You Are Viewing

A Blog Post

Mso Lco Interconnect Agreement

7. During the consultation process, broadcasters/aggregators proposed to amend certain clauses of the existing interconnection rules, such as. B the reduction of the notice period for stopping signals, the procedure for auditing the service provider`s subscriber management system (SMS) and, on the other hand, a provision on the integration of SMS and conditional Access (CAS) in order to ensure the composition of the conditional access system (CAS). the addressability of the system. It was also proposed that the provisions of the Regulations could be included for anti-piracy and anti-fingerprint measures as well as for the filing of connection agreements by MSOs/LCO, as well as a provision on the minimum duration of the subscription. It was also suggested that clause 3.2 of the Telecommunications Interconnection (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Regulations 2004, which deals with „must provide“, could also be limited by the decommissioning of service providers who have not complied with one of the rules. Stakeholders also proposed that certain definitions of the existing interconnection regulation be amended to align them with the provisions of the Cable Television Act as amended in 2011. Some MSOs felt that they were not in favour of amending the existing clauses. Some of them proposed that the clauses of the interconnection regulations be amended with regard to the notice period for the separation and provision of revenue-sharing agreements. 9.

Ltd. applied to the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR), Haryana, to determine „whether the local cable companies to which the applicant provides cable television signals as MSO are agents of the applicant to make the applicants` GST services provided by LCO to end customers“, but the application was subsequently withdrawn by the applicant. The AAR did not have the opportunity to review the terms of the agreement between the MSO and the LCO and ordered on 16.3.2018 that the case be closed to process the application as withdrawn. Assuming that MNST operates over a relatively large area and that their annual turnover exceeds the threshold, they are subject to GST for services provided to OCH and when providing direct services to subscribers. In the case of LCOs operating under TRAI`s standard agreement with MSOs, GST`s liability to those OLCs is only established when their turnover exceeds the threshold in a financial year. CCTs acting as agents of MSOs under a specific agency agreement are subject to the GST, regardless of the turnover of each CDG. In cases where the OCHC is subject to the GST, it has the right to solicit ITC for MSO`s service inputs and other eligible inputs. . . .