Delete 30-min content mandate: Avinash Pandey of IBDF urges govt to ease broadcast rules

The Indian Broadcasting and Digital Foundation (IBDF) has urged the government to substantially ease the regulatory burden on television broadcasters, seeking the removal of a proposed mandatory public service broadcasting quota, safeguards against disproportionate penalties and a clear separation between content regulation and telecommunications authorisation.

Speaking during CII Big Picture Summit 2026 about the revised draft broadcasting authorisation rules notified by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) on September 2, 2026, IBDF general secretary Avinash Pandey said the proposed framework should prioritise ease of doing business, regulatory certainty and operational flexibility at a time when linear television is facing mounting economic pressure and competition from digital platforms.

The industry body has also called for greater flexibility in commercial arrangements between broadcasters and distribution platform operators (DPOs), removal of temporary live-uplinking processing fees for non-news channels covering sporting events, and differentiated subscription arrangements for commercial establishments such as hotels, restaurants, bars and pubs.

“Let me be clear at the outset: we appreciate MIB’s intent to modernise the broadcasting regulatory framework. However, any reform must be guided by three fundamental principles: content-carriage separation, ease of doing business and regulatory certainty,” Pandey said.

The proposed transition from the existing broadcasting permission regime to an authorisation framework under the Telecommunications Act, 2023, has raised concerns within the industry about overlapping regulatory jurisdictions, editorial autonomy, compliance costs and the possibility of established channels facing severe consequences for technical or administrative lapses.

IBDF opposes mandatory 30-minute public service content quota

One of the industry body’s principal objections concerns Rule 26(6) of the proposed framework, which mandates every television channel to broadcast 30 minutes of public service content daily between 6 am and 11 pm.

Under the 2022 Uplinking and Downlinking Guidelines, the relevant provision allowed such programming through the use of the word “may”. The revised draft rules replace this with “shall”, converting an enabling provision into a mandatory requirement for every channel, irrespective of its genre or format.

Pandey said a uniform obligation fails to account for the differences between public service broadcasting and commercially operated television channels.

“Prasar Bharati has a statutory public service mandate supported by public funding. Private broadcasters operate commercially without comparable support and cannot be subjected to identical obligations,” he said.

According to Pandey, the proposed quota could create practical difficulties for sports broadcasters, international feeds, general entertainment channels and niche services whose programming schedules are designed around specific audience expectations.

For live sports, mandatory insertion of prescribed content could disrupt time-sensitive broadcasts. For entertainment channels, the requirement could result in abrupt transitions that affect the viewing experience.

The IBDF has argued that such interventions could make linear television less attractive at a time when broadcasters are already competing with streaming platforms for viewers.

“Our ask is straightforward: delete Rule 26(6) and retain the voluntary approach envisaged under the 2022 Guidelines. Public service broadcasting should be encouraged through meaningful, organically integrated programming, not imposed through a rigid daily quota,” Pandey said.

Content and carriage should remain separate

The IBDF has also questioned the incorporation of Programme Code and Advertising Code compliance into the proposed broadcasting authorisation framework.

Pandey argued that telecommunications legislation should govern transmission infrastructure, including satellites, teleports and networks, rather than editorial decisions, advertisements and creative expression.

He pointed out that broadcasting services were included in the Draft Telecommunications Bill, 2022, but were omitted as a distinct category from the enacted Telecommunications Act, 2023.

According to the IBDF, the existing MIB framework already provides oversight of programme and advertising content, supported by self-regulatory institutions such as the Broadcasting Content Complaints Council (BCCC) and the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI).

Incorporating content-related obligations into authorisation conditions could expose broadcasters to overlapping proceedings under different regulatory mechanisms, potentially resulting in disproportionate consequences for the same issue.

“The risk of duplication is real. Rules 14, 16 and 26(12) could expose broadcasters to multiple regulatory proceedings for the same content-related issue,” Pandey said.

The industry body wants authorisation rules restricted to transmission and carriage-related matters, with content oversight retained under the established MIB and self-regulatory framework.

Pandey also raised concerns about the proposed penalty structure, which includes civil penalties, encashment of Performance Bank Guarantees (PBGs), suspension, revocation and non-renewal of authorisations.

Rule 14 envisages a threshold of five breaches potentially accumulated over a 10-year authorisation period. The IBDF fears that minor or historical violations could jeopardise the renewal of established channels.

“Non-renewal effectively means closure, threatening investments, employment, viewers and the wider broadcasting ecosystem,” he said.

The body has proposed graduated enforcement, beginning with advisories and warnings, followed by notices and reasonable opportunities to rectify violations before more severe action is considered. It also wants only material, unremedied breaches that have attained finality after appellate remedies to count towards renewal decisions.

The IBDF has further sought a reasonable look-back period, consideration of corrective action and compliance history, proportionate PBG encashment and independent adjudication with adequate appeal safeguards.

IBDF seeks removal of ₹60-80 crore annual sports uplinking burden

Sports broadcasting is another area where the IBDF wants the government to reconsider its approach.

According to Pandey, temporary live-uplinking processing fees introduced through an MIB order in December 2017 impose an estimated annual financial burden of ₹60-80 crore on non-news broadcasters, over and above applicable spectrum usage fees.

The existing fee structure requires broadcasters using digital satellite news gathering (DSNG) facilities to pay ₹1 lakh per national channel per day and ₹50,000 per regional channel per day.

Pandey said these charges could make the live coverage of smaller competitions, regional sporting events and emerging sports commercially unviable.

A broadcaster seeking to televise an inter-college cricket or swimming competition, for instance, could find the additional processing charges prohibitive, he said.

The IBDF has also questioned Rule 24(6), which requires registration of certain DSNG-supported live events 15 days in advance. Pandey argued that the requirement does not account for the realities of tournament scheduling, where match venues and fixtures may be confirmed only days beforehand, depending on earlier results.

“Match outcomes, venue changes, weather disruptions and tournament scheduling are beyond the broadcaster’s control,” he said.

The body has additionally objected to Rule 24(8), which provides for an additional fee equivalent to 50% of the initial processing fee for specified late modifications. This translates into an additional ₹50,000 for a national channel and ₹25,000 for a regional channel.

The IBDF wants the temporary live-uplinking fees removed for non-news channels using DSNG facilities. It has proposed replacing the advance registration requirement with an online, intimation-based mechanism before uplinking begins, allowing tournament-level blanket intimations and removing modification charges.

It has also sought fee-free and penalty-free post-facto intimation within 72 hours of completion of a live uplink when unforeseen changes occur.

“If our national objective is to promote sports and make television more affordable, we should be removing barriers to live sports broadcasting, not imposing additional costs and penalties on broadcasters for circumstances beyond their control,” Pandey said.

Broadcasters want TRAI to move towards regulatory forbearance

Beyond the proposed authorisation rules, the IBDF has called for a fundamental review of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India’s (TRAI) tariff and interconnection framework.

Pandey said the existing regime was developed around a legacy distribution model and does not adequately reflect the competitive environment in which broadcasters operate today.

Unlike digital content providers, television broadcasters depend on multiple intermediaries, including direct-to-home operators, multi-system operators and local cable operators, to reach viewers. Each layer adds costs and creates commercial dependencies, limiting the resources available for content investment.

Pandey also pointed to differences between India and markets such as the US, where distributors pay broadcasters for retransmission rights, arguing that Indian broadcasters continue to incur significant distribution-related costs to secure carriage.

“TRAI should progressively move away from prescriptive commercial regulation and allow broadcasters and DPOs to negotiate mutually acceptable arrangements,” he said.

Greater flexibility in channel pricing, packaging and distribution, according to the IBDF, would allow commercial arrangements to reflect content value and audience demand, while enabling differentiated consumer offerings and new business models.

The industry body has not called for the regulator to withdraw entirely from the sector. Pandey said TRAI should continue addressing competition concerns, discriminatory practices and consumer protection, while allowing broadcasters and distributors greater freedom to negotiate commercial terms.

The IBDF has also sought a formal distinction between residential and commercial subscribers. It argues that hotels, restaurants, cafes, bars and pubs use television programming as part of their commercial offering, with premium sports and entertainment content helping attract customers and generate business.

However, broadcasters currently face restrictions on negotiating separate commercial subscription tariffs, offering customised bouquets and premium packages, providing dedicated feeds and entering into direct contractual arrangements with commercial establishments.

Pandey said differentiated licensing and pricing arrangements would allow broadcasters to monetise their intellectual property more fairly, while enabling commercial establishments to obtain packages suited to their requirements.

IBDF defends independent content self-regulation

Pandey also defended the industry’s self-regulatory model, arguing that independent grievance-redressal institutions should be preserved as the government considers changes to the broadcasting framework.

The IBDF established the BCCC in June 2011 to address complaints concerning non-news television content. It subsequently established the Digital Media Content Regulatory Council (DMCRC) in 2021 to extend independent self-regulation to digital entertainment.

Pandey said the BCCC’s composition, which includes retired judges, independent experts and other stakeholders, allows it to assess complaints involving violence, obscenity, child protection, religious and cultural sensitivities, and other programming concerns.

He said IBDF member channels had reported full compliance with the BCCC’s directives and advisories, arguing that the model demonstrates how accountability can be maintained without compromising editorial and creative freedom.

“Self-regulation is not an alternative to accountability; it is an effective means of delivering accountability while protecting freedom of expression,” he said.

The IBDF wants the independence of established self-regulatory bodies preserved, parallel enforcement mechanisms avoided and grievance-redressal processes strengthened without introducing duplicative penalties.

Industry seeks coordinated national anti-piracy mechanism

The IBDF has also called for a dedicated inter-ministerial committee to coordinate action against piracy, which Pandey described as a threat to investment, employment, legitimate businesses and India’s creative economy.

The proposed mechanism would bring together the MIB, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade, and the Ministry of Home Affairs, alongside industry representatives, copyright owners, distribution stakeholders and technology experts.

The body has proposed a national anti-piracy toolkit for state governments, police authorities and cybercrime units, covering the identification and documentation of infringement, evidence preservation, investigation procedures and coordination with rights holders.

Pandey said the fragmentation of enforcement responsibilities across ministries, state governments and law enforcement agencies undermines the effectiveness of anti-piracy action, particularly as unauthorised streaming websites, illicit IPTV services and illegal retransmission networks become more sophisticated.

The IBDF’s broader position is that regulatory reform should enable television broadcasters to compete more effectively for audiences and invest in content, rather than add compliance costs and operational constraints.

The debate comes as the government and industry are also grappling with the restoration of television ratings, which Pandey has identified as critical to content investment and advertising decisions.

Reliable audience measurement is necessary to help broadcasters understand viewing preferences, assess the performance of programmes and genres, and monetise audiences. The IBDF has said the continuing ratings blackout is particularly unfortunate during the festive season, when advertisers and broadcasters need timely data to guide commercial decisions.

With television facing competition from OTT streaming, connected TV and newer digital formats, the industry body’s central argument is that regulatory flexibility, credible audience measurement and commercial autonomy must work together to sustain investment in broadcasting.