Signal supply and interconnection terms: interim relief refused where payment default and area restrictions were disputed.

A broadcaster's duty under Clause 3.2 of the 2004 Interconnection Regulations to supply signals on non-discriminatory terms does not apply where the distributor is in payment default. The parties' agreement also limited the petitioner's operating area and barred expansion beyond that area without written consent. Because the challenge turned on disputed factual questions about default, area expansion, and supply to local cable operators, the writ court would not resolve them at the interim stage. The Tribunal's refusal to grant interim relief against disconnection of signals was therefore not interfered with.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to interim relief against disconnection of signals and whether interference with the Tribunal's refusal to grant such relief was warranted.

Analysis: Clause 3.2 of the 2004 Interconnection Regulations requires a broadcaster to provide signals on request to distributors of television channels on non-discriminatory terms, but the provision is not available where the distributor has defaulted in payment. The agreement between the parties also restricted the petitioner's area of operation and prohibited extension beyond the agreed area without written consent. The petitioner's challenge depended on disputed factual questions regarding default, expansion of area, and supply of signals to local cable operators, which could not be resolved in writ jurisdiction. In that setting, the Tribunal's refusal to grant interim relief did not call for interference.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to interim relief and the Tribunal's interim order was not disturbed.

---