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

India’s emerging regulatory framework for internet-delivered television services has triggered a sharp divide within the media and telecom ecosystem, with Jio Platforms Limited opposing any attempt to treat OTT-delivered linear channels as television broadcasting, while Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited has backed tighter regulation and licensing norms for such platforms.

The contrasting submissions were made to the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India in response to its consultation paper on “Application-based Linear Television Distribution (ALTD) Services”, including Free Ad-Supported Streaming Television (FAST) platforms.

The debate is expected to shape the future regulatory architecture for internet-based television distribution in India, with implications for OTT platforms, broadcasters, telecom operators, smart TV manufacturers, and digital advertising ecosystems.

Jio Platforms Opposes Broadcast-Style Regulation for OTT

Jio Platforms, in its submission dated May 11, argued that OTT-delivered content — including FAST channels — cannot be equated with traditional television broadcasting merely because it follows scheduled programming or carries advertisements. The company said the consultation paper “incorrectly construed” OTT-delivered streams as linear television channels.

The Reliance-backed company maintained that FAST services are fundamentally OTT services delivered over the public internet and should continue to be governed under the Information Technology Rules rather than broadcasting regulations applicable to cable TV, DTH, HITS, or IPTV operators.

Jio Platforms argued that OTT and broadcasting ecosystems differ significantly in terms of delivery architecture, network control, content rights, quality of service mechanisms, and commercial structures. It said broadcasting relies on dedicated and regulated carriage infrastructure, whereas OTT services operate over open internet networks where users independently pay for internet access.

The company also warned that introducing a separate regulatory regime for internet-based scheduled content could create “regulatory asymmetry” and undermine the principle of technological neutrality.

Net Neutrality and Existing IT Rules Sufficient, Says Jio

Jio Platforms argued that existing net neutrality obligations already ensure non-discriminatory access to internet content, making additional “must carry” or “must provide” style obligations unnecessary for OTT platforms.

The company pointed out that multiple internet platforms such as YouTube, JioHotstar, JioTV, Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, Facebook Live, Instagram Live, and X already carry scheduled or live-streamed content in various formats. The company said merely presenting content in a channel-like format cannot justify classifying such services as television broadcasting.

Jio also relied on existing legal and regulatory distinctions between television channels and internet content. It cited TRAI regulations, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting clarifications, and a 2023 order of the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT), which recognised that OTT platforms neither constitute television channels nor require broadcasting licences.

Zee Pushes for Regulatory Parity Between TV and ALTD Platforms

In contrast, Zee Entertainment supported the creation of a formal regulatory framework for ALTD and FAST services, arguing that application-based linear television platforms are increasingly replicating traditional TV distribution while operating outside existing regulatory obligations.

The broadcaster said this has resulted in “regulatory asymmetry” and a “non-level playing field” for licensed distribution platforms. According to Zee, traditional broadcasters and DPOs are subject to programme and advertising codes, tariff regulations, interconnection rules, consumer protection requirements, and public service broadcasting obligations, while many internet-based linear platforms are not.

Zee argued that ALTD services should be treated as distinct from on-demand OTT platforms because they distribute linear television channels in real time through internet applications and web-based interfaces.

Zee Seeks Licensing Regime and Must-Carry Rules

The company proposed that application providers should be designated as the primary entities responsible for obtaining regulatory authorisation because they aggregate channels, manage electronic programme guides, control consumer access, and can remove non-compliant content.

Zee also suggested a licensing structure broadly aligned with existing DTH and HITS operators. It proposed a pan-India authorisation valid for 10 years, with eligibility restricted to Indian companies having a commercial presence in India and a minimum net worth requirement of Rs 10 crore or similar to DTH operators.

Foreign entities, Zee said, should operate through Indian subsidiaries and remain subject to Indian jurisdiction, including data localisation and content compliance obligations.

Importantly, Zee sought the extension of “must carry” and “must provide” obligations to ALTD services, arguing that the absence of bandwidth constraints on internet platforms makes universal carriage technically feasible.

The broadcaster also recommended that mandatory sharing of sports broadcasting signals with Prasar Bharati and compulsory transmission obligations applicable to DTH and IPTV operators should also extend to ALTD providers.

Regulatory Battle May Shape Future of Digital TV Distribution

The sharply divergent positions underline growing tensions between traditional broadcasters and digital distribution ecosystems as television consumption increasingly migrates to connected devices and internet platforms.

TRAI’s consultation assumes significance because it could determine whether internet-delivered linear television services are treated as a continuation of the broadcasting sector or remain under India’s relatively lighter-touch OTT framework.

Industry executives said the regulator’s eventual recommendations may have far-reaching implications for platform licensing, channel carriage economics, digital advertising, content discovery, and competitive dynamics between telecom-backed streaming aggregators and traditional broadcasters.