TRAI chief calls for balanced broadcast regulation amid industry divide

Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) chairman Anil Kumar Lahoti said the regulator has to walk a fine line, as it faces conflicting demands from both the top and bottom ends of the broadcasting sector regarding the extent of regulatory intervention required.

Speaking during a keynote address on Thursday at the World Audio Visual and Entertainment Summit (WAVES), Lahoti said those at the top of the industry, such as major broadcasters and distributors, seek greater freedom and less regulation.

In contrast, those at the bottom—like local cable operators and consumers—often call for increased regulatory oversight, he added.

“So, we face conflicting demands from different stakeholders and need to find a balanced approach,” he said, noting that TRAI has been deregulating where necessary while ensuring consumer protection.

He also said TRAI has initiated a pre-consultation process for a comprehensive review of the New Tariff Order (NTO) and its various iterations over the years, which have drawn criticism from stakeholders across the broadcasting value chain for inflating TV bills and rendering linear TV uncompetitive compared to streaming platforms.

ET had earlier reported that TRAI has held separate discussions with TV broadcasters and distribution platform operators (DPOs) to collect inputs for the upcoming consultation exercise.

During the pre-consultation phase, stakeholders highlighted to TRAI the regulatory disparity between linear TV and streaming platforms.

Lahoti also pointed to overlapping jurisdictions between the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), which oversees digital media, and the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB), responsible for news and curated content.

This, he said, creates inconsistencies in regulatory principles and enforcement between digital and linear TV—an issue that merits attention.

Lahoti also referred to the draft Broadcast Bill proposed by the MIB, which includes potential regulation of OTT platforms. The bill is under consultation, and future decisions are expected to offer more clarity, he said.

The content distribution landscape is rapidly evolving—from cable TV, direct-to-home (DTH), headend-in-the-sky (HITS), and internet protocol television (IPTV) to digital streaming.

While linear TV adheres to strict Programme and Advertising guidelines, OTT platforms follow self-regulation, creating a regulatory gap between the two mediums. Stakeholders have also pointed out to TRAI that Free Ad-Supported Streaming TV (FAST), which is gaining traction in India, remains unregulated.

“Are we treating linear and digital TV equally in regulatory terms? Linear TV evolved under a structured, regulated framework that has been periodically updated and liberalised. In contrast, digital broadcasting remains lightly regulated—or not at all—in some areas,” Lahoti observed.

This disparity, he said, raises two key concerns. First, content regulation: cable TV is bound by government-mandated programming and advertising codes, while digital platforms are largely self-regulated and not strictly subject to these rules.

Concerns over digital content have even prompted the Supreme Court to issue a notice in a public interest litigation seeking regulation of streaming content.

Second, fairness in regulation. Lahoti said regulatory disadvantages should not be created for one medium over another. While technological advantages are acceptable, regulatory imbalances are not. He also pointed out that consumer protection mechanisms vary while cable TV regulations ensure fair pricing and service, such safeguards are minimal or inconsistent in the digital space.

In conclusion, Lahoti said TRAI aims for minimal regulation that promotes industry growth and innovation while safeguarding consumer interests. “We must strike a balance that supports innovation, protects vulnerable stakeholders, and provides the best possible experience for consumers,” he added.