#e4mExclusive:  Times Network, ABP seek safeguards as TV Today, Network18 oppose FAST regulation

The news television broadcasters are sharply divided over the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India’s (TRAI) proposal to frame regulations for Application-based Linear Television Distribution (ALTD) and Free Ad-Supported Streaming Television (FAST) services, exposing fault lines within the news media industry over the future of internet-delivered television.

Submissions made by major media companies including Times Network, TV Today Network, ABP Network and Network18 Media & Investments to TRAI reveal two competing visions for the regulation of FAST channels and connected TV ecosystems.

While Times Network and ABP Network have pushed for greater regulatory oversight and safeguards against what they describe as growing dominance of global technology gatekeepers, TV Today Network and Network18 have strongly opposed bringing FAST and ALTD services under telecom-style regulation, arguing that such a move would exceed TRAI’s jurisdiction and hurt India’s digital innovation ecosystem.

The debate has emerged after TRAI issued a consultation paper on April 6 seeking stakeholder views on creating a regulatory framework for internet-based linear television services, including FAST channels.

Times Network, ABP warn of regulatory arbitrage

In its submission, Times Network argued that FAST services are effectively replicating traditional television distribution without being subject to the same licensing, tariff, quality, and content obligations applicable to cable, DTH and IPTV operators.

The broadcaster said the rapid rise of internet-delivered free television channels is creating “competitive imbalances” and undermining the economics of India’s pay-TV ecosystem. According to the company, premium pay channels available on cable and DTH platforms are increasingly being distributed free through FAST platforms, accelerating cord-cutting and threatening subscription revenues.

Times Network also flagged concerns around opaque ad-revenue sharing arrangements, lack of standardized grievance redressal mechanisms, and growing control exercised by smart TV manufacturers and operating system providers over channel discovery and advertising inventory.

The broadcaster warned that OEMs and operating system gatekeepers could eventually replicate the carriage-fee model seen in traditional television distribution by charging channels for discoverability and placement on connected television interfaces.

ABP Network echoed many of these concerns but advocated what it called a “light-touch but proactive” regulatory framework rather than direct transplantation of legacy television regulations onto digital platforms.

The company cautioned that India risks witnessing the emergence of concentrated gatekeeper power similar to mobile app stores and digital advertising ecosystems globally if the FAST ecosystem remains entirely unregulated.

ABP highlighted risks including algorithmic self-preferencing, coercive advertising arrangements, opaque programmatic ad ecosystems, and asymmetric access to audience data.

The broadcaster sought safeguards ensuring “inventory sovereignty,” arguing that advertising inventory associated with broadcaster-created content should remain under broadcaster control and not be appropriated by FAST platforms through server-side ad insertion technologies.

ABP also called for mandatory transparency in advertising metrics and alignment with the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting’s recently announced TV Rating Policy 2026.

TV Today, Network18 oppose telecom-style regulation

On the other side of the debate, TV Today Network and Network18 mounted a strong legal and constitutional challenge to TRAI’s attempt to regulate ALTD and FAST services.

TV Today argued that FAST and ALTD services are fundamentally internet-based OTT applications and therefore do not qualify as “telecommunication services” under either the Telecommunications Act, 2023 or the TRAI Act.

The company contended that internet-based services merely ride on telecom infrastructure operated by internet service providers and telecom operators, but do not themselves engage in the “transmission, emission or reception” functions necessary to qualify as telecom services under law.

TV Today further argued that content providers are already extensively regulated under existing frameworks, including the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting’s uplinking and downlinking guidelines, the Cable Television Networks Act, the Information Technology Rules, and industry self-regulatory structures such as the News Broadcasters & Digital Association.

According to the broadcaster, TRAI’s proposal risks conflating “carriage” and “content” regulation, creating duplicative compliance burdens for broadcasters already operating within existing regulatory frameworks.

Network18 adopted an even sharper stance, arguing that bringing ALTD and FAST services under telecom-style authorization frameworks would be “ultra vires” and constitutionally problematic.

The company said Parliament had consciously excluded OTT services from the final version of the Telecommunications Act after earlier drafts had proposed their inclusion.

Network18 argued that FAST services operate at the “application layer” of the internet while telecom operators function at the “network layer,” making them fundamentally distinct.

The broadcaster warned that imposing licensing obligations, entry fees, bank guarantees, and authorization conditions designed for traditional infrastructure-heavy broadcasting networks onto internet applications would damage India’s digital growth story and conflict with the government’s Digital India and ease-of-doing-business objectives.

Battle over future of television distribution

The submissions reveal the growing tensions between traditional television economics and rapidly evolving connected television ecosystems.

India’s FAST market has witnessed rapid expansion due to increasing smart TV penetration, cheap mobile broadband, and shifting consumer preferences toward free ad-supported streaming models. Broadcasters increasingly view connected television as both a major opportunity and a significant threat to legacy subscription revenues.

Times Network estimated that the rise of unregulated FAST distribution is already creating structural undercutting of the pay-TV ecosystem and warned that “the delivery pipe (internet vs satellite) should not be allowed to dictate the value of the content.”

At the same time, companies opposing regulation argue that applying legacy television frameworks to internet services could discourage innovation and investment in India’s emerging digital media ecosystem.

The consultation has also triggered broader questions around the extent of TRAI’s jurisdiction over internet-based audiovisual services and whether future oversight should instead fall primarily under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting or the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology.

The outcome of the consultation is expected to shape the future structure of India’s connected TV market, digital advertising ecosystem, and the balance of power between broadcasters, telecom regulators, smart TV manufacturers, and global technology platforms.