Broadcasters warn TRAI’s ALTD framework could create a new ‘digital zamindari’

India’s broadcast industry is headed for a fresh regulatory showdown, with broadcasters warning that the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India’s (TRAI) proposed framework for Application-Based Linear Television Distribution (ALTD) services could recreate a “digital zamindari” model by forcing a new layer of intermediaries between content creators and consumers.

JioStar and Culver Max Entertainment have joined hands to pushback TRAI against regulating FAST platforms. Broadcasters argue that the regulator’s attempt to classify streaming apps as Distribution Platform Operators (DPOs) threatens the very promise of direct-to-consumer digital distribution.

Broadcasters contend that the digital era was meant to eliminate the dependence on cable and DTH intermediaries, but TRAI’s consultation on ALTD services could effectively restore that structure in internet form by mandating a “commission layer” between broadcasters and viewers.

The dispute lies in TRAI’s April consultation paper on regulating ALTD and Free Ad-Supported Streaming Television (FAST) services, which has triggered a fierce battle between traditional cable operators and broadcasters operating streaming platforms.

The broadcaster-backed argument is that forcing internet-based TV applications into the same regulatory bucket as cable and DTH operators would stifle innovation, increase costs for consumers, and undermine direct digital distribution models that companies such as Zee, Sun TV and JioStar have spent years building.

“The real beneficiary is a dying business model of traditional DPOs who can no longer compete on technology or service and are now looking to the regulator to build them a digital wall,” broadcasters stated.

Also read: FAST services are not telecom services: Sony, JioStar push back against TRAI

Jio opposes broadcast rules for FAST channels, Zee backs licensing regime

FAST platforms need accountability, not overregulation: Eenadu TV to TRAI

‘Forced intermediary’ debate intensifies

The broadcasters have now framed the issue as a fundamental policy contradiction, arguing that while the government has pushed “direct-to-market” reforms in agriculture to eliminate middlemen, the proposed ALTD framework would do the opposite in digital broadcasting.

According to the contentions, broadcasters that built their own streaming apps to bypass traditional distribution bottlenecks may now be treated as DPOs themselves, thereby becoming subject to tariff regulations, interconnection obligations and licensing conditions originally designed for cable and satellite television.

Broadcasters also criticized proposals around cross-holding restrictions, claiming that suggestions limiting common ownership between broadcasters and ALTD platforms could force media companies to dilute ownership in their own streaming businesses.

They warn that bringing apps under the New Tariff Order (NTO) framework would destroy the flexibility that digital platforms currently enjoy in pricing, bundling and consumer engagement. The broader concern among broadcasters is that consumers who currently subscribe directly to streaming apps could end up paying higher prices if platforms are compelled to accommodate additional distribution fees and compliance costs.

ZEEL backs regulation, but seeks parity

Even as sections of the broadcaster ecosystem oppose what they describe as overregulation, Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited (ZEEL) has taken a more calibrated stance in its submission to TRAI.

The company welcomed the consultation process, saying the emergence of internet-enabled television distribution had created “regulatory asymmetry” between licensed television distributors and digital platforms offering similar services.

ZEEL argued that ALTD platforms increasingly offer services that are “indistinguishable from traditional broadcasting from a consumer standpoint” while operating outside the existing regulatory framework applicable to licensed distribution platforms.

The broadcaster said licensed platforms currently face extensive obligations relating to programme codes, advertising rules, consumer protection, tariff regulations and mandatory carriage requirements, whereas ALTD and FAST platforms do not face equivalent compliance burdens.

“This creates a situation of regulatory arbitrage,” ZEEL told TRAI.

The company proposed that ALTD services should be defined as platforms distributing linear television channels over the internet while remaining distinct from open OTT services.

ZEEL further argued that application providers should become the primary entities responsible for obtaining authorisation because they aggregate channels, control programme guides, manage user interfaces and exercise operational control over distribution.

The company also supported a formal authorisation framework with pan-India licensing, 10-year validity periods, Indian incorporation requirements and data localisation obligations for foreign entities.

AIDCF pushes for full-scale regulation

On the other side of the debate, the All India Digital Cable Federation (AIDCF), which represents major multi-system operators (MSOs), has mounted an aggressive case for bringing ALTD and FAST platforms fully under the broadcasting regulatory regime.

In its 169-page submission, AIDCF argued that OTT and streaming platforms originally emerged as extensions of linear television distribution and later “rebranded themselves” as streaming services to avoid regulation.

The federation claimed that the absence of regulation has created “unfair competition”, “unprecedented economic challenges”, employment losses and a structural crisis for traditional television distribution businesses.

AIDCF further alleged that many internet-based platforms distribute television channels that are not licensed or registered with the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, raising concerns around sovereignty and national security.

The federation argued that existing downlinking guidelines only permit authorised DTH, IPTV, HITS and cable operators to retransmit television channels, and claimed that FAST services bypass this framework by distributing channels without decoder infrastructure.

In its submission, AIDCF proposed that ALTD services should be treated as part of the broader “broadcasting service ecosystem” and subjected to licensing conditions similar to DTH, IPTV and cable operators.

The federation also sought authorisation requirements not only for app providers but also for smart TV manufacturers, operating system providers, mobile device makers, broadcasters and content aggregators.

In support of its argument, AIDCF cited regulatory developments in countries such as Canada and the United Kingdom, where internet-based television and online streaming services are increasingly being brought within formal broadcasting frameworks.

Regulatory battle could reshape India’s TV economy

The consultation has effectively opened a larger ideological battle over whether internet television should be regulated as a digital innovation ecosystem or as an extension of legacy broadcasting infrastructure.

Broadcasters fear the creation of a compliance-heavy regime that could erode the economics of direct-to-consumer streaming, while cable operators argue that the absence of regulation has allowed digital competitors to scale without equivalent obligations.

The eventual regulatory framework could significantly alter the economics of India’s television and streaming market, particularly as FAST channels, connected TV viewing and app-based linear television consumption continue to accelerate.