As India seeks to build a globally competitive media and entertainment industry, the regulatory framework must evolve with the sector. The proposed treatment of application-based linear television distribution raises important questions about the boundaries of telecom regulation, the future of internet-based services and the case for regulatory forbearance.
India’s media and entertainment (M&E) industry grew 9 percent in 2025 to Rs 2.78 lakh crore. For the first time, digital media alone earned over Rs 1 lakh crore, while linear TV advertising fell 10 percent. Connected TVs in Indian homes rose from 30 million to 40 million in a single year. The living-room screen is changing, and with it the way Indians watch live television.
Policy has begun to match this ambition. The Union Budget 2026-27 placed the “Orange Economy” centre-stage, backing AVGC Content Creator Labs in 15,000 schools and 500 colleges for a sector expected to need nearly two million skilled workers by 2030. WAVES 2025 in Mumbai signalled India’s intent to become a global content hub. The distance to travel remains long: one industry estimate puts India’s screen entertainment industry at about USD 30 billion, compared with USD 75 billion for China and USD 200 billion for the US.
It is against this backdrop that the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India’s (TRAI) recent recommendations on the Authorisation Framework for Application-based Linear Television Distribution (ALTD) Services deserve closer consideration. TRAI must be complimented on several counts:- it has proposed a genuinely light-touch regime with a one-time entry fee of Rs 1 lakh, no authorisation fee, no bank guarantee. It has excluded broadcaster-owned apps and live streams on social media. It has identified real concerns, notably channels carried without Government permission and grievance mechanisms that, in some cases, route consumers to overseas entities. However, it raises a more fundamental question: how far should the definition of a telecommunications service extend to cover services that operate at the application layer of the internet?And so the issue goes beyond whether application-based platforms distributing linear television channels should be subject to certain broadcasting-related obligations. In fact, it raises issues for many other sectors.
Scoping the service
In its recommendations, TRAI concludes that ALTD services qualify as telecommunication services under the Telecommunications Act, 2023. Its reasoning rests substantially on the proposition that audiovisual content distributed through these applications constitutes a “message” under the Act, and that the transmission of such messages over public internet or IP-based networks brings the service within the definition of “telecommunication service”.
The statutory definitions are undoubtedly broad. But using telecommunication to deliver a service is not the same as providing a service for telecommunication. An ALTD app aggregates channels and manages the interface; the transmission is carried out by an independent internet service provider. Interestingly, TRAI itself describes the transport layer as “a technological attribute”, with the nature of the content experience as the deciding factor.
This distinction is crucial and fundamental to the regulatory boundaries. The internet carries an extraordinary range of services: messaging applications, video-conferencing platforms, social media, gaming, cloud-based applications and digital content services. Each involves the transmission of information, images, audio or video over telecommunications networks. If the transmission of such content is, by itself, sufficient to classify the service as a telecommunications service, the boundaries of the statutory definition become considerably less certain.
A pertinent question is what additional characteristics make the service offered by an application provider a telecommunications service within the meaning of the Act. What is the limiting principle that distinguishes an ALTD application from other application-layer services that also transmit messages over the internet?
This concern merits attention in light of the legislative history of the Telecommunications Act. During the passage of the legislation in December 2023, the then Minister for Communications publicly clarified that OTT applications would not be covered by the new telecom law and would continue to be governed by the Information Technology Act, 2000.
An interpretation that potentially brings a wider range of application-layer services within telecom authorisation should therefore be approached with care. The issue is not to create blanket immunity for internet-based services, but to ensure that the scope of telecom regulation is not expanded by implication without a clear statutory basis.
Technology neutrality must not become regulatory uniformity
TRAI’s argument also draws on technology neutrality and functional equivalence. It observes that ALTD, like cable television, DTH and IPTV, enables consumers to access linear television channels. From the consumer’s perspective, the experience may indeed be similar, but technology neutrality should not be conflated with identical regulatory treatment. Nor should it become a basis for collapsing the distinction between the network that carries a service and the application that provides it.
If the mere transmission of messages over a telecom network were sufficient to bring an application within the definition of a telecommunication service, the same reasoning could extend well beyond ALTD. A video-conferencing application transmits audio and video; a messaging platform transmits text, images and voice notes; and a cloud-gaming service delivers interactive audiovisual content. A logistic operator might be conveying messages to his trucks and transporters using telecom; would he become a telecommunication service provider? A healthcare provider might be advising his patients through messages; does that make his service a telecommunication service? This is precisely why the interpretation requires a clear limiting principle.
A cable or DTH operator controls its distribution network. An app provider controls the interface, the channel aggregation, and the customer relationship, but not the last mile. Comparable functions justify comparable obligations on channel permission, transparency and grievance redressal. It does not automatically establish that the application provider performs a telecommunications function or should be subject to the same authorisation requirements as a network-based service provider.
The objective should be regulatory parity where the functions and risks are comparable, coupled with differentiated obligations where the underlying arrangements are materially different. It should not become a basis for extending the same regulatory framework to services that perform materially different functions.
The case for regulatory forbearance
There is also a broader question about the direction of broadcasting regulation. Though TRAI has identified concerns warranting regulatory attention, such as unapproved channels, inadequate service transparency and the absence of clear consumer grievance mechanisms, it does not automatically establish that a new telecommunications authorisation is the necessary or proportionate response. Channel-level permissions, consumer disclosures, grievance redressal and platform-specific accountability could potentially be addressed through more targeted broadcasting-related measures. The Government should examine whether these objectives can be achieved without introducing an additional layer of telecom authorisation for application-based services.
Importantly, the wider broadcasting sector has long called for regulatory rationalisation and forbearance to improve theuld not invariably be to extend existing obligations to new services. It may also be necessary to review whether legacy obligations imposed on traditional distribution platforms remain relevant and proportionate in a converged market
Regulatory parity can be achieved by extending obligations, but it can also be achieved by rationalising them. A framework that preserves outdated requirements while adding new ones risks increasing the overall compliance burden without necessarily improving consumer outcomes.
The way forward: Matching India’s creative ambition with policy certainty
Before adopting the proposed ALTD authorisation framework, the Government should consider a few fundamental questions. What principle distinguishes such an application from other internet-based services? How will the proposed approach interact with existing laws, regulatory responsibilities, and the Government’s stated objective of promoting a globally competitive creative economy?
The concerns TRAI has identified are real; the question is the instrument. The way forward could be:
- Regulate content through a content framework:Address channel permission, programme and advertising standards and grievance redressal through a dedicated instrument under MIB’s broadcasting and digital-media mandate, rather than a telecom authorisation.
- If the Telecom Act route is retained, write the boundary into the Rules:State expressly that the category covers only aggregation and distribution of third-party linear channels, and does not make on-demand, communication or other application-layer services “telecommunication services”.
- Rationalize legacy rules in parallel:Review obligations on cable and DTH and other distribution and broadcasting service providers, to ease doing business.
- Coordinate across ministries:A joint DoT–MIB–MeitY position on where telecom ends, and media begins.
India’s digital and creative markets are evolving faster than our regulatory categories. The task is not to force every new service into an old mold, but to keep the framework coherent, proportionate and open to innovation. A regulatory system uncertain about the boundaries of its own application can create compliance costs, discourage entry, and make long-term investment decisions more difficult. If the Orange Economy is to power Viksit Bharat @2047, investors must know where the lines lie, and the government ought to unlock its economic, creative, and soft-power potential.
The article is co-authored by Shubhika H Goel, Director – Policy Advocacy & Communications, Broadband India Forum. Views are personal.
Telecom policy can no longer stop at the network
Beyond cellular networks: The emerging challenge of wireless security
