AIDCF flags ‘unregulated’ OTT television boom, seeks stricter norms from TRAI

The cable industry has mounted a strong push for tighter regulation of internet-based television services, warning that the unchecked rise of application-based television platforms could accelerate the collapse of the country’s cable and DTH ecosystem.

In detailed submissions to the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India’s (TRAI) consultation paper on Application-based Linear Television Distribution (ALTD) and Free Ad-Supported Streaming Television (FAST) channels, industry stakeholders including the All India Digital Cable Federation and Siti Networks Limited argued that OTT-based linear television services are increasingly functioning like conventional broadcasting platforms while operating outside the regulatory framework applicable to cable and DTH operators.

The industry bodies have urged TRAI to introduce what they described as a “technology-neutral” regulatory regime, contending that existing distribution platform operators (DPOs) are burdened with licensing requirements, tariff regulations, infrastructure investments and compliance obligations that streaming-based TV services currently avoid.

The cable TV industry is seeking the classification of ALTD services. While streaming platforms position themselves as internet-based services distinct from traditional broadcasting, cable industry representatives argued that the defining feature should be the nature of content delivery rather than the screen or device used by consumers.

Siti Networks, in its submission, maintained that scheduled linear television channels delivered over the internet should be treated similarly to conventional television distribution systems. The company argued that the current distinction between cable television and app-based television has created a regulatory imbalance that disadvantages licensed operators.

The AIDCF took an even sharper position, alleging that several OTT-based television services effectively operate as digital distribution platforms while portraying themselves as streaming applications to escape regulatory oversight.

 According to the federation, many such services began as extensions of conventional television distribution and gradually transitioned into internet-delivered offerings without corresponding compliance obligations.

The federation cited the example of Ditto TV, launched by Zee in 2012, claiming it was among the earliest examples of a television service replicating traditional linear broadcasting through internet delivery. Industry executives argued that such platforms have expanded rapidly within what they described as a “regulatory void”, enabling them to avoid the significant capital expenditure borne by licensed multi-system operators and DTH providers.

Seeking parity with existing DPO regulations, the federation proposed a financial and compliance framework for ALTD operators. The recommendations include a Rs 10 crore entry fee, a minimum net worth requirement of Rs 10 crore, an authorisation fee equivalent to 8% of adjusted gross revenue and a Rs 1 crore security deposit. 

Industry stakeholders said these measures are necessary to ensure accountability and create a level playing field between traditional broadcasters and internet-based television services.

One of the most contentious issues raised in the submissions relates to the carriage of allegedly unregistered television channels on streaming-based TV platforms. Under existing Ministry of Information and Broadcasting rules, television channels require registration and permission before they can be distributed for public viewing in India. 

However, industry bodies claimed that several FAST and ALTD platforms are distributing hundreds of channels that are not registered with the ministry.

The AIDCF specifically named platforms such as DistroTV, YuppTV, Samsung TV Plus and LG Channels in its submission. According to the federation’s estimates, more than half of the channels available on some of these platforms allegedly do not possess valid registration under Indian broadcasting regulations.

The federation claimed that out of 179 channels available on Samsung TV Plus, 103 were not registered with the ministry. Similarly, it alleged that YuppTV carried 88 unregistered channels out of a total of 139 channels, while DistroTV allegedly had only 28 registered channels among its catalogue of 175 channels.

The industry bodies have also sought accountability from device manufacturers and operating system providers. In their submissions, they proposed that smart television operating systems and app ecosystems should be designed in a manner that permits access only to applications authorised by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.

This, they argued, would prevent the proliferation of unauthorised television distribution services through connected devices such as smart TVs and streaming sticks.

Beyond regulatory parity, traditional operators also raised concerns over consumer protection and data security practices followed by app-based television services. The industry has asked TRAI to extend existing Interconnection Regulations and Tariff Orders to ALTD platforms, arguing that consumers currently have limited safeguards against unilateral pricing and subscription practices.

The proposed consumer protection measures include mandatory disclosure of maximum retail prices for channels and bouquets, the availability of both prepaid and postpaid payment options, safeguards against unauthorised recurring deductions through UPI or credit cards, and the appointment of compliance officers to handle customer grievances.

Industry stakeholders have also demanded that ALTD platforms undergo technical and systems audits comparable to the Schedule X audits mandated for cable television and DTH addressable systems.

To strengthen their argument, the industry bodies pointed to global regulatory precedents. Their submissions referred to legislative developments such as Online Streaming Act and Media Act 2024, both of which expanded the scope of broadcasting regulation to include certain online streaming services.

The AIDCF argued that regulators across major global markets are increasingly recognising online television services as part of the broader broadcasting ecosystem irrespective of the transmission technology used. The federation said India should adopt a similar approach to avoid long-term disruption to the licensed television distribution sector.

TRAI is currently reviewing stakeholder comments on the consultation paper before framing recommendations on the regulatory treatment of ALTD and FAST services. The outcome is expected to have significant implications for India’s broadcasting industry.