Recently in a landmark decision TDSAT (The Telecom Dispute Settlement and Appellate Tribunal) ordered Zee - Turner to share 19 channels with Tata Sky at 50 percent of the declared cable rates. Earlier Zee- Turner had asked Tata Sky to carry all its 32 channels at Rs149.85 per subscriber per month. But Tata Sky wanted to carry only 19 of Zee- Turner’s channels to its subscribers. So it didn’t want to pay for the channels it didn’t want to telecast.

The point here is whether seller decides the price of a product or the purchaser? Here Zee - Turner had not specified any individual rates for all the channels and was selling the complete bouquet of 32 channels. So this was a bundled offer. A lot of similar schemes go in the market where something is offered free with a particular product or service. You get it free with the purchase whether you want it or not. Buyers normally don’t have the option to get that product or service minus the freebie by opting to pay a lesser amount for not availing the free offer. Sellers give the option of purchasing the product/service without the freebie but at the same rates and no discount.

Again this is one of the marketing strategy to promote a particular product & service by enticing customers to taste or test a product/service which otherwise he may never buy. And if he is delighted by this trial, he might become a loyal customer of it in future. So this is a legitimate way of penetrating any market. Seller has the complete liberty to decide the price point at which he wants to make a sale and customer always has the right to decline a offer from the seller. But in the case of Zee-Turner, it has been denied to implement this strategy. Why? TDSAT thinks its not in the interest of consumers! How come? Why it doesn’t take into the account the interests of sellere as well? Isn’t it unfair to the businesses? What do you think?