I&B Ministry
B’cast, telecom industry divided on IPTV norms
NEW DELHI: A majority of broadcast industry stakeholders are against IPTV separated from cable service and have said this is likely to create more problems in an already vexed industry.
A consultation paper issued by the broadcast regulator on IPTV and amendment in the Cable TV Act has drawn varied comments from stakeholders, including that IPTV should not be separated from cable TV and laws regulating it.
“IPTV is similar to cable services in terms of content and mode of delivery. It would be appropriate to categorize it as a cable service rather than a telecom service under (the) Telegraph Act,” DTH licence holder ASC Enterprises has said.
Agreeing with ASC is MSO Alliance, an apex body of multi-system operators in the country, which has sated that IPTV should not be dubbed a different service from cable TV.
“Given the nature of IPTV services, which is akin to cable services, the effort on the part of regulator should be to propose amendments which would serve the purpose of keeping IPTV within cable services domain, rather than to suggest the ones which would take them away from the Cable Network Regulation Act,” MSO Alliance has said in reply to a consultation paper issued by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai).
On the other hand, Star has said that treating IPTV differently from cable services, as had been suggested by Trai in its consultation paper, would give undue advantage to telecom companies that have been proposing to start IPTV services.
“In the absence of parity in FDI norms, telecom operators would continue to enjoy better access to the capital required for digital broadband services. This would be to the detriment of other service providers like cable and DTH,” Star has informed Trai.
Presently in India, foreign investment in cable TV is capped at 49 per cent, while the government has okayed a proposal to raise the limit in telecom services to 74 per cent.
Trai had invited comments from industry stakeholders on proposed amendments in the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 and existing telecom licenses for facilitation of growth of IPTV services.
The basic intention behind the proposed amendments in the Cable Television (Regulation) Act, 1995 was to keep the IPTV service outside the definition of `cable services’.
This means that IPTV service providers would not be covered in the definition of `cable operator’ and the Unified Access Service network used for provision of IPTV services will not get covered by the definition of `cable television network’ under the Cable Act.
The 13 stakeholders that had got back to Trai with their comments on the issue include the following: NDS, ASC Enterprises Ltd, MSO Alliance, Cable Operators Federation of India, Hathway Cable & Datacom Private Limited, Reliance Infocomm Ltd, Ortel Communications Ltd, Zee Network, Star India, Tata Teleservices Ltd and the Internet Service Providers’ Association of India
I&B Ministry
Prasar Bharati opens AIR to private content under new policy
NIPP introduces revenue share, sponsored and gratis models
MUMBAI: Radio may be the oldest voice in the room, but it’s learning some very modern tricks. In a bid to stay tuned to changing listener habits, Prasar Bharati has opened the doors of All India Radio to private players under a newly rolled-out content framework. The initiative, titled Notice Inviting Programme Proposals (NIPP), marks a significant shift in how the public broadcaster approaches programming moving from a largely in-house model to a more collaborative, market-aligned ecosystem. Issued by Akashvani’s Directorate General in April 2026, the policy invites private producers, content owners and aggregators to pitch programmes across formats, from radio dramas and documentaries to quiz shows, storytelling and music-led content.
At the heart of the framework lies a three-pronged participation model designed to balance creative freedom with commercial viability. The most prominent route is revenue sharing, where advertising and sponsorship income generated by a programme is split between the producer and the broadcaster. The structure tilts in favour of creators offering a 70:30 split when producers bring in advertising, and 65:35 when monetisation is handled by Prasar Bharati.
Alongside this sits the sponsored model, where producers fully fund and monetise their content, subject to compliance with advertising norms and the AIR Broadcast Code. For those less commercially inclined, a gratis route allows content to be submitted free of cost, with Prasar Bharati retaining all monetisation rights effectively turning the platform into a national distribution channel for diverse voices.
The move comes as legacy media grapples with intensifying competition from private FM networks, streaming platforms and digital audio ecosystems. By repositioning AIR as both a public service broadcaster and a content marketplace, Prasar Bharati appears to be recalibrating its role in a rapidly evolving media landscape.
Importantly, the framework does not dilute editorial control. All submissions must adhere to the AIR Broadcast Code, and proposals are evaluated through a layered process that weighs storytelling quality, production capability, audience appeal and revenue potential. Only proposals crossing a defined threshold move forward, signalling that while access has widened, the bar remains firmly in place.
Operational discipline is another cornerstone of the policy. Producers are required to maintain broadcast-ready content, deliver episode banks in advance and navigate a structured approval process. Crucially, all production costs are borne by the content provider, reinforcing Prasar Bharati’s positioning as a distribution and oversight platform rather than a commissioning entity.
What elevates the initiative further is its scale. The framework spans multiple clusters and stations across India, covering both metro and regional markets, with specific language mandates and submission channels. This not only expands the content pipeline but also deepens linguistic and cultural representation, an area where AIR has historically held an advantage.
In effect, NIPP signals a quiet but meaningful transformation. AIR is no longer just broadcasting to the nation, it is inviting the nation to broadcast with it, blending legacy reach with contemporary content economics in a bid to stay relevant in an increasingly fragmented audio universe.
