Regulators
Bundling preferred by 96 percent, rules may hurt niche channels
20 percent threshold, bundling curbs may impact regional content diversity.
MUMBAI: In the battle between bundles and barriers, viewers seem to know what they want. A study by the Esya Centre has found that a striking 96 percent of consumers prefer bundled television channel packs provided prices remain constant highlighting a gap between viewer behaviour and the current regulatory framework shaped by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI). Consumers cited better value for money, reduced search effort and the ease of discovering new content as key reasons for favouring bundles. For many households, bundled packs also serve a practical purpose balancing varied viewing preferences under a single subscription without the hassle of piecemeal selection.
But bundling, the report argues, is more than just convenience. It acts as a financial cushion for the ecosystem, allowing popular channels to effectively support niche or experimental content. This cross-subsidisation helps broadcasters manage demand uncertainty and sustain investment across genres. Restrictions on bundling and pricing flexibility, therefore, may not only affect present-day consumer welfare but also future content creation.
At the same time, structural challenges are mounting for smaller broadcasters. TRAI’s carriage rules require channels to cross a 20 percent subscriber threshold in a market to avoid carriage fees. Channels falling short must either pay to be carried or risk being excluded altogether, a hurdle that disproportionately impacts niche and language-specific content.
Distributors retain significant control in this equation. They can refuse to carry channels below the threshold and, in some cases, even those above it, citing limited network capacity. This makes carriage less of a guarantee and more of a negotiation. Added to this are placement and promotion fees, which further increase costs for smaller players despite caps on carriage fees.
The report underscores a key mismatch: subscriber numbers are being used as a proxy for value in a country where diversity defines demand. Survey findings show strong appetite for differentiated and language-specific programming, including content beyond dominant regional languages. Yet, channels serving these audiences often face higher costs and limited reach under the current framework.
Non-Hindi and regional channels, in particular, have become more expensive, potentially restricting access to diverse content. Over time, this could narrow the content pool as smaller broadcasters struggle to remain viable.
In effect, while consumers are clearly leaning towards bundled simplicity, regulatory constraints on bundling and carriage may be quietly reshaping what makes it to their screens tilting the balance away from diversity and towards scale.
Regulators
NCF fee sparks consumer backlash over TV pricing and access
84.7 percent oppose NCF on free channels, 57 percent report higher bills.
MUMBAI: For many viewers, the real drama on television may be the bill, not the show. A report by the Esya Centre has found that the Network Capacity Fee (NCF) is widely perceived as an unfair charge, shaping how consumers engage with television services in India. While television itself continues to score well with audiences around 70 percent of respondents reported satisfaction with content quality, the dissatisfaction lies squarely with pricing. As many as 84.7 percent of respondents said they were unhappy paying the NCF for free-to-air channels, highlighting a disconnect between cost and perceived value.
Introduced at Rs 130 for access to a base set of channels, the NCF was later deregulated, allowing distributors to set it independently under the framework of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI). The study argues that such fixed charges, especially when increased without corresponding service improvements, tend to reduce consumer welfare rather than enhance efficiency.
The numbers underline the frustration. Around 68 percent of respondents said they do not understand how the NCF is calculated, while 94 percent consider it unfair. More than half 57 percent reported higher monthly expenses under the current pricing system, and a striking 96 percent said they would be more satisfied if the existing framework were removed.
Rather than being seen as a value-linked service fee, the NCF is widely viewed as a mandatory “access toll”, a cost consumers must bear simply to enter the television ecosystem. The report notes that viewers do not associate the fee with better service quality or greater choice, reinforcing the perception that it adds cost without adding value.
This has broader implications for market participation. Fixed charges like the NCF, the study suggests, influence whether consumers subscribe at all. When such costs rise, users are more likely to opt out rather than adjust their viewing habits, potentially shrinking the market.
In effect, the current pricing design appears to redistribute value within the system rather than improve it for consumers. The findings point to a growing sentiment that the NCF is less about enabling access and more about shaping it, often at the viewer’s expense.
