From channel feeds to Ad revenue: How TRAI’s internet TV rules could affect broadcasters

The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India’s (TRAI) proposed authorisation framework for application-based linear television distribution could reshape how broadcasters supply channels, negotiate distribution agreements and monetise audiences across internet-based platforms. 

While the proposal exempts broadcaster-owned apps and websites that distribute only their own channels or those of specified group companies, third-party aggregators would need authorisation to operate and secure channel feeds from broadcasters. The framework could also influence advertising monetisation and the measurement of television viewership as linear channels increasingly reach audiences through internet-connected devices.

TRAI's proposed authorisation framework for application-based linear television distribution could redraw the boundaries between broadcasters’ direct-to-consumer platforms and third-party digital distributors, bringing greater regulatory scrutiny to how television channels are aggregated and delivered over the internet.

Under the recommendations, applications and websites operated by broadcasters exclusively to distribute their own channels, or those of their holding or subsidiary companies and specified group entities, would remain outside the proposed authorisation regime. 

Live streams on social media intermediaries would also be excluded. The framework would instead cover platforms that develop, deploy and manage applications or websites aggregating government-approved linear television channels and distributing them to users in India.

For broadcasters, the distinction is more than a regulatory carve-out. It could influence how they structure digital distribution partnerships, negotiate with aggregators and protect their direct relationships with viewers as linear television expands across connected TVs, mobile devices and web-based interfaces.

Three implications stand out: the preservation of broadcasters’ direct distribution options, tighter control over which third-party platforms can carry their channels, and the potential for a more formal commercial relationship with internet-based aggregators.

Direct-to-consumer platforms retain flexibility

The exemption for broadcaster-owned apps recognises a distinction between a broadcaster making its own channels available online and an independent platform aggregating channels from multiple content owners.

TRAI has reasoned that a broadcaster distributing only its own channels, or those of specified group companies, does not perform the role of an independent television distribution platform. Such apps would therefore fall outside the proposed ALTD authorisation framework.

For broadcasters investing in proprietary digital platforms, this preserves a route to reach audiences without being treated as third-party channel distributors under the proposed regime. They can continue to use their own apps and websites to make their channels available, subject to other applicable laws and obligations.

The boundary, however, depends on the nature of the service rather than ownership alone. If a broadcaster-owned application begins aggregating third-party channels, it may no longer qualify for the exclusion. Broadcasters with mixed distribution models would need to assess whether their services fall within the proposed definition.

“The exemption protects the distinction between a broadcaster’s own digital presence and a platform that aggregates channels from several broadcasters. For media companies, that makes the structure of the service important. An app carrying only group channels is in a different regulatory position from one that also distributes third-party content,” said a senior broadcasting industry executive, requesting anonymity.

Channel access could become a compliance issue

The recommendations could have a more immediate operational impact on broadcasters’ relationships with third-party aggregators. TRAI has proposed that broadcasters provide their channel signals or feeds only to authorised ALTD application providers, through interconnection agreements.

This would make the authorisation status of an application provider a key consideration in channel distribution decisions. Broadcasters would need to ensure that their digital partners obtain the required authorisation and that distribution arrangements comply with the final framework.

TRAI has proposed a one-year transition period from notification of the authorisation framework for existing application providers to obtain authorisation. If a provider fails to secure it within that period, the broadcaster would have to discontinue supplying its channel signals to that platform.

The proposal could therefore affect existing distribution arrangements where applications are already carrying linear television channels but have not obtained formal approval. It may also strengthen broadcasters’ ability to distinguish between authorised distribution partners and services operating outside the proposed framework.

The impact on individual broadcasters would depend on how extensively they rely on third-party apps for digital reach and whether their existing partners meet the eventual authorisation requirements.

“The practical question for broadcasters will be whether their existing distribution partners qualify and secure authorisation within the transition period. Channel feeds cannot simply continue to be supplied to an application that fails to meet the proposed requirements. This will make compliance checks part of digital distribution management,” said a distribution executive at a television network, who did not wish to be identified.

Aggregators could gain legitimacy, but not guaranteed carriage

The proposed framework also recognises that ALTD applications perform functions associated with television distribution. These include aggregating channels, organising electronic programme guides, managing channel listings, curating platform-service channels and supporting advertising insertion and monetisation.

Formal authorisation could give compliant aggregators greater regulatory certainty and establish a clearer basis for their commercial and technical arrangements with broadcasters. It could also make it easier for broadcasters to assess the standing of platforms seeking access to their feeds.

However, authorisation would not automatically entitle an application provider to carry every channel. Broadcasters and aggregators would still need to enter into interconnection agreements and negotiate commercial terms. Nor does the proposal establish that all authorised platforms would secure equal access to channels.

The commercial implications will depend on how these agreements develop, the audience reach of individual applications and the value broadcasters see in distributing their channels through them. The framework formalises the distribution relationship; it does not, by itself, settle the economics of carriage or advertising.

Advertising and audience measurement remain important

The regulatory distinction is also relevant to monetisation. TRAI notes that ALTD applications can use broadcaster-embedded ad markers to facilitate dynamic ad insertion, allowing advertisements to be inserted into designated breaks. The application provider may therefore have a role in the advertising experience and monetisation of distributed channels.

For broadcasters, this makes the commercial terms governing advertising inventory, insertion rights and revenue arrangements important areas to examine when entering into or renewing distribution agreements. The recommendations recognise these functions but do not prescribe a universal revenue-sharing model.

TRAI has separately recommended integrating viewership of television channels distributed through ALTD applications into the television audience measurement framework. Registered rating agencies would develop the methodology after the authorisation framework is finalised, while authorised application providers could be allowed to publish periodic, anonymised viewership data under the proposed provisions.

More comprehensive measurement could help broadcasters and advertisers assess audiences across conventional television distribution and internet-based apps. The actual commercial benefit, however, would depend on the reliability, comparability and adoption of the eventual measurement methodology.

“The opportunity is not merely to add another distribution route. Broadcasters need visibility into how audiences are consuming their channels and how advertising is being monetised on these platforms. The value of the framework will depend on the clarity of commercial agreements and the quality of audience measurement,” said a senior media executive, requesting anonymity.

Final rules will determine the extent of change

TRAI’s recommendations propose a differentiated framework rather than applying the same authorisation requirements to every online service carrying video. Broadcaster-owned apps distributing only their own or specified group-company channels would remain outside the proposed scope, while third-party aggregators meeting the definition of ALTD service would need authorisation.

For broadcasters, the immediate strategic task is to map their digital distribution arrangements against this distinction: which services are proprietary, which aggregate third-party channels, and which partners would need authorisation before continuing to receive channel feeds.

The ultimate impact will depend on the government’s final framework and the detailed conditions governing authorisation, interconnection and compliance. But the direction is clear: as linear television moves across internet-based platforms, broadcasters’ distribution strategies will increasingly need to account for the regulatory status of the intermediaries through which their channels reach viewers.