be treated.

upload_2019-1-2_17-37-30.png
[DOUBLEPOST=1546434430][/DOUBLEPOST]Here is an example.

Below pack costs Rs 145 for the bundle, but adding up the individual channels costs Rs 280. So, if the clause struck off by High court is reinstated,StarTV would be required to change the bundle price to a minimum of 280 x 85% = Rs 238. The increase would mean higher taxes to govt.

upload_2019-1-2_18-33-1.png
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: adventureguy

adder

Well-Known Member
Veteran
Jul 8, 2007
3,344
220
153
Exactly, this 15 percent discount will increase the price of bouqet/channel bundle, unless the broadcaster drastically reduce hte price of al carte to match the bundle price, which I doubt. They would be happy to increase the bundled price, if anything Trai is government and broadcaster friendly.

But doesn't the rule state that you can have a one day lock in period, as mentioned in some dth forums.
 

skoka123

Well-Known Member
Adept
May 2, 2008
409
114
132
Wrong interpretation. Here is what TRAI asked for.

View attachment 78207

Basically, the TRAI is against the concept of bundling and wants pricing transparency if providers do bundle channels. As part of this.

1. They have setup rules against bundling free channels with pay channels.
2. The MRP of the bundle must be clearly indicated by broadcaster.
3. The MRP of a bundle should not be less than 85% the of the sum of cost of individual channels in that bundle.

So, its the other way around. if the clause is reinstated, the broadcasters will be required to change the cost of bundles so that they within 85% of the cost of individual channels in that pack.
The clause is made to discourage steep discounts on bundles.

For example, if they release a bundle of 5 sports channels, its cost must be between Rs 80.75 and Rs 95. They cannot offer it at less than Rs 80.75.[DOUBLEPOST=1546430873][/DOUBLEPOST]

Here is a annexure from TRAI's document on how bundles are to be treated.

View attachment 78208[DOUBLEPOST=1546434430][/DOUBLEPOST]Here is an example.

Below pack costs Rs 145 for the bundle, but adding up the individual channels costs Rs 280. So, if the clause struck off by High court is reinstated,StarTV would be required to change the bundle price to a minimum of 280 x 85% = Rs 238. The increase would mean higher taxes to govt.

View attachment 78209
On contrary the cost of the individual channels will go down as people will go only for a la carte thus diminishing the power of the broadcasters to push useless channels. Let's see. Time will tell.
 

vivek.krishnan

If you cant see the green dot, I'm offline :P
Veteran
Dec 18, 2009
7,424
1,655
253
Ghatkopar, Mumbai
plus.google.com
Exactly, this 15 percent discount will increase the price of bouqet/channel bundle, unless the broadcaster drastically reduce hte price of al carte to match the bundle price, which I doubt. They would be happy to increase the bundled price, if anything Trai is government and broadcaster friendly.

But doesn't the rule state that you can have a one day lock in period, as mentioned in some dth forums.
If they (broadcasters and operators ) collude, and they will, the prices will be kept higher.
 

Lord Nemesis

Overlord
Veteran
Jun 3, 2005
5,935
2,403
377
On contrary the cost of the individual channels will go down as people will go only for a la carte thus diminishing the power of the broadcasters to push useless channels. Let's see. Time will tell.
Well, that is what some people are hoping, but time and again, it has been proven in numerous instances that such regulation doesn't help in driving down prices. They will simply shut down the channels that are not being subscribed enough rather than reduce prices.

For example, there is pricing regulation for farmers to ensure they get some min price for their crops. What actually happens is that no broker will buy at more than the min price set by govt and hence they end up selling for min price or risk losing that too. Basically min price becomes the max price.

Same thing here. You already see that happening. TRAI gave some max price caps and all service providers settled on those prices only. Max price set by regulator becomes the min price.
 

vivek.krishnan

If you cant see the green dot, I'm offline :P
Veteran
Dec 18, 2009
7,424
1,655
253
Ghatkopar, Mumbai
plus.google.com
Well, that is what some people are hoping, but time and again, it has been proven in numerous instances that such regulation doesn't help in driving down prices. They will simply shut down the channels that are not being subscribed enough rather than reduce prices.

For example, there is pricing regulation for farmers to ensure they get some min price for their crops. What actually happens is that no broker will buy at more than the min price set by govt and hence they end up selling for min price or risk losing that too. Basically min price becomes the max price.

Same thing here. You already see that happening. TRAI gave some max price caps and all service providers settled on those prices only. Max price set by regulator becomes the min price.
We are talking about crap channels, if you are paying for a bouquet which has it, its a waste already. You just did not have an option as ala carte was more. You are thinking in terms of quantity. I would say shut down the useless channels and put up more quality ones.

As for the issues that you are highlighting regarding pricing, those are tangible assets, while to me these TV channels are intangible assets.
 

Lord Nemesis

Overlord
Veteran
Jun 3, 2005
5,935
2,403
377
That is exactly what TRAI wants. They want more people to subscribe and at higher costs by going for ala carte which would mean that returns to govt will also be maximized. It should be very clear from TRAI's wording posted earlier that they want people to pay more (at least 85% of the individual channel cost) even if they go for bundles.

For example, in the star network channel pack I posted if you just want 10-12 key premium channels (which would usually be the costliest ones of the bunch) from that list of 26, it will cost you close to Rs 200 compared to the bundle price of 145. They want you to either subscribe to the 10-12 channels you watch in ala carte fashion and pay close to Rs 200 or get the whole bundle and Pay Rs 238 (85% of individual price). They don't want you paying Rs 145 for the bundle. This is exactly why they are appealing the high court decision.

If anyone reads though the background section on TRAI's proposal, it would be made quite apparent that consumer was not even considered a factor or stake holder. It was never meant to benefit consumers. The primary motivation is pricing transparency which is required for taxation by govt more than anything else and secondly to help new players that enter this market. By forcing uniform pricing from broadcaster for every operator, there is no USP going with any particular operator as the pricing till boil down to the same levels.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: swatkats