MIB seeks dismissal of AIDCF plea against WAVES, says satellite TV rules don’t apply to OTT

NEW DELHI: The battle over who gets to carry television channels online has reached the tribunal, with the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) arguing that OTT platforms such as Prasar Bharati’s WAVES do not have to play by the rules governing satellite television distribution.

In its reply before the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT), the ministry has challenged the maintainability of a petition filed by the All India Digital Cable Federation (AIDCF), which opposes Prasar Bharati’s move to onboard linear television channels on WAVES. The MIB has sought dismissal of the petition, arguing that it has been unnecessarily impleaded in the proceedings.

The dispute centres on whether rules designed for conventional satellite television distribution can be extended to internet-based streaming platforms, as broadcasters increasingly make their content available across multiple delivery channels.

AIDCF, which represents multi-system operators (MSOs), has challenged Prasar Bharati’s notice inviting applications (NIA) for onboarding linear satellite television channels on WAVES. It argues that the initiative conflicts with the existing regulatory framework governing broadcasting and distribution.

At the heart of the dispute is Clause 11(3)(f) of the Uplinking and Downlinking Guidelines for Satellite TV Channels in India, 2022. AIDCF contends that broadcasters must provide signal reception decoders to specified distribution platform operators, including MSOs, direct-to-home (DTH) operators, headend-in-the-sky (HITS) operators and internet protocol television (IPTV) platforms.

The federation argues that OTT platforms do not fall within these recognised categories and cannot be treated as eligible recipients of such decoders. It has asked TDSAT to set aside the NIA and restrain Prasar Bharati from proceeding with the onboarding exercise.

The ministry has rejected the premise that the satellite television guidelines apply to OTT services, arguing that internet-based streaming does not involve the uplinking and downlinking of satellite television signals contemplated under the rules.

“The Uplinking and Downlinking Guidelines and the TRAI Regulations do not apply to OTT platforms and services and OTT services do not fall within the domain of broadcasting. An OTT service is not a broadcasting service,” the MIB stated in its reply.

The ministry has also questioned whether the dispute falls within TDSAT’s jurisdiction under Section 14(a)(ii) of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997. According to the MIB, the matter does not involve a licensor-licensee relationship or a dispute between service providers covered by the provision.

It further argued that OTT platforms do not operate under permissions or licences granted by the ministry and, therefore, cannot be classified as distribution platforms or distribution platform operators under the existing framework.

The MIB said Prasar Bharati’s notices concern sourcing content for WAVES, with the material received and made available through internet protocol-based networks. On that basis, it contends that the satellite television uplinking and downlinking guidelines are not applicable.

The ministry has also disputed AIDCF’s reliance on the term “linear satellite channel”, arguing that its use in the context of OTT platforms is generic and does not mean the content is being distributed as a linear satellite television channel under the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994.

To support its position, the MIB has referred to the explanatory memorandum accompanying the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India’s (TRAI) 2017 tariff order. The memorandum stated that the framework applied to distribution platforms and operators for which the ministry granted permission or a licence.

According to the MIB, OTT operators and Doordarshan were not covered by such permissions or licences and consequently fell outside the scope of that particular regulatory framework.

The ministry has also cited a TDSAT order dated 4 October 2023 in All India Digital Cable Federation vs Star India Private Limited, Broadcasting Petition No. 217 of 2023.

In that matter, the tribunal had observed that an OTT platform was prima facie not a television channel and that the respondent did not require permission or a licence from the Central government to operate the platform.

The MIB has further argued that OTT services are governed by the Information Technology Act and the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. It said there was no requirement for a separate licensing and regulatory framework for broadcasting content over OTT platforms, or for restricting its dissemination in the manner sought by AIDCF.

AIDCF’s challenge raises a broader question about regulatory parity between traditional television distributors and digital platforms.

Cable and DTH operators function within an established licensing and compliance framework. The federation argues that allowing broadcasters to distribute linear channels through WAVES without applying comparable obligations could create an uneven playing field.

It has also contended that broadcasters could risk breaching conditions attached to their downlinking permissions if the onboarding process involves providing signal reception decoders to an OTT platform that does not qualify as a recognised distribution operator.

Prasar Bharati’s initiative seeks to widen the reach of television content through digital distribution, reflecting the growing overlap between conventional broadcasting and streaming services. The MIB’s response, however, maintains that the delivery mechanism matters: content streamed over the internet should not automatically attract rules designed for satellite television distribution.

The ministry has asked the tribunal to reject the reliefs sought against it. The final outcome will depend on TDSAT’s determination of the petition’s maintainability and the applicability of the relevant regulatory provisions.

For the broadcasting industry, the stakes extend beyond WAVES. The case could help clarify where traditional television regulation ends and internet-based distribution begins, as the two increasingly compete for the same audiences.