Broadcasters raise concerns over India’s new Telecom Rules for TV

News broadcasters have taken sharply different positions in their counter-comments to TRAI’s consultation on Application-based Linear Television Distribution (ALTD) and Free Ad-Supported Streaming Television (FAST) services.

Unlike the earlier comments filed by general entertainment broadcasters and distribution stakeholders, the news broadcasters have focused more on jurisdiction, the existing regulation of news content, connected TV gatekeeping, ad inventory control and audience measurement.

The consultation is examining whether internet-delivered linear television services, including FAST channels, need a separate regulatory framework.

Times Network seeks MIB-led regulation
Times Network has supported regulation of ALTD and FAST services, but said the framework should be under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB), not the Telecommunications Act.

It argued that ALTD and FAST platforms perform the same function as traditional television distribution when they deliver scheduled linear channels through apps and smart TVs.

The broadcaster said these platforms currently operate without comparable licensing, registration, tariff rules, Programme and Advertising Code obligations, quality standards or content-archiving requirements.

Times Network said this has created an uneven playing field for traditional television distribution platforms and broadcasters.

It also flagged the growth of unregulated local news channels on digital-linear platforms. The broadcaster said such channels could operate without adequate checks, compliance systems or editorial controls, creating both competitive and public-interest concerns.

Times Network said already permitted broadcasters should be allowed to distribute their existing channels on ALTD and FAST platforms without fresh approval. For new digital-only services, it said prior intimation on the Broadcast Seva portal should be enough.

For other entities operating ALTD or FAST services, it suggested registration with MIB with conditions such as security clearance, FDI norms, management control, net worth requirement, commercial presence in India and grievance-redressal mechanisms.

It also sought pricing parity for pay channels and suggested that ad revenue sharing be clearly defined. Times Network proposed that 80 per cent of ad revenue should go to the broadcaster or content owner and 20 per cent to the platform.

TV Today questions TRAI’s jurisdiction
TV Today Network opposed bringing ALTD and FAST services under telecom-style regulation.

It said these services are offered over the internet as over-the-top services and do not fall within the definition of telecommunication services under the Telecommunications Act or the TRAI Act.

The broadcaster argued that ALTD and FAST platforms only provide applications through which content is viewed. The actual transmission is carried out by internet service providers and telecom service providers.

TV Today said TRAI’s role is limited to carriage and transmission, and the consultation risks mixing carriage regulation with content regulation.

It said news broadcasters are already regulated under the MIB uplinking and downlinking guidelines, the Programme Code, the Advertising Code, the IT Rules, 2021, and self-regulatory frameworks such as the News Broadcaster and Digital Association.

The company said imposing another authorisation layer on content providers would create duplicative compliance.

TV Today said if any framework is created, the obligation should rest with the ALTD platform operator and not the content provider. It argued that content providers do not control the application, the ads displayed on it, or the user data collected by the platform.

Network18 warns against over-regulation
Network18 also opposed the proposed authorisation framework for ALTD and FAST services under the Telecommunications Act and TRAI Act.

It said these services operate on the application layer of the internet, while telecom regulation is meant for carriage, connectivity and infrastructure.

The company argued that OTT services do not establish public telecom networks, use spectrum, assign numbering resources or provide telecom connectivity.

Network18 said the final Telecommunications Act excluded OTT services after an earlier draft had included them. Therefore, it said OTT services should not be brought into telecom regulation indirectly.

The broadcaster said treating ALTD and FAST services like traditional distribution platforms could raise concerns under Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g) and 14 of the Constitution.

It said the answer to level-playing-field concerns is not to impose more regulation on digital services, but to reduce the regulatory burden on traditional television and distribution platforms.

Network18 also opposed pricing control, DPO-style consumer protection rules and mandatory integration of digital viewing data into television ratings.

It said digital platforms already have deterministic analytics based on server logs and stream requests, and forcing them into a sample-based TV rating system would be technologically regressive.

ABP seeks light-touch safeguards
ABP Network took a middle path.

It warned TRAI against both over-regulation and complete non-intervention. The broadcaster said the authority should not mechanically apply legacy DTH and MSO rules to internet-led platforms.

At the same time, it said digital gatekeepers should not be allowed to operate without any checks.

ABP said the connected TV ecosystem is controlled by smart TV manufacturers, operating systems, app stores and ad-tech intermediaries. These entities can influence content discovery, ad monetisation and access to viewer data.

The broadcaster flagged risks such as algorithmic self-preferencing, coercive bundling and data asymmetry.

It said smart TV and operating system players could prioritise their own FAST channels on home screens, search tools and recommendation carousels.

ABP also raised concerns over mandatory “clean feeds”, where platforms remove a broadcaster’s ads and replace them with platform-sold programmatic ads.

It said advertising inventory linked to broadcaster content should remain with the broadcaster. Any ad insertion or revenue-sharing arrangement should be voluntary, transparent and bilaterally negotiated.

ABP also sought impression-level reporting from platforms, including fill rates, ad rendering and verified ad requests.