JioStar and Sony have strongly opposed TRAI’s proposal to bring FAST and Application-based Linear Television Distribution (ALTD) services under a telecom-style regulatory framework, arguing that internet-delivered television services are fundamentally different from traditional broadcasting and should not be regulated like DTH or cable platforms.
In detailed submissions to the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), both companies said FAST and ALTD platforms are application-layer OTT services operating over the open internet and not “telecommunication services” under the Telecommunications Act, 2023.
At the core of the broadcasters’ arguments is the distinction between “carriage” and “content”.
The companies argued that the Telecommunications Act is meant to regulate telecom infrastructure and connectivity systems, not internet-based content dissemination services.
According to the submissions, OTT and FAST platforms operate on the “application layer” of the internet, while telecom and internet service providers function at the “network layer”.
They stressed that FAST platforms merely use telecom networks and do not themselves establish, manage or operate telecom infrastructure. The actual transmission of signals, they argued, is carried out by telecom operators and ISPs, while OTT platforms only package and distribute content through software applications.
Both broadcasters warned that extending telecom regulation to internet-delivered content would blur the long-established distinction between infrastructure providers and digital content services.
JioStar argued that if internet-based dissemination of audiovisual content is classified as a telecom service, it could eventually open the door for websites, gaming platforms, video conferencing applications and social media services to also fall under telecom licensing frameworks.
Sony, meanwhile, pointed to earlier court cases and TRAI’s own submissions before constitutional courts where the regulator had maintained that OTT services fall outside its jurisdiction and are governed under the Information Technology Act rather than telecom or broadcasting regulations.
A major argument raised in the submissions relates to Parliament’s decision to exclude OTT services from the final Telecommunications Act, despite earlier drafts proposing their inclusion.
The broadcasters said this reflected a conscious legislative decision to keep OTT and internet-based content platforms outside telecom regulation. As a result, they argued, TRAI cannot indirectly bring OTT services under its authority through an authorisation framework for FAST and ALTD platforms.
The companies also raised constitutional concerns around freedom of speech and expression.
According to the submissions, internet-based dissemination of audiovisual content falls under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and therefore cannot be subjected to broad telecom-style licensing structures without satisfying strict constitutional standards.
They further argued that unlike telecom networks or satellite broadcasting, internet platforms operate in an environment of “technological abundance” rather than scarcity of public resources such as spectrum, which historically justified licensing in telecom and broadcasting.
The broadcasters also strongly opposed proposals around authorisation fees, net worth requirements, bank guarantees, pricing controls and compulsory carriage obligations for FAST services.
The submissions argued that applying DTH-style licensing conditions to internet applications would hurt India’s digital ecosystem and create unnecessary compliance burdens for online businesses.
They also opposed extending obligations such as mandatory sharing of sports broadcasting signals with Prasar Bharati or compulsory transmission of channels to FAST platforms, arguing that such rules were designed for spectrum-based broadcasting systems and not internet applications.
On the issue of pricing parity between DTH and FAST platforms, both broadcasters rejected the idea of regulatory intervention.
JioStar argued that FAST services compete not only with television platforms but also with social media, gaming and user-generated content ecosystems, making direct comparisons with DTH operators flawed.
Sony took the view that if traditional DTH operators believe they are disadvantaged, the solution should be deregulation and regulatory forbearance for legacy television distribution rather than extending heavy regulation to internet platforms.
The submissions also highlighted concerns around the impact of regulation on India’s growing connected TV and FAST ecosystem.
According to the broadcasters, a prescriptive regulatory framework would create high entry barriers for app developers, OEMs, content providers and digital startups, ultimately affecting innovation, investment and consumer choice.
They argued that FAST services are still at a nascent stage in India and should be allowed to evolve under market-driven conditions rather than restrictive licensing structures.
The companies further opposed any attempt to regulate smart TV interfaces, content positioning, recommendation algorithms and user interface design, describing them as proprietary software features that should remain market-driven.
The position taken by JioStar and Sony sharply differs from that of DTH operators and telecom companies such as Airtel and Dish TV, which have argued that FAST platforms are effectively functioning like television distribution services and should therefore face similar regulatory obligations.
