#e4mExclusive:  TRAI likely to recommend regulatory framework for FAST, ALTD services

The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) is likely to recommend bringing Application-based Linear Television Distribution (ALTD) and Free Ad-Supported Streaming Television (FAST) services under a formal regulatory framework, sources close to the development said. TRAI is now setting the stage for a potentially significant shift in how internet-delivered television is governed in India.

The development comes after the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) asked TRAI to examine whether FAST and ALTD services should be brought under the licensing ambit. Sources said TRAI is expected to affirm its position that open-internet television services offering linear, scheduled channels should not remain entirely outside a formal regulatory framework.

The issue has emerged as one of the key fault lines in India's rapidly evolving television distribution market. Traditional distribution platforms, including cable and DTH operators, argue that FAST services are increasingly replicating television distribution while operating without several obligations imposed on licensed distributors. 

Technology companies, OTT platforms, smart-TV manufacturers and FAST operators, however, have argued that internet-based services are fundamentally different from traditional broadcasting and should not be subjected to legacy licensing requirements.

The regulatory debate is therefore increasingly centred on whether the nature of a service should be determined by the technology used to deliver it or by the television-like experience it provides to consumers.

Also Read: CTV, FAST expansion puts traditional cable operators on the backfoot

DTH players enter CTV, bet on FAST & broadcaster partnerships for next phase of TV

FAST, CTV could make TRAI's traditional broadcasting role irrelevant as TV shifts online

Broadcasters seek parity with traditional distribution

Broadcasters supporting regulation have pointed to what they see as a growing regulatory imbalance between traditional television distribution and internet-based linear television.

Times Network, in its submission to TRAI, argued that FAST services effectively replicate 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 growth of free internet-delivered television channels was creating competitive imbalances and putting pressure on the economics of the pay-TV ecosystem. Premium channels available through cable and DTH platforms are increasingly being distributed free through FAST services, it said, potentially accelerating cord-cutting and putting subscription revenues under pressure.

Times Network also raised concerns about opaque advertising revenue-sharing arrangements, the absence of standardised grievance redressal mechanisms and the growing influence of smart-TV manufacturers and operating-system providers over channel discovery and advertising inventory.

It warned that these technology gatekeepers could eventually replicate the carriage-fee model of traditional television by charging channels for discoverability and placement on connected-TV interfaces.

ABP Network similarly supported regulation but called for a “light-touch but proactive” framework rather than directly transplanting legacy television rules onto digital platforms. It flagged risks including algorithmic self-preferencing, opaque programmatic advertising arrangements and unequal access to audience data.

ABP also sought safeguards for what it termed “inventory sovereignty”, arguing that advertising inventory associated with broadcaster-created content should remain under broadcaster control.

Zee seeks licensing and must-carry obligations

Zee Entertainment has taken a stronger position in favour of regulatory parity, arguing that application-based linear television platforms are increasingly replicating traditional television distribution while remaining outside several existing obligations.

The broadcaster said traditional broadcasters and distribution platform operators are subject to programme and advertising codes, tariff and interconnection regulations, consumer protection requirements and public service obligations, creating what it described as regulatory asymmetry.

Zee has proposed that ALTD providers should obtain formal authorisation, with the application provider designated as the primary regulated entity because it aggregates channels, manages electronic programme guides and controls consumer access.

Its proposal includes a pan-India authorisation valid for 10 years, with eligibility for Indian companies having a commercial presence in the country and a minimum net worth of Rs 10 crore or a similar threshold applicable to DTH operators.

Zee has also sought the extension of “must carry” and “must provide” obligations to ALTD services, arguing that the absence of bandwidth constraints on the internet makes universal carriage technically feasible. It has further proposed extending mandatory sports signal-sharing requirements with Prasar Bharati to ALTD platforms.

Broadcasters challenge telecom-style regulation

Several major broadcasters, however, have opposed TRAI bringing FAST and ALTD under telecom-style authorisation.

TV Today Network and Network18 argued that FAST and ALTD services are fundamentally internet-based OTT applications and do not qualify as telecommunication services under the Telecommunications Act, 2023 or the TRAI Act.

TV Today said these services merely use infrastructure operated by telecom companies and internet service providers and do not themselves perform the transmission functions required to constitute telecom services. It also pointed to existing regulation under the MIB's uplinking and downlinking guidelines, the Cable Television Networks Act, Information Technology Rules and industry self-regulatory mechanisms.

Network18 argued that OTT services were consciously excluded from the final Telecommunications Act after earlier drafts had proposed their inclusion. It said FAST operates at the “application layer” while telecom operators function at the “network layer”.

Culver Max Entertainment and JioStar have advanced a similar legal and constitutional argument. Culver Max said FAST services are users of telecommunications networks rather than providers of telecommunications, while JioStar argued that OTT services do not establish telecom networks, use spectrum or provide end-to-end connectivity.

Both companies also questioned whether telecom licensing principles based on scarcity of spectrum and infrastructure can be applied to open-internet applications.

Jio Platforms opposes broadcast regulation

Jio Platforms has argued that the fact that OTT services carry scheduled programming and advertising does not make them traditional television channels.

In its May 11 submission, the company said OTT-delivered content, including FAST channels, should continue to be governed under the Information Technology Rules rather than regulations applicable to cable, DTH, HITS or IPTV operators.

Jio argued that broadcasting and OTT differ in delivery architecture, network control, quality-of-service mechanisms, content rights and commercial structures. It also pointed to existing net-neutrality obligations, arguing that additional “must carry” or “must provide” obligations were unnecessary.

The company cited platforms including YouTube, JioHotstar, JioTV, Netflix, Amazon Prime Video and social-media livestreaming services to argue that the presentation of content in a channel-like format should not by itself determine its regulatory classification.

Smart-TV makers warn against broadcaster classification

The potential framework has also raised concerns among smart-TV manufacturers and technology companies.

LG Electronics India opposed any classification of television manufacturers as broadcasters or distribution platforms merely because FAST applications may be pre-installed on smart TVs. It argued that manufacturers act as technology enablers and do not exercise editorial control over third-party applications.

The Manufacturers' Association for Information Technology (MAIT) similarly warned that additional broadcasting-related obligations would increase compliance complexity for consumer electronics companies already subject to requirements such as BIS certification, energy-efficiency norms and environmental regulations.

FAST platforms including CloudTV and RunnTV have proposed a lighter, registration-based framework with the MIB rather than a full licensing regime.

Regulatory decision could reshape connected television

The stakes are rising as connected-TV adoption accelerates. Industry estimates cited by Swift TV suggest connected-TV households could rise from around 20 million currently to more than 40 million by 2028, while FAST advertising revenues could approach $600 million over the same period.

The competing submissions highlight a broader transition in India's television market, where the boundaries between broadcasting, OTT and internet distribution are becoming increasingly blurred.

For traditional broadcasters and distributors, regulation is about establishing a level playing field as television moves online. For technology companies and FAST operators, the central concern is that rules designed for infrastructure-based broadcasting could impose disproportionate compliance costs on application-layer services.

The final regulatory approach will therefore determine whether India's emerging internet television ecosystem develops under a new dedicated framework or remains primarily governed by existing digital and content regulations.