The Problem Is Bigger Than the 10+2 Cap

NEW DELHI: I believe removing the 10+2 advertising cap at this stage is the wrong move.

The broadcasting industry is already under considerable pressure. For years, broadcasters have had limited flexibility in pricing their content. At the same time, the cost of producing good content, acquiring rights and running channels has continued to increase.

This has made advertising an increasingly important source of revenue for broadcasters.

If subscription revenues are restricted, the natural consequence is greater dependence on advertising.

That is the fundamental issue that needs to be addressed.

Broadcasters need more flexibility on pricing

Over the years, regulation has increasingly influenced how broadcasters price and package their channels.

This has created an imbalance.

A broadcaster invests in content, takes the commercial risk and builds the audience, but does not always have the freedom to determine what that content should cost.

At the same time, digital platforms have changed the competitive environment completely.

Consumers today have an enormous choice of where and how they consume video. They can watch television, OTT platforms, YouTube, social media and other digital services, often on the same screen.

Yet television continues to operate under a much more restrictive regulatory framework.

That needs to change.

More advertising is not the answer

I understand why broadcasters want greater flexibility on advertising.

Advertising revenues are important. But simply increasing the amount of advertising that can be carried is not a long-term solution.

There is a point at which the consumer experience suffers.

We are already reaching a stage where viewers sometimes feel that they are looking for the programme between the advertisements rather than watching a programme with advertising around it.

That cannot be good for television.

If broadcasters increase advertising loads significantly, they may get additional revenue in the short term but risk losing viewers over time.

The objective should be to build a sustainable television business, not simply maximise advertising minutes.

Digital has changed the balance

The advertising market has also changed dramatically because of digital.

Advertisers today have many more options. They can target audiences, measure campaigns and optimise their spending almost immediately.

This has increased the bargaining power of advertisers.

Television still provides something digital cannot always replicate: mass reach, professionally produced content and the ability to create large audiences around news, entertainment and live events.

But the economics have become more difficult.

Broadcasters therefore need the ability to develop multiple revenue streams and price their content appropriately.

They cannot be expected to compete with digital platforms while operating under a completely different regulatory framework.

There is another concern with advertising dependence

There is also a larger issue for news broadcasting.

When a news channel becomes excessively dependent on advertising revenue, the balance between the broadcaster and advertiser changes.

Government advertising makes this particularly sensitive.

Governments are significant advertisers. News broadcasters also need to be able to report and question governments independently.

The commercial relationship should never become a mechanism through which editorial independence can be influenced.

This is one more reason why broadcasters need a healthy and diversified revenue model rather than excessive dependence on advertising.

We also need to question the role of DPOs

This is a larger issue that deserves an independent examination.

The traditional broadcasting model was built around broadcasters, distributors and consumers.

The distributor played an important role because it provided the infrastructure through which television reached homes.

But technology has changed.

Today, a broadcaster can reach consumers directly through an app or digital platform. Consumers can access content through smart televisions, connected devices and broadband without necessarily requiring the traditional distribution infrastructure.

So we should ask a basic question:

What role should DPOs play in the broadcasting ecosystem in 2026?

I am not suggesting that DPOs have no role.

They clearly continue to have a role in many parts of the country and provide an important service.

But their role, economics and value to the consumer should be examined in the context of today’s technology rather than yesterday’s television architecture.

Are we protecting intermediaries or creating value for consumers?

This is where I believe the industry needs to have a serious conversation.

Any intermediary that invests in technology, improves the consumer experience, provides better discovery and creates value for broadcasters deserves to be compensated.

But regulation should not protect an intermediary simply because it has historically occupied a particular position in the value chain.

The industry has changed.

The regulatory framework also needs to change.

We should not regulate OTT up to the level of television

I would strongly argue against solving this problem by simply increasing regulation of OTT platforms.

That would be the wrong direction.

If television is heavily regulated and OTT is able to operate with considerably greater flexibility, the answer should be to examine whether television regulation needs to be reduced.

The objective should be a level playing field.

Let television compete with OTT.

Let OTT compete with television.

Let broadcasters determine their commercial strategies.

Let consumers decide which services they want to pay for and consume.

Competition should ultimately decide what works.

TRAI needs to look at the whole ecosystem

Rather than continuing with individual interventions and amendments, I believe TRAI, or an independent expert committee, should undertake a comprehensive review of the broadcasting ecosystem.

It should examine the entire value chain.

Broadcasters.

DPOs.

OTT platforms.

Consumers.

Advertisers.

Technology providers.

The central question should be simple:

What regulation is still necessary in 2026, and what regulation is simply a legacy of the way television used to work?

That distinction is becoming increasingly important.

Technology has already removed many of the barriers between content creators and consumers.

Regulation should not recreate those barriers.

Broadcasters need breathing space

The broadcasting industry does not need to be protected from competition.

It needs to be allowed to compete.

Broadcasters should have greater freedom to price their content, package their channels, develop new products and find the right combination of subscription and advertising revenues.

DPOs should compete by demonstrating the value they provide.

OTT platforms should compete on the same basis.

And consumers should have the freedom to choose.

The regulator’s role should be to protect consumers, ensure fair competition and prevent abuse.

It should not be micro-managing the commercial model of an industry that is already competing with some of the world’s largest technology platforms.

The issue is not whether broadcasters should be allowed to carry more advertising. The real issue is whether broadcasters should continue to operate under a regulatory framework designed for an earlier era of television.

That is the conversation we should be having.

(The above comment was shared with indiantelevision.com by a senior industry executive with the proviso that he should not be identified as its author.)