As TRAI stays absent at FICCI Frames 2026, industry tears into regulatory asymmetry

As the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) remained absent from FICCI Frames 2026, broadcasters and telecom operators used the industry forum to mount a sharp critique of regulatory asymmetry in the television and digital distribution ecosystem, arguing that legacy rules governing cable and DTH platforms are increasingly out of step with the shift towards IPTV, connected TVs and internet-based video services. Executives from Airtel, JioStar and Zee Entertainment Enterprises called for technology-neutral regulations, greater pricing flexibility and a level playing field as traditional television competes with newer distribution models.

India's broadcasting and distribution industry has called for a comprehensive overhaul of the regulatory framework governing television, arguing that rules designed for the traditional cable and direct-to-home (DTH) ecosystem are increasingly out of step with the shift towards internet-based video consumption.

At FICCI Frames 2026, executives from JioStar, Zee Entertainment Enterprises and Airtel questioned the disparity in regulatory treatment across cable television, DTH, internet protocol television (IPTV) and over-the-top (OTT) services, arguing that consumers can access the same content through different technologies but businesses face different commercial restrictions.

The panel featured Krishnan Kutty, Head – Entertainment Business, South Cluster, JioStar; Anil Malhotra, Head – Public & Regulatory Affairs and CRO Affiliate Sales, Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd; and Rahul Vatts, Director Corporate Affairs and Group Chief Regulatory Officer, Airtel.

TRAI remained completely absent from FICCI Frames 2026, even as its regulatory framework became a central point of discussion among industry executives. The debate focused on pricing and packaging restrictions, bundling, cross-media ownership rules, investment in distribution infrastructure and concerns that proposed regulation of IPTV could extend legacy television rules to emerging technologies.

The industry's central argument was that regulation should protect consumers and ensure fair access to content without prescribing how businesses develop their products, set prices or compete across platforms.

Same content, different rules

One of the key concerns raised during the discussion was the disparity in regulatory obligations across distribution technologies.

A panel member pointed out that a consumer could watch the same cricket match on a television through DTH, cable or broadband-based IPTV, yet each mode of distribution operated under a different regulatory framework.

The executive argued that regulation should enable consumers to choose how they access content rather than determine the commercial model through which it is delivered.

The debate extended to the restrictions faced by distributors in setting carriage fees and bundling entertainment and sports channels. Industry representatives argued that businesses should have greater flexibility to package offerings according to consumer preferences, rather than operate within prescriptive rules governing commercial arrangements.

The panel also questioned whether the regulatory framework had kept pace with the evolution of the media business from a business-to-business distribution model towards direct-to-consumer services.

With content increasingly available through apps and connected televisions, executives argued that a framework built around the separation of broadcasters and traditional distribution platforms needed to be reconsidered.

Industry seeks pricing flexibility and regulatory certainty

The panel questioned the continued relevance of legacy tariff regulation, with executives arguing that restrictions on commercial flexibility could affect investment and innovation across the broadcasting ecosystem.

One executive observed that the television industry had operated under pricing regulation for more than two decades, while internet-based services had developed a wider range of commercial models, including subscriptions, freemium offerings and free-to-access services.

The discussion highlighted the disparity between the flexibility available to digital services and the restrictions imposed on traditional television distribution.

Executives also raised concerns about regulatory uncertainty, arguing that frequent changes in rules force businesses to continually adjust their commercial strategies and operating models.

The panel argued that regulatory consistency over longer periods would allow companies to plan investments, develop technology and experiment with pricing models while delivering better services to consumers.

A key point raised was that the regulator could not anticipate every possible pricing or distribution model in a rapidly evolving market. Instead, the framework should establish clear principles and intervene where businesses violate them.

The principles discussed included non-discrimination, preventing predatory conduct and ensuring that broadcasters and distributors meet their respective must-provide and must-carry obligations.

Such an approach, the panel argued, would preserve safeguards against unfair practices while giving companies room to innovate.

IPTV regulation raises fresh concerns

The prospect of extending regulatory oversight to IPTV and other internet-delivered video services emerged as a significant concern during the discussion.

Industry representatives cautioned that applying rules designed for traditional television to newer distribution technologies could undermine business models that have developed under different market conditions.

The panel also questioned why similar content and services should face different regulatory requirements depending on the technology used to deliver them.

The concern is particularly relevant as telecom operators expand their role in content distribution and connected-TV services, blurring the boundaries between broadcasting, telecommunications and internet-based video.

Executives argued that any regulatory review should consider the entire entertainment value chain rather than introduce separate interventions for individual technologies or business models.

One participant warned that the industry risked facing successive layers of regulation covering carriage, pricing and distribution without a comprehensive assessment of their combined impact.

The panel called for a holistic review of the framework, including the definitions of television channels and the obligations attached to broadcasting through traditional infrastructure versus internet platforms.

Cross-media rules and competitive asymmetry

The discussion also highlighted the differences in cross-media ownership restrictions applicable to traditional broadcasting and distribution businesses compared with telecom and internet-based players.

Industry representatives argued that legacy rules designed to separate content ownership from distribution had to be examined alongside the greater integration possible in newer technology ecosystems.

The panel acknowledged that integration can offer efficiencies but also raises questions about market power when a company controls the customer relationship, content and distribution infrastructure.

The challenge, executives argued, was to create a framework that addresses potential concentration and discriminatory practices without placing competing technologies under inconsistent obligations.

The stress facing traditional distribution businesses was another theme. Panel members pointed to the difficulties confronting local cable operators, multi-system operators and DTH providers as audiences increasingly access content through internet-connected devices.

At the same time, the discussion recognised that cable, satellite and digital distribution could continue to serve different consumer segments, particularly in areas where internet connectivity remains limited.

The panel argued that regulation should allow these business models to coexist while enabling consumers to choose their preferred means of accessing content.

Industry calls for regulatory impact assessment

Beyond specific provisions, the panel questioned whether regulatory interventions were being assessed adequately for their effects on investment, competition and consumer choice.

Executives called for a more evidence-based approach that examines the consequences of both imposing and removing restrictions.

They argued that the objective should be to expand content choice, encourage investment and allow market forces to influence pricing, while retaining safeguards against discrimination and predatory behaviour.

The discussion also acknowledged that the industry needed to present a more unified position to policymakers. Differences between broadcasters and distribution platforms, particularly over commercial arrangements, have often complicated efforts to articulate a common regulatory agenda.

The call for reform, therefore, extended beyond individual tariff provisions to the broader relationship between the regulator, broadcasters, distributors and emerging technology platforms.

With TRAI absent from FICCI Frames 2026, the session placed the industry's concerns at the forefront of the discussion. The underlying question remains whether India's broadcasting regulatory framework can evolve towards a more technology-neutral approach without diluting consumer safeguards or fair-access obligations.