Cable, DTH vs streaming: Battle lines drawn at Trai over FAST TV rules

MUMBAI: India’s broadcasters, cable and DTH operators, streaming platforms, smart-TV makers and internet companies are locked in a battle over the future regulation of internet-delivered television, with sharply divergent submissions emerging in the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India’s consultation on Application-based Linear Television Distribution (ALTD) and FAST services.

The consultation was initiated after the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) asked TRAI in December 2025 to recommend a regulatory framework for FAST services following complaints from traditional distribution players over unregulated linear television streaming platforms.

The debate comes amid accelerating cord-cutting and declining pay-TV subscriptions as audiences migrate toward connected TVs, OTT streaming platforms and free ad-supported streaming services.


Also read: Trai proposes fine up to Rs 50 lakh on telcos for improper handling of customer complaints

In its submission, Bharti Telemedia said DTH subscribers declined from 66.62 million in December 2022 to 50.99 million in December 2025, a drop of about 23%, while connected-TV households crossed 68 million.

TRAI’s consultation paper cited industry reports showing that India had more than 102 million connected-TV households and 129.2 million connected-TV viewers in 2025, with connected-TV audiences growing 85% in a year.

The regulator also referred to projections by Muvi estimating FAST service revenues in India would rise from $63.69 million in 2023 to $104.1 million by 2027, while FAST users are expected to grow from 116.4 million in 2023 to 148.6 million by 2027.

At the centre of the consultation is whether FAST and ALTD platforms, which stream scheduled television-like channels over the internet, should be treated like cable TV and DTH operators or continue operating under lighter digital rules applicable to OTT platforms.

Traditional distribution stakeholders including the All India Digital Cable Federation (AIDCF), Bharti Telemedia and broadcaster Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited argued that ALTD and FAST services have created a regulatory imbalance by distributing television-like channels without complying with licensing, tariff, interconnection and content obligations applicable to traditional Distribution Platform Operators (DPOs).

Their core argument is “same content, same rules”. They contend that if internet platforms distribute the same linear television channels as cable and DTH operators, they should face comparable regulatory obligations irrespective of delivery technology.

AIDCF sought a full-fledged licensing regime for ALTD platforms, including Rs 10 crore entry fees, net-worth requirements, security clearances and adjusted gross revenue-based authorisation fees. The federation alleged that several FAST platforms distribute television channels without MIB authorisation, creating risks around content governance, pricing parity and national security.

Also read: 5G network slicing: India's digital highway or a recipe for discrimination?

Bharti Telemedia proposed two alternatives: either relax regulations on legacy DTH and cable operators to create parity with digital platforms, or extend similar obligations to ALTD services under a “same content, same rules” framework.

The company also sought pricing parity across DTH, cable and ALTD platforms and argued that some ALTD platforms were streaming pay-TV and premium sports channels free of cost.

ZEEL said ALTD services should not be treated as OTT platforms because they replicate scheduled television viewing experiences similar to traditional broadcasting. The broadcaster proposed that application providers should be designated as the primary regulated entities responsible for compliance and carriage of only MIB-authorised channels.

ZEEL also supported mandatory sports signal-sharing with Prasar Bharati and applicability of Programme and Advertising Codes to ALTD services.

In contrast, digital and technology companies opposed extending legacy broadcasting or telecom-style regulation to internet-delivered television services.

The Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI), Jio Platforms Limited, JioStar, LG Electronics, RunnTV and Koan Advisory Group argued that FAST and ALTD platforms are application-layer internet services comparable to OTT streaming platforms and should continue to be governed under existing IT Rules rather than broadcasting regulation.

Digital stakeholders argued that broadcast-era regulation was designed around spectrum scarcity and infrastructure bottlenecks, which do not apply to internet-based streaming services operating over open broadband networks.

These stakeholders said FAST services do not use spectrum, own carriage infrastructure or control access networks like cable and DTH operators. They argued that such services merely use internet connectivity provided by telecom operators and therefore cannot be equated with traditional broadcasters or DPOs.

IAMAI warned that extending telecom-style licensing or broadcasting obligations to internet services would hurt innovation, startups and digital investment, while Jio Platforms and JioStar argued that scheduled or channel-like presentation of content does not transform OTT streaming into television broadcasting.

RunnTV said more than 70% of FAST channels are digital-only channels repurposed from OTT and YouTube libraries and warned that heavy licensing norms could disproportionately hurt smaller digital players.

Smart-TV makers and operating-system providers also resisted being held responsible for content compliance. LG Electronics argued that TV manufacturers only provide hardware and app ecosystems, while editorial control and channel distribution rights rest with application providers and broadcasters.

Several digital stakeholders also argued that the real solution lies in modernising and easing legacy broadcasting regulation rather than extending old television-era rules to internet services.