TRAI’s internet TV rules trigger fears of wider OTT regulation, experts flag jurisdiction

The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India’s (TRAI) recommendations to bring internet-based television distribution applications under an authorisation framework have reignited concerns over the regulator’s jurisdiction over internet services, with industry stakeholders warning that the move could pave the way for broader regulation of over-the-top (OTT) platforms.

The concerns follow TRAI’s October 26 recommendations on an authorisation framework for Application-based Linear Television Distribution (ALTD) services, including Free Ad-Supported Streaming Television (FAST) platforms. The proposed framework seeks to bring applications and websites aggregating and distributing linear television channels over the internet under a formal authorisation regime.

While TRAI has sought to address what it describes as regulatory disparity between conventional television distribution platforms and internet-based services offering similar channels, experts argue that the recommendations raise a more fundamental question: whether the regulator has the statutory authority to extend its oversight to applications that operate over the open internet.

The issue assumes significance as the proposed framework could establish a precedent for bringing other internet-based content services within sector-specific regulation. Industry stakeholders fear that ALTD could become the starting point for a wider regulatory push covering OTT platforms, even though the latter operate under a distinct legal framework.

In its recommendations, TRAI has proposed that ALTD service providers obtain authorisation from the Central government under the category of Television Channel Distribution Services. The framework also envisages verification of authorised applications by smart TV manufacturers and operating system providers, along with compliance and reporting requirements.

The recommendations follow a reference from the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB), which asked TRAI to examine a regulatory framework for FAST services in December 2025. The recommendations are now before the government for consideration; the proposed framework is not yet equivalent to notified rules.

Where does TRAI’s jurisdiction end?

The major dispute is the distinction between regulating the infrastructure used to transmit content and regulating the applications through which consumers access it.

Industry stakeholders contend that ALTD and FAST services are application-layer services delivered over the internet. Unlike telecom operators or conventional television distribution platforms, these applications do not necessarily own or operate the underlying transmission infrastructure, use spectrum allocated to them, or provide the carriage networks through which content reaches viewers.

According to this view, the fact that an application distributes television channels does not automatically bring the application itself within TRAI’s statutory remit.

An industry body, in its submission during TRAI’s consultation process, argued that the regulator lacks jurisdiction to regulate ALTD and FAST services under either the TRAI Act, 1997, or the Telecommunications Act, 2023.

The submission maintained that these services rely on internet connectivity provided by licensed telecom service providers rather than operating the underlying infrastructure themselves. Extending sectoral regulation to such applications, it argued, would fundamentally alter the established regulatory architecture.

The industry body also pointed to the legislative history of the Telecommunications Act, 2023. The original draft of the Indian Telecommunication Bill, 2022, explicitly included OTT communication services within the definition of telecommunication services. Following public consultation and stakeholder objections, the provision was excluded from the final legislation.

The submission argued that this exclusion reflected Parliament’s intent not to bring OTT services within the Act’s regulatory ambit and that the same legislative intent should inform the treatment of internet-based television applications.

JioStar, in its consultation submission, similarly argued that a category of service consciously removed from the draft legislation after public consultation could not subsequently be brought back within the Act’s scope through subordinate regulatory mechanisms.

The company also cited Union Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw’s statement that OTT services continue to be regulated under the Information Technology Act, 2000, and are not covered by the new telecom legislation.

Industry stakeholders argue that the existing framework, including the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, and the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, already provides mechanisms for addressing aspects of online content and consumer protection. They therefore question whether an additional sector-specific authorisation regime is necessary.

‘A backdoor entry into OTT regulation’

An industry leader at an OTT platform, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the recommendations should concern stakeholders beyond the immediate ALTD and FAST ecosystem, given the potential implications for the wider internet economy.

“TRAI’s recommendation should concern all stakeholders, as it risks undermining the very principles that define its role as a regulator. TRAI’s mandate has historically centred on the broadcasting and telecom sectors, including satellite-based pay-TV services, while internet-based OTT platforms operate under a distinct legal and regulatory framework, including the IT Act and Rules. By referring OTT regulation to TRAI, the MIB risks opening the door to regulatory overreach into the internet domain,” the industry leader said.

The executive added that extending the regulator’s role into internet-based content distribution could create a pathway for further intervention in the OTT sector.

The concern, industry stakeholders say, is not limited to whether the proposed ALTD framework is proportionate in its current form. It is also about the regulatory precedent it could establish: if internet-based applications distributing linear television channels can be brought under TRAI’s authorisation framework, the industry wants clarity on what prevents similar arguments from being extended to other internet-based video services.

Such concerns are particularly relevant to OTT platforms that distribute on-demand films, original series and other audiovisual content, as well as services that combine live television with on-demand programming.

However, ALTD and conventional OTT services are not identical categories. The former focuses on the distribution of scheduled linear television channels, while the latter may offer a range of on-demand and other content. The question for stakeholders is whether similarities in delivery technology or content offerings can justify extending the same regulatory framework across these different services.

Questions over the regulator’s role in the creative economy

The OTT industry leader also questioned whether TRAI’s experience in regulating conventional broadcasting provides an adequate basis for overseeing the broader digital content ecosystem.

“More fundamentally, TRAI’s failure to adequately foster the growth of the linear broadcasting sector should give the MIB pause. A regulator that has struggled to address the structural challenges facing traditional broadcasting must demonstrate a deeper understanding of the creative economy before being entrusted with shaping the future of internet-based content. The regulation of a creative ecosystem requires an appreciation of its economics, incentives and diversity—not merely the extension of existing regulatory frameworks to new platforms,” the executive said.

The remarks reflect a wider concern among digital media stakeholders that regulatory approaches designed for traditional broadcasting may not translate seamlessly to internet-based services.

Traditional television distribution operates within an established framework involving distribution platforms, channel permissions, interconnection arrangements and other sector-specific obligations. Internet-based applications, by contrast, may operate across devices, networks and geographies, with business models ranging from advertising-supported services to subscriptions and hybrid offerings.

Industry stakeholders argue that extending obligations designed for conventional distribution platforms to internet applications could affect how digital services are launched, scaled and monetised. They also caution that regulatory uncertainty could influence investment decisions and the entry of smaller players into the connected-TV ecosystem.

MIB’s role under scrutiny

The dispute also places the MIB’s role in focus. It was the ministry that referred the FAST regulatory question to TRAI, asking the regulator to examine the framework for services distributing linear television channels over the internet.

The government’s stated objective, as reflected in the consultation process, is to address differences in the obligations imposed on conventional television distribution operators and internet-based platforms offering similar linear channels.

TRAI has argued that application-based distribution has expanded the ways in which audiences access television channels, while the associated responsibilities for authorisation, channel distribution and compliance may not be comparable to those applicable to traditional operators.

The industry’s counterargument is that regulatory parity cannot, by itself, establish statutory jurisdiction. Stakeholders maintain that the government must first demonstrate a clear legal basis for bringing these applications within the proposed framework.

They also argue that the absence of identical obligations across different delivery technologies does not necessarily amount to a regulatory vacuum. Where online content is already governed by existing laws and rules, they say, any additional intervention should be supported by a clear legislative mandate and a demonstrated need.

The distinction matters because TRAI’s recommendations are not confined to a voluntary code or an industry-led compliance mechanism. The proposed authorisation structure would place formal obligations on application providers and could affect the availability of services on connected televisions and other devices.

The larger question: what comes after ALTD?

For the OTT industry, the immediate concern is the scope of the ALTD framework, but the longer-term question is whether it could become a precedent for additional regulation of internet-based content services.

Stakeholders fear that once the principle of regulating applications delivering linear television over the internet is accepted, similar arguments could emerge for other OTT services. They want the government to clarify the boundaries between broadcasting regulation, telecom regulation and the existing framework governing digital platforms.

As the MIB considers TRAI’s recommendations, industry stakeholders are likely to seek greater clarity on the statutory basis for the proposed framework, its relationship with existing IT rules and whether the scope of regulation could expand beyond linear television distribution.

The distinction, industry stakeholders argue, will be critical to preserving regulatory certainty for India’s digital media and creative economy.