TRAI’s internet TV proposal raises concerns over wider OTT regulation, say legal experts

The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India’s (TRAI) proposal to bring internet-based linear television distribution under a broadcasting authorisation framework has raised questions about the scope of the Telecommunications Act, 2023, and whether its interpretation could have implications beyond television services for other content applications delivered over the internet, legal experts told ET.

“TRAI anchors its jurisdiction in a conjoint reading of Sections 2(g), 2(p) and 2(t) of the Telecom Act, concluding that a linear channel delivered over IP networks is a ‘telecommunication service’. Similar liberal reading of these clauses would essentially bring every content application within the ambit of the Telecom Act,” said Supreme Court senior advocate Abhishek Malhotra.

Also read: Tata Play dishes out ₹199 wildcard to stay connected in changing world


“This is a massive departure from the present regime, especially given the earlier proceedings concerning TRAI’s attempt to obtain information on the distribution of television channels over OTT platforms,” he added.

The concern is whether treating internet-delivered linear channels as telecommunications services could support a broader interpretation of the law, even though TRAI’s current recommendations specifically target applications that aggregate and distribute linear television channels. The recommendations do not, by themselves, extend the proposed authorisation framework to all OTT services.

The Union government had indicated during the passage of the Telecommunications Act that OTT services would continue under the existing legal framework. TRAI’s latest recommendations, however, propose a separate authorisation framework for application-based linear television distribution (ALTD), reviving questions about the regulator’s jurisdiction over internet-delivered content.

In 2022, the Delhi High Court stayed orders directing Star India, Sony Pictures Networks India and Sun TV to provide TRAI with information about the distribution of their television channels through their own or third-party OTT platforms. The connected petitions were disposed of in September 2023 after TRAI indicated that it intended to close the specific compliance issue, without prejudice to possible future investigation. The court did not rule on the broader question of TRAI’s jurisdiction over OTT services on the merits.

“The ball is in MIB’s court,” a senior regulatory executive said, referring to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, which must decide whether to accept TRAI’s recommendations. The executive said the proposed definition could raise questions about the treatment of content distributed through digital platforms.

Also read: TRAI recommends light-touch regulatory framework for internet-based TV services

TRAI’s recommendations exclude live streams carried through social-media intermediaries and specified broadcaster-owned applications that distribute only their own channels or those of their subsidiaries or holding companies.

TRAI has argued that ALTD services perform functions similar to traditional TV distributors by aggregating channels, organising programme listings and managing advertising. It has also cited gaps in consumer grievance redressal and the absence of dedicated oversight. The regulator has acknowledged that excessive regulation could discourage innovation and investment, calling for a light-touch framework.

“TRAI’s ALTD recommendation risks regulatory overreach into the internet domain, blurring the distinction between satellite-based pay-TV and OTT platforms governed under a separate legal framework. Its failure to adequately foster linear broadcasting growth should also concern the MIB. Regulating the creative economy requires understanding how it works, not merely extending existing regulatory frameworks to it,” said another regulatory head with a large entertainment company.

TRAI has proposed a 20-year authorisation for ALTD services, renewable for successive 10-year periods, with an application processing fee of Rs 10,000, a one-time, non-refundable entry fee of Rs 1 lakh and no annual authorisation fee, bank guarantee or security deposit.

The proposal also envisages consumer grievance redressal requirements, compliance reporting and restrictions on unauthorised ALTD apps on devices. Device makers and operating-system providers would face certain obligations concerning the availability of authorised apps, even though they would not themselves require ALTD authorisation.

The MIB referred the matter to TRAI on December 15, 2025, seeking recommendations on a regulatory framework for free ad-supported streaming television (FAST) services. During the consultation, the Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI) questioned whether TRAI had the statutory authority under the TRAI Act, 1997, or the Telecommunications Act, 2023, to recommend such a framework.

IAMAI argued that these are application-layer services that deliver content over the open internet without operating telecom networks, providing carriage infrastructure or using spectrum in the way traditional broadcasters and telecom operators do.

The proposed registration system has also raised concerns about internet-native news channels. TRAI has restricted the simplified registration route to non-news and current-affairs channels, arguing that news has wider implications for public order, national security and social harmony. It has said a separate route could allow internet-native news channels to bypass the existing permission framework for television news.

Malhotra questioned whether these concerns justified the distinction.

“Broadcast licensing has rested on the scarcity of airwaves as public property, a rationale which does not ipso facto extend to the internet. Prior registration of internet-native channels, coupled with the exclusion of news from that route, operates as a licensing precondition on speech under Article 19(1)(a),” he said.

He argued that less restrictive alternatives had not been adequately considered. The issue, therefore, is not only whether internet-based television services should face obligations similar to traditional distributors, but also whether the proposed registration requirements and the distinction between news and non-news channels are legally justified.

The recommendations also propose that ALTD providers keep specified user data and associated IT infrastructure in India. Malhotra said the requirements could cover viewing preferences and consumption analytics, creating compliance challenges for services that rely on global infrastructure.

He also questioned whether the proposed obligations on device makers and operating-system providers, as well as provisions for removing or disabling unauthorised ALTD apps, had a sufficient legal basis. In his view, the latter could raise questions about the relationship between the proposed framework and the existing mechanism under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Malhotra also questioned whether an authorisation condition requiring data to be kept in India could qualify as a law preserved by Section 16(2) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.

The recommendations are not yet binding rules. The MIB will have to consider the proposals before the framework can be implemented, with the final legal position depending on the government's subsequent action.

The debate comes as the FAST market expands in India. The country was the world’s fourth-largest FAST market by revenue in 2023, behind the US, China and Japan, according to Muvi’s report, FAST Forward: Projecting the Explosive Growth of FAST Channels from 2024 to 2027.

The report estimated India’s FAST revenue at $63.69 million (Rs 590.66 crore) in 2023 and projected it to reach $104.10 million (Rs 965.42 crore) by 2027. India has 62 million to 65 million connected-TV households and 207 million viewers, according to estimates cited from WPP, The Trade Desk and Ormax Media.