Ad cap, DD Free Dish, broadcast bill: Why broadcasters say policy hasn’t kept pace

As 2025 draws to a close, India’s broadcast and TV distribution industry flags growing policy paralysis at a time when linear TV faces economic pressure and platform disruption

by Tasmayee Laha Roy
Published: Dec 26, 2025 9:02 AM | 7 min read

As the broadcast industry closes the books on 2025, with revenues, subscriptions and quarterly metrics accounted for, there remains a deeper unease beneath the numbers-- little clarity or resolution on the policy front despite the year drawing to a close. Industry leaders are increasingly warning of a growing “policy paralysis” across India’s broadcast and TV distribution ecosystem, with long-pending issues from forbearance and light-touch regulation to the future of the Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill moving, in one executive’s words, at a “snail’s pace.”

The concern, voiced by multiple senior stakeholders in recent closed-door discussions, is that policymaking has slowed precisely when the sector needs faster clarity: linear TV economics are under pressure, distribution is fragmenting, and new consumption layers from connected TV landing pages to FAST-style experiences are emerging outside legacy licensing constructs.

“At the core of the frustration is a familiar pattern, once an issue enters litigation, everyone steps back,” said a senior member of the policy team at a leading broadcast network. “Both the ecosystem and the administration default to a ‘wait for the final judgment’ approach, and in the process, executive decision-making comes to a standstill.”

Ad-cap notices rekindle an old fault line

The latest flashpoint is the advertising-cap regime, popularly framed as the “10+2” rule, after the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) issued show-cause notices to 250+ broadcasters, triggering sharp pushback from the industry, which has argued the matter remains protected under an active Delhi High Court order.

A senior executive from a leading broadcast network added that the issue goes beyond advertising limits alone. “When you combine ad-cap enforcement with declining ad yields, rising distribution costs and prolonged legal uncertainty, it creates a perfect storm for linear television. Instead of enabling the sector to adapt during a structural transition, the regulatory approach ends up amplifying financial stress and discouraging long-term investment.”

“Platform-neutral” regulation or pick a lane

A recurring theme in these conversations is the lack of platform neutrality. Stakeholders argue that while internet-led services have largely operated in a forbearance-like environment, linear television continues to face dense controls. creating a widening competitive asymmetry.

“Any non-essential data collection or cross-use should only be permitted with clear, express and revocable consent,” another industry insider said, pointing to the principle of proportionality that now underpins most modern regulatory frameworks.

Drawing a parallel to broadcast regulation, the executive added, “You cannot apply tight controls to legacy platforms while allowing newer, internet-led services to operate under near forbearance. Policy has to either regulate the ecosystem coherently or step back across the board, otherwise, traditional platforms are pushed into a slow, structural decline.”

Distribution churn: MSOs shrink, consolidation accelerates

On the distribution side, the churn is visible in licensing data. As of November 30, 2025, the number of registered Multi System Operators (MSOs) stood at 787, down from 818 in October, with cancellations climbing to 1,117, according to a media report that cites Ministry of I&B data.

Broadcasters and distributors see consolidation as inevitable, but insist it is being accelerated by uneven regulation and weak sector economics, rather than healthy scale-building.

A senior distribution executive noted that the current consolidation is less about strategic scale and more about survival. “This is not healthy consolidation driven by efficiency or investment appetite. Smaller MSOs are exiting because the economics no longer work under uneven regulation and shrinking margins. What we’re seeing is attrition-led consolidation, not a planned restructuring of the sector.”

DD Free Dish and the ‘artificial scarcity’ debate

Industry conversations also repeatedly returned to DD Free Dish, its market impact, auction mechanics, and transparency asks.

While subscriber estimates vary due to the platform’s free-to-air nature, Prasar Bharati’s CEO has previously said DD Free Dish was at 45 million TV homes and could rise to 50–60 million over the next 4–5 years. Separately, the FICCI–EY 2021 projections (as cited by PIB) suggested DD Free Dish could cross 50 million by 2025.

A senior industry voice described the platform’s capacity constraints as an ‘artificial scarcity’ problem, alleging that the lack of clear disclosure on slots and bidder context fuels aggressive bidding and raises entry barriers for smaller channels, especially in a market already grappling with ad stress.

A senior industry executive added that the lack of transparency around slot availability distorts the auction process from the outset. “The number of slots is never disclosed, which creates panic in the system. On day one itself, deep-pocketed players start bidding aggressively with very high amounts, effectively pricing out smaller channels before the process even settles.”

Referring to Prasar Bharati’s recent move to seek stakeholder feedback on the bidding framework, the executive said, “While DD Free Dish has now invited comments on the auction process, the larger question for the industry is whether those inputs will meaningfully shape the final policy or remain a procedural exercise.”

Prasar Bharati opens consultation on DD Free Dish auction rules & expansion

NBDA submits comments on FreeDish e-auction method to Prasar Bharati

IBDF calls for transparency in DD FreeDish slot auctions

FAST and connected TV: the new “grey zone”

Executives are also increasingly uneasy about the rapid rise of connected TV ecosystems and FAST-like experiences, arguing that the policy framework has not kept pace.

In the discussion, the insider flagged a potential structural risk: if TV manufacturers and connected TV interfaces begin functioning like distribution platform operators (DPOs) without licensing symmetry, traditional licensed distribution could be squeezed from both ends.

Broadcast Services Bill: consultations extended, clarity awaited

The Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, 2023 remains in a state of flux, with the government undertaking a broad rethink after sustained pushback from industry stakeholders over concerns of regulatory overreach and potential curbs on editorial freedom. While the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting has acknowledged that revisions are in progress following consultations, there is still no clarity on when a fresh draft will be placed in the public domain.

After the initial public consultation on the 2023 draft, a revised version circulated privately in 2024 drew further criticism, prompting the Ministry to ask stakeholders to return the document, signalling that a more fundamental redrafting exercise is underway. The stated objective remains the creation of a unified regulatory framework spanning traditional television, OTT platforms and digital news, but industry voices say the credibility of the process will now hinge on transparency, structured dialogue and genuine incorporation of feedback.

A senior policy executive at a leading broadcast network said the reset is necessary but overdue. “The intent to modernise regulation is welcome, but the process has to inspire confidence. A unified framework cannot come at the cost of rights, editorial independence or operational clarity. What the industry needs now is openness on timelines and reassurance that stakeholder feedback will meaningfully shape the final law.”

Directionless at a time of disruption

The underlying ask from broadcasters and distributors is not for deregulation at any cost, but for predictable, platform-neutral rules and structured dialogue that keeps pace with technology and business realities.

“Technology always precedes regulation,” an insider said, warning that if executive clarity continues to lag, the market will “self-correct” through consolidation, migration and exit, not through orderly growth.

Summing up the concern, one senior broadcaster put it bluntly: “The regulator’s mandate was to ensure orderly growth of the sector. What prolonged policy paralysis is delivering instead is orderly de-growth.”