TRAI & CABLE & DTH

1) There should be a limit to advertisement.If you see it is more than 50% of the time.2) With new scheme Govt will also earn in the name of GST.Finally consumer has to spend more. more  

Without advertisement channels can not survive. But there should be some limit-time between programs. I&B ministry has guidelines, but it seems channels are two steps ahead of them. more  

A Representation already made to the new I&B Minister https://twitter.com/vikkichoudhry/status/1134811281494401024 more  

Dear Sir, advertises in between TV programmes is certainly irritating but do we think about following. 1. In the era when a single cigarette cost more than Rs. 10 we are getting a news or entertainment channel for at as low as Re. 1/ per channel for entire month. Do we think that the cumulative collections from all connection holders will be enough to operate a channel. In the same way we get a daily newspaper at Rs. 3 or 4 that itself has a publishing and distribution cost of more than Rs. 50 per unit. In above context we can imagine that about 99 % of operating cost of a channel is born by advertisers and we the viewer contribute barely 1 % of the cost. Are we ready to bear the entire viewing cost a channel? Will it not become a luxury item once again? 2. We are aware that in 80s radios were almost free from advertisements and a license fee of Rs. 15 for one year was charged to buyer at the time of purchase of radio set and it was supposed that buyer will deposit Rs. 15 each year in post office to use the radio legally. Before Rajeev Gandhi government who abolished it and radios were made free to air and advertisers were made the source of earning for broadcasting operations. Thus, freeing the radio for listener was considered a great relief for common people at that time. 3. We all agree that today there is huge earning from advertises in this business which can be envisaged by mushrooming growth of new channels every year, but we think that advertisers pay channel operators based on the numbers of viewership and to retain viewers they have to improve the quality and accuracy of news otherwise they will lose viewers. If they are barred of earnings from advertisement it may get financed by some other source say donations or subsidy in that condition it may be very difficult to get any news free from biases and quality of news may get deteriorated. More than that if that happens television once again become a status symbol just out of reach from common people. 4. We are getting food not because of quantum of our earnings but because someone works hard to produce it in excess for others, imagine a condition if farmers stop growing food that in excess from self-consumption, we all were living in primitive stage busy in growing / hunting for food only. In view of above do we expect TRAI can do any thing in this regard. I think free to air channels are most expensive than paid channels as we don’t have option to opt them out. Thanks. more  

I agree with you, one thing is true, is that a personal TV should not be a banner for companies’ advertisement. Moreover, channel sellers and govt. controller will come into the line when we will able to do a system reform, you see the negotiable instrument act, and it is very old 1881. Whole Act was constituted by British; this was done to make their own benefit, especially for the benefits of companies and organisation but not for general public. This act needs to be reformed for the benefits of both buyers as well as consumers. After that I hope everyone will get their rights. Simple example I wanted to share to understand the negotiable instrument act is that when we are late for paying a particular bill, we will be charged a fine for late; when service or work delivery is late there is no fine or penalty. Negotiable instrument act gives cover or protect only one side but not both the parties. Think and comments me back. more