Welcome to The Esya Dispatch, a weekly snapshot of the policy debates shaping India’s digital economy. Each edition brings together key developments in technology policy, from platform governance and AI regulation to data protection and competition — along with the Esya Centre’s perspective on what they mean for innovation, businesses, and users.
Here’s a quick recap of two key tech policy developments from the past week:
The TRAI aims to regulate free ad-supported streaming TV apps
The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) has released a consultation paper on regulating Application-based Linear Television Distribution (ALTD) services – which includes free ad-supported streaming TV services like Samsung TV Plus. Based on a reference from the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, the CP notes that while such services offer linear, pre-scheduled content similar to Distribution Platform Operators (DPOs), they are not subject to comparable regulatory obligations and may potentially fall afoul of MIB’s Policy Guidelines for Uplinking and Downlinking Guidelines for Television Channels as well as TRAI regulations. It adds that content on FAST services is offered without regulatory oversight, raising concerns around content regulation, compliance, accountability and consumer protection.
While wider issues related to OTT services are beyond its scope, the CP highlights that OTT platforms also offer linear television programmes either as a standalone service or bundled with on-demand content. It adds that since the pricing of individual channels is subsumed within such platforms’ subscription fees, it is difficult to know the effective price they charge for such content. TRAI is accepting written comments on the consultation paper until May 6, 2026.
ESYA’S TAKE: This consultation paper touches on issues that lie beyond the TRAI’s jurisdiction. To begin with, the Telecommunications Act 2023 does not empower TRAI to regulate online services like ALTDs or wider OTT services. Illustratively, the Minister for Electronics and IT has previously clarified that the definition of “telecommunications” under this Act does not apply to OTT players or applications. Additionally, unlike the Telecommunications Bill 2022, the 2023 Act does not contain any explicit reference to OTT services. This shows that policymakers intended to exclude such services from its ambit.
Additionally, content regulation does not fall within the TRAI’s ambit. Under Indian telecommunications law and policy, content and carriage have always been regulated separately, with MIB overseeing the former and the TRAI only looking into the latter. This is because regulating content and carriage requires completely different skillsets – while the former requires considering the impact of content on societal sensibilities, the latter entails ensuring the optimal usage of scarce spectrum through quality of service, tariff and interconnection regulations. This fact has also been acknowledged by the MIB in its response to TRAI dated 04.10.2022. Moreover, although the consultation paper suggests that on-demand content offered by FAST services is unregulated, it is, in fact, subject to various laws – such as the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Part III of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
Lastly, while the consultation paper voices concern regarding the impact of FAST services on DPOs, its own figures show that cable and DTH remain the predominant mode of consuming TV content in India. An Esya Survey of 2,000 consumers shows that 87 percent of households engage with TV programmes and prefer to maintain their subscription even in the presence of alternative digital platforms. Thus, ALTDs will likely serve as a complement to DPOs, not a competitive threat. More broadly, however, competition from newer technologies is not a market failure, and thus, it is not a regulator’s place to be stepping in on such matters. If the regulator wishes to enhance the competitiveness of DPOs it should consider deregulating the broadcasting sector, instead of imposing existing rules on new technologies where they are neither warranted nor within its jurisdiction.
MeitY moves to regulate online user-posted news
The Ministry of Electronics and IT recently met stakeholders from industry and civil society to discuss draft amendments to the IT Rules, 2021. One key aspect discussed in the industry meeting was the possibility of intermediaries being required to furnish information about content creators, and being treated as directly liable for user content. Stakeholders also flagged concerns regarding the IT Rules’ broad definition of news and current affairs content, cautioning that it could lead to over-enforcement of the proposed framework. Further, provisions that could make advisories legally enforceable prompted concern from industry and civil society stakeholders alike, with participants highlighting their non-binding nature and raising concerns regarding their unpredictability. MeitY indicated that it would address this issue by consolidating past advisories under a master circular and issuing them as “guidelines” under Section 79(2)(c) of the IT Act, 2000.
Since this meeting, MeitY has also stated that it will expand the scope of content blocking hearings to include individual users and social media platforms. Currently, the provisions only allow news publishers to participate in these hearings. It has also extended the timeline to respond to the draft amendments to April 29, 2026.
ESYA’S TAKE: The meeting focused on the impact of Rule 3(4), which could make government advisories legally enforceable. Stakeholders also questioned the legality of consolidating past advisories as “guidelines” under Section 79(2)(c) of the IT Act, and raised concerns about user-generated news content being brought under Part III of the IT Rules.
However, something that received less attention is the expansion of the Inter-Departmental Committee (IDC’s) powers through proposed changes to Rule 14. Currently, the IDC can review complaints related to a violation of the Code of Ethics that have escalated through the grievance redressal mechanism, or that have been directly referred to it by MIB. However, the draft amendments empower the IDC to hear “matters”. This is a wider term than complaints and allows the IDC to recommend action against online content (e.g. content blocking) even if it does not contravene the Code of Ethics. In this way, the proposed changes to Rule 14 transform the IDC into an executive authority with vast powers to oversee online content.
The legality of this move is also questionable because Rules 9(1) and 9(3) of the IT Rules, which establish the Code of Ethics and the mechanism underpinning the IDC, have been stayed by various High Courts.