On June 12, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting released the draft Telecommunications (Television, Radio and Associated Services) Rules, 2026, seeking public feedback by July 27.
The stated objective is straightforward: consolidate six broadcasting guidelines, some dating back to 2001, into a single rulebook under the Telecommunications Act, 2023.
The draft, however, has left broadcasters concerned about a wider issue. Should an app streaming a television channel over the internet be treated in the same way as a cable operator or satellite DTH company, or should it be governed by a different set of rules?
Why the draft broadcasting rules have created confusion
The flashpoint lies in the definitions section.
Rule 2(21) defines “terrestrial transmission medium” to include the internet alongside wireline and wireless infrastructure.
According to a report by ET Telecom, industry executives are concerned that this could bring internet-delivered television under the same regulatory framework designed for licensed cable and DTH networks, as the internet is grouped with those infrastructure categories.
Rule 2(8) defines internet protocol television (IPTV) as a service delivered over a “closed network”.
Globally, IPTV generally refers to a service delivered by an operator that controls its network from end to end, such as a telecom company offering television through its own broadband infrastructure.
By defining IPTV around whether a network is closed rather than who owns it, the draft leaves room for the provision to be applied to services that did not fall within the traditional IPTV model.
Rule 26(1)(b) requires television channels to be supplied only to authorised entities for distribution, specifically DTH, Headend-in-the-Sky (HITS), cable and IPTV operators.
ET Telecom reported that broadcasters have warned that, unless clarified, this provision could prevent them from streaming their own linear channels through their apps, smart TV interfaces or websites over the open internet, as these routes do not fall within the listed categories of authorised distributors.
TRAI is separately examining app-based linear television
The uncertainty around internet-delivered television predates the draft rules.
In December 2025, the ministry asked the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) to separately examine how such services should be regulated.
TRAI responded with a consultation paper in April 2026 on what it calls Application-based Linear Television Distribution (ALTD).
The category is intended to cover apps that stream scheduled, channel-like content, including Free Ad-Supported Streaming Television (FAST) channels, on smart TVs, mobile devices and web browsers.
TRAI defines ALTD as covering application providers that distribute scheduled linear television channels through pre-installed apps on connected devices, downloadable applications or browser-based access.
The deadline for comments closed in May after an extension, and the consultation remains under consideration.
Why some want smart TV apps regulated like DTH
Some submissions to TRAI argue that app-based television services should be treated in the same way as conventional distribution platforms.
In a joint submission filed in May, industry representatives Joydip Kapadia and Karan Hora argued that DTH, cable and IPTV operators require licences, pay fees, follow content codes and manage viewer complaints, while FAST and ALTD apps distribute the same channels to the same households without similar obligations.
Their submission said this regulatory gap leaves viewers without consistent protections across platforms.
It also raised concerns about channels such as CNBC-TV18, India Today and Zee News being classified as pay channels on DTH and cable but offered free through apps such as Samsung TV Plus, YuppTV and LG webOS.
According to the submission, this conflicts with TRAI’s 2017 rule that a channel declared as a pay channel cannot be offered free on another platform.
That is the central argument for regulation: when the same channel is paid on one platform and free on another, the free platform may gain an unfair advantage, while viewers may not receive the same complaint-handling and transparency safeguards.
Why broadcasters and streaming platforms disagree
Broadcasters and streaming platforms have argued that internet-based distribution should remain outside the conventional broadcasting framework designed for physical carriage networks.
Their position is that DTH and cable licences exist because operators control scarce infrastructure, including spectrum, satellite capacity and last-mile cable networks, which the government has an interest in allocating and monitoring.
An app running on a smart TV or mobile phone does not control such infrastructure.
Applying the same net worth requirements, security clearances, performance bank guarantees and adjudication exposure to an app developer, or to a broadcaster distributing its own channel through its own app, would impose a heavy compliance burden on a service that uses existing internet capacity rather than operating a licensed network.
Should rules follow the channel or the distribution network?
The debate comes down to a basic regulatory choice.
Should a television channel be treated in the same way regardless of the screen, network or app through which it reaches viewers? Under that approach, an app offering a channel free would follow the same pricing and complaint-handling rules as a paid DTH or cable platform.
Alternatively, should regulation depend on whether a company owns or controls the network carrying the signal? Under that model, an app operating over another company’s internet connection would have little in common with a satellite or cable operator.
Based on submissions to TRAI on pricing fairness and the ministry’s effort to consolidate broadcasting rules, regulators appear to be moving towards treating channels consistently across platforms.
The final approach, however, remains uncertain. It could emerge through revisions to the draft rules, TRAI’s recommendations or a combination of both.
