BuzzInContent Awards 2021 Winners Announced

Best Media Info

Editor’s Picks

Den Network-Sun row over subscription fee in Delhi gets murkier

While Den says that it has provided all Sun channels on a la carte basis, the broadcaster maintains that the MSO is liable to pay a lump sum amount as it has given the signals to all the subscribers

BestMediaInfo Bureau | Mumbai | August 27, 2015


There seems to be let-down in the feud between Den Networks and Sun Distribution Services over subscription fees in Delhi (Phase 1), with both parties pleading their cases before the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT).

Some of the most notable issues observed in the case include:

Whether the disconnection by respondent (Sun Distribution Services) of its channels on October 4, 2013 was without complying with the TRAI (Telecom Regulatory Authority of India) Regulation.
  1. Whether the petitioner (Den Networks) is liable to pay to the respondent for its channels a lump sum amount or on the basis of channels subscribed by the subscribers.
  2. Whether the petitioner has provided SMS reports to respondent, if not what is the effect as per DAS Regulation?
  3. Whether the respondent has raised invoices to the petitioner.
  4. Whether the respondent is entitled by law to ask for any report/payment for the period prior to signing of the agreement.
  5. Whether the petitioner has deliberately suppressed /concealed information and documents from this tribunal and is accordingly not entitled to relief.
  6. Whether the petitioner is liable to produce the historical CAS data for the period November 2012 till date and to make payments towards the monthly subscription fee to the respondent on the basis of the said true and correct historical data.
  7. Whether at the time of filing of the present petition, the petitioner’s headend was complaint with the provisions of DAS Regulations.
  8. In the event of the petitioner’s failure to provide the said historical CAS data to the respondent, what should be the basis for the petitioner to make payment towards monthly subscription fee?
  9. Whether in view of the petitioner’s failure to provide historical CAS data, the petitioner is liable to pay to the respondent for the entire subscription base of the petitioner in Delhi for relevant period.

A source close to the MSO and the entire legal tussle, said, “While Den is supposed to provide the channels on a la carte basis, Sun has alleged that Den hasn’t provided the channels on a la carte basis, but given them to all the subscribers. Hence, Den is liable to Sun a lump sum fee. However, Den’s stance has been that whatever the subscriber has subscribed to and paid for, they are paying Sun that amount.”

According to the source, there was some disagreement over certain clauses in the a la carte agreement, which Den objected to and so the agreement didn’t materialise.

The source claimed, “There is no outstanding fee because till now Sun has not raised any invoice, while Den has been providing them with subscribers’ reports. Besides, Sun has illegally switched off the channels without giving any notice. Also, Sun had alleged the Den had pirated its signals to other areas, but if that was true, then why have they withdrawn their application?”

Meanwhile, officials from Sun Distribution Services refused to comment on the matter.

Post a Comment