Channel Placement Contract Does Not Entitle Broadcaster To Demand That Distribution Platform Operator Offers Bouquet Of Channels: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has observed that an agreement entered between a broadcaster and Distribution Platform Operators (DPO) for assigning a particular Logical Channel Number/LCN (unique channel number assigned to TV channels) is different from the DPO assuming obligations to make the broadcaster's channels a part of 'bouquet offerings'.For context, bouquet of channels means an assortment of distinct channels offered together as a group or as a bundle. Justice Sachin Datta was considering plea of Associated Broadcasting Company Pvt Ltd (petitioner), which owns the TV9 Network, against interim orders issued by the the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT)."Although, it is true that under Regulation 18(3) and 18(4) of the Interconnection Regulations, 201713, it is a mandatory obligation of the respondent no.3 (Distribution Platform Operators) to necessarily allot a LCN to each of its channel/s on its platform, evidently, the only purport of the 'Channel Placement Agreement/s' executed between the parties was to assign a particular favourable/preferred LCN to the petitioner(TV9) within its genre for which the consideration was paid by the petitioner. Entering into an agreement for the purpose of assigning a particular LCN (as per the petitioner's preference) is quite different from assuming any obligation to make the petitioner's channel/s a part of the respondent no.3's 'bouquet offerings' to its subscribers," the court said. The facts of the case are that respondent no.3/Distribution Platform Operators (DPO) disconnected petitioner's channels on 06.06.2024 in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. The petitioner alleged that the DPO discontinued its channels without issuing mandatory disconnection notice under Regulation 17 of the Interconnection Regulations, 2017. On 05.07.2024, TDSAT issued an interim order directing uninterrupted and unhindered transmission of the channels, with the same Logical Channel Number (LCN), same position and same packages. The petitioner then alleged that the respondent failed to comply with the directions and issued a notice for migration of the petitioner's channel. The migration notices issued by DPO was challenged before TDSAT. TDSAT issued interim orders prohibiting the respondent from giving effect to the migration notices.DPO then filed applications for modifying the said orders. In its impugned order, TDSAT directed DPO/respondent no.3 to offer the petitioner's channels to its subscribers on a-la-carte basis (offering the channel individually on a standalone basis).The TDSAT observed that a DPO can always alter their bouquet as contemplated under Regulation 11(1) of the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Services Standards of Quality of Service and Consumer Protection (Addressable Systems) Regulations 2017 (QoS Regulations 2017). It further observed that as per Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Services Interconnection (Addressable systems) Regulations 2017 (Interconnection Regulations 2017), no broadcaster can demand packaging of the channel in any particular bouquet. The petitioner relying on Channel Placement Agreement with the DPO, contended that the purpose of the agreement was not only for placement of the channel but also for making its channels part of all the bouquets offered by the DPO. It argued that Regulation 3(4) of the Interconnection Regulations 2017 does not bar, rather permits the parties to enter into Channel Placement Agreements on the basis of mutual negotiations and therefore any such channel placement agreement entered into between the parties is valid and enforceable. The High Court noted that TDSAT gave reasons for modifying the pre-existing interim orders. It noted that the impugned order took note of Interconnection Regulations 2017 and came to the conclusion that it prohibits a broadcaster from proposing, stipulating or demanding, directly or indirectly, packaging of its channel in any particular bouquet offered by the Distributor of television channels to subscribers. It observed that the purpose of the Agreement between the parties was to assign a particular favourable/preferred LCN to the petitioner within its genre and not to offer bouquets of channels.The Court further stated that the past inclusion of the petitioner's channels as part of bouquets in itself does not in itself create any legal right in favour of the petitioner for continuation of the same arrangement. It noted that the TDSAT's order correctly noted that under Regulation 11 of the QoS Regulations 2017, it is permissible for the DPO to discontinue any existing bouquet available on its platform by giving prior notice to the subscribers by running scrolls and displaying a notice on the customer care programming service.With these observations, the Court upheld the TDSAT's order and dismissed the TV9 Network's petition. Case title: Associated Broadcasting Company Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 438(W.P.(C)...

Channel Placement Contract Does Not Entitle Broadcaster To Demand That Distribution Platform Operator Offers Bouquet Of Channels: Delhi HC

Sanjana Dadmi

Tags