AIDCF trying to regulate OTT through TDSAT: IBDF on Prasar Bharati Waves row

The legal battle over Prasar Bharati’s OTT platform, Waves, has escalated into a wider regulatory confrontation over whether internet-based streaming of linear television channels can be challenged under India’s broadcasting distribution framework.

Before the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT), the Indian Broadcasting and Digital Foundation (IBDF) has backed Prasar Bharati, arguing that the petition filed by the All India Digital Cable Federation (AIDCF) is an attempt to use broadcasting regulations to indirectly govern OTT services, which operate under an entirely separate legal regime.

The dispute centres around Waves, Prasar Bharati’s OTT platform, which carries linear television channels from multiple broadcasters over the internet. AIDCF has sought an interim injunction restraining the platform from streaming satellite TV channels, arguing that such distribution violates the Uplinking and Downlinking Guidelines, 2022, and threatens the economics of licensed cable distribution networks.

However, during the hearing on May 12, Prasar Bharati strongly contested the petition, calling it “misconceived” and accusing AIDCF of selectively targeting Waves while identical content continues to be streamed freely across platforms such as YouTube and private OTT apps.

“The petitioner has selectively targeted Waves while the same channels are freely streaming on various other digital platforms, including YouTube,” Prasar Bharati submitted before TDSAT.

The public broadcaster argued that Waves was merely participating in an industry-wide distribution practice already adopted by broadcasters and digital intermediaries across the ecosystem.

The case has now evolved beyond a platform-specific dispute into a larger jurisdictional and policy question: whether OTT-based dissemination of television channels can be regulated through existing broadcasting distribution laws.

IBDF raises jurisdiction challenge

Backing Prasar Bharati’s position, IBDF argued before TDSAT that OTT services fall outside the current regulatory remit of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) and therefore beyond the jurisdictional scope of disputes traditionally handled under broadcasting distribution regulations.

“AIDCF is attempting to use a broadcasting-distribution dispute before TDSAT to indirectly regulate OTT dissemination of linear channels, even though OTT operates over the open internet, is outside TRAI’s present broadcasting distribution framework, and is governed under a separate legal regime,” IBDF submitted.

IBDF relied heavily on TRAI’s 2017 Tariff and Interconnection framework, in which the regulator had expressly declined to classify OTT platforms as “distribution platform operators” (DPOs).

TRAI had then clarified that the tariff order applied only to entities licensed or permitted by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and excluded OTT services from its ambit.

According to IBDF, allowing the petition to proceed would effectively expand TDSAT’s jurisdiction into internet-based streaming services despite TRAI itself historically maintaining that OTT platforms lie outside traditional broadcasting regulation.

Prasar Bharati also cited the same tariff framework and referred to a prior TDSAT ruling involving Star India, where interim relief in a comparable OTT-related dispute had been denied.

Cable operators draw distinction over channel branding

While AIDCF acknowledged that content aggregation on OTT platforms is not itself objectionable, the federation argued that Waves’ presentation of linear television channels — including channel logos and branding — creates a direct substitute for cable subscriptions.

The federation has also argued that the commercial impact could be especially severe in tier-2 and tier-3 markets, where consumers often identify programming through familiar television channel brands rather than individual content titles.

Industry executives tracking the matter said the outcome could have wider implications for India’s pay-TV ecosystem, which has already been facing subscriber erosion due to rapid digital migration and growing free streaming options.

88 broadcasters onboarded on Waves

In its filing before TDSAT, Prasar Bharati disclosed that Waves had onboarded 88 content providers and channels through formal contractual arrangements.

Prasar Bharati argued that all streams available on Waves were being distributed under valid commercial agreements entered into with participating broadcasters and content owners.

The broadcaster also raised procedural objections to AIDCF’s plea, arguing that none of the 88 participating content providers had been made parties to the proceedings despite the relief sought directly affecting their commercial interests.

“Any interim order passed by this Hon’ble Tribunal would directly prejudice the rights and commercial interests of these content providers who are not even parties to the present proceedings,” the filing stated.

According to Prasar Bharati, an injunction against Waves would not only impact the public broadcaster but would also adversely affect broadcasters and content partners that had lawfully entered into distribution arrangements with the platform.

The next hearing in the matter is scheduled before TDSAT on May 28, 2026.