[Reader-list] trade practices around cable tv industry

[Lokesh]

  Over the last two years i have been researching the trade practices around 
Cable TV Industry. Apart from following up the entire CAS issue in the last 
year, I have also been looking at the following compomemts of the Cable Tv 
indistry: like the cable operators, distributors and Cable TV Operators 
associations, etc. based on my ongoing research, I have written some notes on 
my observations and perceptions of the cable industry. 

looking forward to comment

lokesh
(Researcher-PPHP, Sarai)

--------------------------------------------------------

  
The Question of CAS: contradictions galore !

It is suitable to enter the field of Cable TV Industry by interrogating the 
reasons, the resistance and the support around the implementation of CAS 
(Conditional Access System) and most importantly the hullabaloo created by 
the same. Some of the questions that we will try and examine here are: Why 
does the market, which claims to be free and competitive in its nature, need 
to resort to Law? How does one comprehend the interference of the state in 
the market by way of the Law? It is not at all surprising then if the 
government holds suspicious ground against the market especially when the 
Ministry of Disinvestment is heard saying, "It is not the business of the 
government to do business". The bet though is that finally it is the consumer 
who is at the receiving end of this chaos. It is clear enough that it is the 
government who has to ultimately step in whenever there is a crisis in the 
relationship that binds the market with consumer. Ironically, it is not the 
government that is responsible for this crisis, but indeed the creation of a 
'new media' space. The introduction of the Cable TV Industry is inevitably 
responsible for producing one such crisis-ridden situation, considering the 
far-reaching effects it has on the cultural, social and economic fronts.

Ever since its inception, this industry has developed at its own pace, in 
accordance to the rules of the market and the logic that governs capital, 
keeping itself at bay from the overbearing interference of the Law and the 
State. The rules of the market place and the logic that governs capital more 
often than not challenge the limitations of law and if one were to quote 
Shrikant (Srhikant,  from 1996 to 2002 was a cable operator and now deals in 
scrap and runs a grocers' shop in Majnu Ka Tilla, for more information read 
the article A Brief Biography Of  a Cable Operator. ) on this, then there is 
a perpetual fear of being proved 'illegal' in such a situation. An 
interesting facet here is that for the longest time possible, there were no 
signs of the Law and the State prowling over the situation. Infact, it was 
only in 1995 that with great difficulty the Cable TV Industry even got the 
recognition of a small- scale industry. All that there was in the name of 
legality, was a formal 'registration' which was such an easy process that 
getting into the industry was really a child's play. Apart from these 
formalities, there were absolutely no rules and regulations to monitor an 
industry worth thousands and crores of rupees, leave aside resolving everyday 
struggles, conflicts and tensions. If looked at within reasonable parameters, 
this is truly a natural course of development for a market place.

To get an impression that I'm suggesting any kind of an anarchic regime when I 
pitch the legal against the illegal in the above mentioned facts, would be a 
gross misinterpretation of the same. All the contemporary spaces to which 
'new media' belongs are pretty much out of bounds for both the law and the 
state. In other words, the kinds of activities that govern the functionality 
of these spaces and the complexity that they entail are for one, completely 
incomprehensible by the state and in areas where they have been able to 
comprehend anything at all, they are not in a position to regulate. Despite 
all this, there is a certain framework of rules and regulations that govern 
the everyday economics of the Cable TV Industry and the fore mentioned new 
spaces and this is definitely the case in certain areas of the field to say 
the least. This is precisely the basis on which the everyday of these 
so-called illegal activities is carried out and regulated. In a nutshell, it 
is this networking that is responsible for regulating the various aspects of 
new media and also one of the most crucial nodes of this process and study.

The time when I was in the last phase of my conversations with Shrikant, was 
also the time when the Cable Industry had pretty much done away with him. The 
formulation of a basic framework for CAS- to be able to regulate the Industry 
better- coming out of conversations of an 'addressible system' was also being 
done at the same time. Basically, it all started in 2002. At the time, the 
Union Minister for Information and Broadcasting Smt. Sushma Swaraj,  at very 
short notice called for the formation of a 'task force' for immediate 
implementation of a Cable TV Act. This task force comprised of multi-system 
operators (MSO), independent operators, broadcasters, producers and various 
representatives of cable operators. After three meetings of this task force, 
a new framework for the Act was suggested. Interestingly enough, the actual 
story dates a little way back. It was roughly around April-May 2002, which is 
also the time when Shrikant was being ousted from the trade only to get in 
another competitor, that there was a meeting of multi-system operators, 
broadcasters and distributors held to discuss the falling graph of profits 
within the trade owing to a perpetually growing competition in the field. One 
gets a somewhat clear picture of the extent of this rivalry within the trade 
when one speaks to an employee called Deepak working with Siti Cable. He 
says: "Due to heavy competition, the situation was so critical that you would 
provide a connection in a certain locality at night and the wire would be cut 
in a 100 pieces when u saw it in the morning. A multitude of operators 
functioning at the same time would make it nearly impossible for one to 
figure out or even track down the competitor who is responsible for this".

The consumer though was benefiting from this situation, which is usually the 
case when there is such heavy competition in the market. They were getting to 
watch cable at either very cheap rates or even nearly free, though every once 
in a while they were deprived of this advantage when the wires would be cut 
resulting in no cable at home. The owner of 'Model Town Cable Communication' 
Mr. Bharti had some interesting insights to offer when asked to comment on 
the fierce competition as well as on what cable operators thought of each 
other. He said: "That day was just like a match between India and Pakistan. 
Everyone was on their feet and was doing the rounds. The WIN ones, the IN 
ones and those belonging to SITI; they were all there! Now when all the 
thieves were on the move, who would cut cables?" Hence, all these people who 
organised the meeting to get rid of the ever-increasing menaces in the trade 
ultimately took refuge in some self-service! and devised a whole new set of 
regulations for themselves, a brief outlaying of which I have done in my 
previous article.

Anyway, the results of that meeting proved to be quite far-sighted for the 
Cable TV Industry. The MSO got utmost power by monopolising the IRD. The 
policy of not appointing any new operators, not giving IRDs to self-employed 
operators as well as by dividing areas in terms of localities, the trade 
witnessed a different yet special kind of a formation of a monopoly within 
it. This monopoly was established on localities and not the trade itself. 
This led to a sudden hike in the cable tariffs for the consumers. This is 
when the consumers started protesting against companies and the cable 
operators. With this also started the process of getting CAS into action. At 
the time when the idea of bringing CAS into the industry was being mulled 
over, it was being considered as a boon for the consumers. To a certain 
extent this was true but the real story behind the scenes pointed to a very 
different set of affairs, benefactors, losers, ulterior motives and what have 
you! Before one gets into dire straits over the issue of CAS, it is better to 
get a broad picture of what exactly CAS is all about, something that over a 
period of a year has given sleepless nights to broadcasters, cable operators, 
advertising agencies, producers, etc.! The Union Minister for Information and 
Broadcasting, Ravishankar Prasad has certainly released the Genie of CAS out 
of the bottle but interestingly enough, instead of carrying out it's master's 
wishes, it's now ready to lock everyone back in the bottle and just vamoose 
from the scene for good !!!

>>What is CAS ?

CAS or 'Conditional Access System' is such a provision through which the cable 
tv consumer can choose to watch only/any desired channels and therefore also 
pay only for the same and no more. Part 4 of the Cable TV (regulation) 
Ammendment Act incorporates the changes regarding the same. This is how, in 
2002, the State has tried to get an otherwise 'illegal' cable tv trade under 
its regulation, by procuring for it a legal status. On 14th January 2003, the 
government, by issuing a guideline, planned to implement CAS in the four 
metropolitans within a period of six months.


>>Important points of the Cable Network Regulation Ammendment Act     
     2003     

Under the Cable Network Regulation Act 2003, there are two clauses for the 
viewing of channels. It's evident that earlier the consumers had the 
convenience of watching both, the free-to-air as well as paid channels after 
paying a certain fixed amount of money. But now all the channels have been 
divided into two categories.

1.The first category would have a minimum of 30 channels for which the 
consumer 
Would have to pay a monthly amount of Rs.72/-, alongside the service charges 
and the entertainment tax. Channels which don't charge any money from their 
consumers in return of their broadcast are termed free-to-air channels. The 
number of these channels would be anything between 30-60 in the first 
category. These channels would include information regarding various fields 
such as entertainment, education, sports, news, etc.
    
2.The second category would have paid channels. Paid channels meaning those 
for which the consumers have to pay money to the broadcasters. For these 
channels the operator would collect a fixed amount of money from the 
consumers and further it to either the broadcasters or the multi-system 
operators.

3.The number of the free channels would vary from state to state.

4.The Act has talked about an 'addressible system' (CAS has been born out of 
this). This is related to one such electronic gadget with the help of which 
the consumer can watch channels of his own choice. For this purpose a 'set 
top box' would be required which would act like a medium between the cable 
operator and the consumer. Through this 'set top box', the cable operator 
would get information of the channels that the consumer watches and this 
information will keep getting recorded in the 'Subscriber Management System' 
available with the operators. It is on the basis of this information that the 
operator will collect the adequate amount of money from the consumer.
5.The Act also has a clause that incase a consumer wishes to watch only the 
'free-to-air' channels then he does not need to buy a set top box. This box is 
necessary on ly for the paid channels.

6.All operators would necessarily need to update themselves technologically 
for 
The 'Conditional Access System' or CAS so that they can implement this rule. 
Without this technology, they will not be able to feature the paid channels.

7.All cable operators would need to specify the prices of all 'free-to-air' as 
well as 
'paid channels' separately either in their offices or give them to their 
consumers in a  published format.

8.All cable operators would need to give the following information to 
broadcasters, 
the MSOs and the government :
(a)The total number of cable tv consumers.
(b)Monthly tariff (separately)
(c)A separate count of consumers watching free and paid channels.
(d)Information of the amount that the operators pay to the broadcasters.

9.Under the new rule, the cable tv operators would need to get the technology 
within a period of six months.


>>Scramble between CAS and CASH                                                             

Although the government made big claims of implementing CAS by the 14th of 
July, even till the last date of executing it, there were various kinds of 
myths, doubts and suspicions doing the rounds within the trade and outside of 
it. The indecision about the two varieties of the 'set top box' available- 
digital and analog, what would be done incase there are problems with the box 
at a later level- will it be replaced or will it be mended, the difference in 
the rates of the two varieties, etc. to site just a few. Where on the one 
hand some channels priced the box at Rs.7000/- each, after a few days one got 
to know that it was available at a much lower price while on the other some 
companies promised to give it on a lease costing anything between a 1000/- 
rupees to Rs.2700/- and then charging a tariff on an everyday basis right 
down to Re.1/-. As far as the 'free-to-air' channels were concerned, the 
government promised 30 channels for a flat rate of Rs.72/-, but some other 
companies promised even upto 40-50 channels.

The high price at which 'paid channels' came was also a matter of big concern. 
Where the government had promised that the maximum amount of tariff a 
consumer could pay was Rs.250/-, the actual amount that the consumer ended up 
paying at the end of the day was something like Rs.550/- or even more in 
accordance to the rates prescribed by the broadcasters. The operators were 
found accusing the government saying that while the government prescribed a 
flat rate of Rs.72 for them, it kept the rights of prescribing the rates for 
the paid-channels with itself. In their opinion, this was likely to create 
trouble within the trade.

Even the government stood on shaky ground vis-à-vis their stand on CAS. The 
deadline for the implementation of CAS was immediately forwarded to 1st 
September as soon as as 14th July came close, with the claim that there was a 
shortage in the availability of the set top boxes. Besides, it was said that 
CAS would now be implemented 'zone-wise', which meant that in a certain part 
of the city cable would be accessible only via CAS whereas in the rest of the 
city, cable would be accessible pretty much the way it was till then. This 
led to a lot of dissatisfaction. In another declaration, the government said 
that a 'dual-feed' system be followed, according to which consumers who want 
CAS should be given the same whereas those who don't, be allowed to access 
cable the old way. This declaration invited a lot of wrath on the part of the 
MSOs and the cable operators. By the time September came, the government yet 
again got an opportunity to ignore the issue in the wake of the forthcoming 
Delhi Elections. Madanlal Khurana was too scared that CAS might threaten his 
seat just the way it did during the 'onion issue'. Venkaiah Naidu was 
threatened by the thought that CAS might take an ugly shape just like VAT 
did, and so it eventually did! The Union Government threw cold water over the 
project in Delhi, the State Governments in Kolkata and Mumbai did not take 
action to implement it, and not much difference was made in Chennai even 
after CAS was implemented. As of now, the state of affairs is such that the 
government has still not been able to get a grip over the project and to top 
it all it has invited the wrath of cable operators by fixing a flat rate of 
Rs.72 for the free-to-air channels.

Different parties belonging to the cable tv industry had a great difference of 
opinion regarding the issue of CAS. Some supported it while others resisted. 
Various associations of cable operators in Delhi had their own ways of either 
supporting or resisting the cause. Presidents of 'NTCA', 'Cable Operators 
Federation of India', and 'All India Avishkar Dish and Antenna Committee' 
were all members of the task committee. They supported the Rs.72/- model 
saying that they are in favour of implementing CAS and are against creating 
hurdles in the process. Whereas the 'Cable Network Association' and the 
'Cable Operators United Front' were convinced that such a low tariff was not 
at all enough for the cable operators to sustain themselves and would be the 
end of them, therefore it should be raised atleast upto Rs.180/-. They 
resorted to a lot of protests and demonstrations for the same.

Multi-system operators of all three- 'WIN', 'IN' and 'SITI' have created a 
work-plan which involves investment worth crores of rupees. Incase CAS is not 
implemented, they will have to incur heavy losses but incase it is 
implemented, they hope that once the consumer gets into a contract with one 
of them, it is unlikely that he would want to change his operator and get 
into a new contract because all operators would use set top boxes of 
different companies and therefore the latter would mean buying a new box 
which in any case would not come at a cheap price and why would the consumer 
want to invest twice. Therefore this situation also seems to be in favour of 
CAS. Even the producers are in favour of CAS because they are stocking boxes 
worth crores of rupees and its implementation would give them an opening to a 
hugely potential market.

Operators functioning at the level of individual localities or areas believe 
that they have an uphill task to care of. The consumer already gives them a 
hard time paying for each individual channel and to top it there is the 
'entertainment tax'. This is certainly not going to be an easy job. On the 
other hand the broadcasters are perpetually hiking their tariffs and 
ultimately it is them who face the music! Naturally, as a course of their 
limitations they have to show fewer channels than promised and all they get 
in turn is adorned with titles like 'thieves'. Therefore, they believe that 
they will be in a much better position if CAS gets implemented.

On the other side, the broadcasters are strictly against CAS. In their opinion 
it is still not about time that CAS gets implemented in India and then there 
is no proper supply of boxes. Whereas the truth points to something 
completely different, which is their profits. The consumer would have the 
choice to pick up desirable channels if CAS gets implemented. Considering the 
cost-effective mentality that India harbours, most consumers would like to go 
only for the 'free-to-air' channels! It is quite obvious that this means a 
double loss for the broadcasters. On the one hand the inflow of capital from 
the end of the consumers will sharply decline and on the other the 
advertising agencies will no longer advertise profusely and therefore the 
profits coming in from that end would also fall. All these broadcaster 
companies are in the favour of getting a 'direct-to-home' system so that they 
can adequately monopolise the trade for their own benefits.

Where on the one hand, there are many voices for and against CAS within the 
trade, on the other, the 'consumer' is perpetually in a state of limbo. 
Whether or not CAS will favour him is something that is completely lost on 
him. On one hand he is excited by the freedom CAS gives him to pick and 
choose channels of his own choice, on the other he is perturbed by the huge 
investment the boxes call for and the various problems that would come free 
with them. Therefore, for now they are adopting a policy of 'wait and watch'. 
As far as the government goes, it believed that such a system would encourage 
transparency and therefore the operators would not be able to steal channels 
which would lead to entertainment tax which in turn would fill the pockets of 
the State. Ever since 1994, it has tried high and low to somehow carve out a 
niche for itself within this trade, but in vain.

In the past one year, ever since CAS has been lingering on the threshold of 
the cable tv industry, the graph of the trade has been such that it's really 
difficult to comment on it. When and how someone would complicate the matter 
even more with new proposals is something that is very difficult to say and 
rely on. The government had enforced with all its might that CAS would be 
implemented in July. The government's might was still too light! During the 
day, the multi-system operators agreed to a tariff plan of Rs.72, but by 
evening that united voice dishevelled into multiple narratives. Some 
resisting and some supporting whereas some just perched on the fence. A lot 
of the operators don't even have a clue of what exactly is coming out of this 
muck. They are just waiting to decide how to treat it when it is served to 
them on a platter. The broadcasters are at loggerheads with each other. Some 
want that CAS should get implemented but on their conditions, others are 
supporting the government fiercely behind their backs such that CAS is 
completely thrown out of the window. At the end of the day, the consumer who 
has to handle the googly thrown at him, is really at a loss and is completely 
flummoxed by the situation he has willy nilly been dragged into. He has 
decided not to decide anything for the time being.

To wind up this mess is a difficult job, but there is one central aspect which 
keeping in mind, everyone is trying to judge CAS- which is 'cash'. Cash means 
profits, booty, etc. The government has a stake of crores of rupees if CAS 
gets implemented. The multi-system operators can either enjoy the fruits of 
CAS or brood over their losses. For the operators, it is a situation of both 
joy and despair. The broadcaster is worried about a complete face off, 
because of the huge profits he makes out of procuring advertisements. The 
publics ofcourse are apprehensive regarding the huge investments expected out 
of them. In a nutshell, the implementation of CAS foreshadows a complete 
toppling of the hierarchised gains that the industry was so far used to at 
each subsequent level. And apparently, the ostensibly strongest level of this 
hierarchy, meaning the broadcaster, might just be the one that topples first.

Broadly speaking, we can say that the implementation of CAS would have 
far-sighted effects in the coming future. Post-implementation if the common 
man insists on watching the free-to-air channels the most, then it is quite 
likely that in the near future most of the paid channels might just declare 
themselves 'free'. If this happens then it is the multi-system operators who 
would be at the greatest receiving end of this entire process, because this 
trend would be a great impetus for new people and therefore competitors to 
enter the field. The overall monopoly that they gained as a result of 
procuring IRDs, would immediately topple. It is quite likely that the cable 
tv industry might be heading for a post 1995 like open competition situation. 
Another possibility is that if most of the popular channels keep functioning 
as paid channels at low tariffs, then a lot of small time cable operators in 
the wake of being able to earn only low profits might just surrender 
themselves to the big operators or even to the multi-system operators. It 
would be difficult though, to maintain and save the 'Subscriber Management 
System' and the set top boxes.

On the other side of this debate, we are still left with a very significant 
question that is in this entire scramble between CAS and CASH, is the State 
trying to pitch in a stake of its own and enter the competition or is it 
earnestly trying to save the consumer from getting trapped by the ill-effects 
that come out of a complicated market situation like the one we have at hand? 
It is likely that the various layers of this intention start unfolding in a 
few months from now, when the stakes involved start thinking about the 
implementation of CAS from a new perspective.


( This artical was written for Media Nagar in oct 2003. Many develepments have 
happened after then, which dosen't cover in this artical )blics ofcourse are 
apprehensive regarding the huge investments expected out of them. In a 
nutshell, the implementation of CAS foreshadows a complete toppling of the 
hierarchised gains that the industry was so far used to at each subsequent 
level. And apparently, the ostensibly strongest level of this hierarchy, 
meaning the broadcaster, might just be the one that topples first.

Broadly speaking, we can say that the implementation of CAS would have 
far-sighted effects in the coming future. Post-implementation if the common 
man insists on watching the free-to-air channels the most, then it is quite 
likely that in the near future most of the paid channels might just declare 
themselves 'free'. If this happens then it is the multi-system operators who 
would be at the greatest receiving end of this entire process, because this 
trend would be a great impetus for new people and therefore competitors to 
enter the field. The overall monopoly that they gained as a result of 
procuring IRDs, would immediately topple. It is quite likely that the cable 
tv industry might be heading for a post 1995 like open competition situation. 
Another possibility is that if most of the popular channels keep functioning 
as paid channels at low tariffs, then a lot of small time cable operators in 
the wake of being able to earn only low profits might just surrender 
themselves to the big operators or even to the multi-system operators. It 
would be difficult though, to maintain and save the 'Subscriber Management 
System' and the set top boxes.

On the other side of this debate, we are still left with a very significant 
question that is in this entire scramble between CAS and CASH, is the State 
trying to pitch in a stake of its own and enter the competition or is it 
earnestly trying to save the consumer from getting trapped by the ill-effects 
that come out of a complicated market situation like the one we have at hand? 
It is likely that the various layers of this intention start unfolding in a 
few months from now, when the stakes involved start thinking about the 
implementation of CAS from a new perspective.


( This artical was written for Media Nagar in oct 2003. Many develepments have 
happened after then, which dosen't cover in this artical )

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Brief Biography of a Cable Operator

        "In our city activities not regulated by the law have a perpetual fear 
of 
being branded illegal. It is possible that the whole cable industry could be 
declared illegal tomorrow since there has been no legislation in this field. 
In a similar way our jhuggies (slums) were also declared illegal, my kabari 
(scrap dealer's) shop is also functioning, but on the basis of a secret deal 
with the law. The law needs to be bribed to allow illegal dealings."    - 
Shrikant Cable wala alias Shrikant Kabari wala, alias Shrikant Lala. 

Shrikant's testimony not only reflects the reality of the cable industry 
today, but also makes one acutely aware of the insecurity endemic to urban 
legal regulations. His career indicates something of the dynamic of trades in 
Delhi. Presently Shrikant stays in Sangam Vihar, but when he arrived in Delhi 
in 1980 he used to stay in Shiv Basti near Khyber Pass. He started a kabari 
(scrap) business, which still survives, and subsequently started a grocery 
shop outside his own jhuggie. In 1994 Shrikant got a cable connection for his 
house. 

Due to a lack of laws and government intervention, the field offered a lot of 
opportunities to an enterprising newcomer. But in 1994 Zee TV and Star TV 
started a company called Siti Cable to ensure that their channels reach the 
maximum number of houses. Siti Cable started wiring localities. With the 
coming of pay channels customers had to pay the broadcasters a certain 
amount. Thus 1994 was a new phase for the cable industry. 

During 1995-96 the cable operator in Shrikant's basti started removing the 
connections because he suffered losses. Shrikant gathered some courage and 
bought it off him, despite the fact that his business was doing well and he 
did not know much about the cable business. When asked for a reason he said, 
' ... future planning prompted me into this business. Death is a reality and 
so is the removal of the jhuggies'. This kind of volatile experience made the 
cable business attractive. Shrikant used to do the cable business only part 
time upto the moment the jhuggies were demolished. 

In mid-90s, many people got into the business of cable operation.By 1996, 
every block had a cable operator. Siti Cable became a major player in the 
market. The network now runs about 70 % of the cable industry in the city. On 
the other hand, the local cable operators also started asserting their 
control. The field became competitive and  all both fair and unfair means, 
including force, were used in this struggle amongst operators. Operators like 
Major Yadav came up whose market was spread over more than one area. A game 
of poaching on others' territories started, and with it increased gundagardi, 
(thuggish behaviour) money and mind games. A race was on to show a new 
release first, or, if an operator charged 100/- for a connection the other 
offered it at 75/-. They also started some special schemes. For instance when 
Major Yadav gave his business over to Shrikant he told him to show it free 
for a couple of months,  and then to start  paying  him 3000/- a month. In 
the Jahangirpuri area, the operators showed it free for a month, then charged 
50/- and 100/- a little later. This led to a brouhaha amongst the operators. 
Cable wires were snapped in the middle of the night, and there were violent 
encounters amongst the operators. 

In the meantime, IN company, owned by the Hindujas, came up. In 1999 Star TV 
dissociated itself from the Siti Cable and invested in the shares of  Hathway 
Company. By 2000 another company called Win came in. While companies like IN,  
Win, Siti and other small companies came into the field, people like the 
Major kept on challenging their monopoly. The Cable industry saw competition 
at a cutthroat scale. 

By around 2000, when the bastis were demolished  the Metro Rail, Shrikant 
started working full time and moved his cable work from the jhuggies to the 
nearby B D Estate and other places. This area of Timarpur is mainly a 
middleclass and a lower middleclass area, with mostly  government servants. 
At a short distance is the  B D Estate which is an upper class area. There 
were four big cable operators in the area, before Shrikant. Shrikant could 
not match their resources in terms of man and money power. But he ignored the 
threats of the bigger players. His amicable behaviour coupled with the lower 
prices he offered won him clients in these areas. And soon Shrikant shot from 
0 to more than 200 connections. He became a major irritant to his 
competitors. According to Shrikant there were many confrontations, some of 
which ended in the thana. The final showdown took place in the Win cable 
office. Shrikant, who at the time was operating for Win, was asked to sell 
his territory to his competitor. He refused, and one night his connection 
wires were snapped. He switched to In.
 
By 2001 the number of pay channels increased and so did the rates and 
competition.  You needed bigger capital now. Shrikant's competitors were all 
well off, so they could decrease their prices and increased rates minimally. 
Shrikant says that the other operators troubled him a lot. They would either 
put a pin in his wire so that the reception would become unclear, or 
superimpose an amplifier over his, or amplify their signals to make reception 
unclear in his territory. 

During this time there were many changes which altered the internal functions 
of the industry. There was a big entente between the three big distribution 
companies and the head-end operators in the month of April-May 2002. The 
Companies divided territories amongst themselves and agreed not to put any up 
any new operators. No operator could now abandon an old connection, and there 
were to be no new private headends. This led to a major change in the 
business. The Companies now exercise a monopoly over their respective 
territories, and have effectively prevented the entry of newcomers. Consumers 
too have been constrained, as they have no alternative to the designated 
operator for the area.

Since Shrikant got in the way of the cable monopolists, they tried to remove 
him. Shrikant has ultimately compromised with the companies, withdrawing his 
operations on the assurance that he would receive a guaranteed monthly sum. 
He was confident that the company would not cheat him. When asked why he came 
to a compromise, he said, rather allusively: ' The deal took place at the 
distributors' office, you see.' According to Shrikant if he keeps getting 
that sum he would at least be saved from the regular operational tensions and 
hazards. But the matter was not that simple. In Shrikant's own words, 'They 
were saying that do not kill the hen that lays the golden eggs, just take the 
egg and use it. ' The hen laying golden eggs was Shrikant's rival who could 
go on making a profit if he got a monopolistic hold over the area, and this 
would only be possible if Shrikant was removed from the area. This would mean 
profit for the monopoly operators, the distributors' commission would 
increase and the company would also get a bigger collection. Only the average 
cable user suffered, as they have to pay more. And Shrikant himself only gets 
a fixed sum per month, rather than a share in a burgeoning trade. Now one 
needs to wait and watch whether Shrikant sacrifices the hen that lays the 
golden eggs or gets sacrificed by it in turn. Does Shrikant get the gold or 
an egg (a zero)?

Shrikant's story has significant implications. There would be many Shrikants 
and Major Yadavs in Delhi. A research into their regular dealings opens up 
new possibilities and provides precious information on the complex 
functioning of the cable industry in the city.