News & Media

TRAI’s position is that this imbalance or distortion of the existing competition between traditional satellite-based TV and internet-based FAST platforms (OTTs) could shift the market toward free-of-cost app-based TV, which can cause losses to traditional TV providers. Therefore, the All India Digital Cable Federation was advocating the TRAI- or MIB-led regulatory framework for linear TV content on OTT platforms.

The All India Digital Cable Federation said the consultation paper comprehensively captures the concerns raised by the cable TV industry and opens the door for a structured regulatory approach.

TDSAT has issued notice to Prasar Bharati following a petition filed by the All India Digital Cable Federation (AIDCF), escalating the regulatory tussle over the public broadcaster's move to onboard linear Television Channels on its WAVES OTT Platform.

The All India Digital Cable Federation (AIDCF), an industry body representing multi-system operators (MSOs), has approached the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) challenging Prasar Bharati’s move to onboard linear satellite television channels on its WAVES OTT platform, escalating tensions between traditional distribution platforms and emerging digital ecosystems.

The battle between traditional television distributors and digital platforms has found its way to the courts, with the All India Digital Cable Federation (AIDCF) moving the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) against Prasar Bharati’s latest OTT play. At the heart of the dispute is Waves, Prasar Bharati’s OTT platform, which has invited applications to onboard linear satellite TV channels. Aidcf, which represents multi-system operators (msos), argues that this move sidesteps existing broadcasting rules and risks tilting the playing field in favour of digital platforms.

In its July representation, AIDCF, which represents leading Multi System Operators reaching over 4.5 crore households and accounting for nearly 70 percent of the cable television market framed the issue as one threatening the very survival of MSO-led ISPs and the broader momentum of broadband proliferation.

The All India Digital Cable Federation (AIDCF) has written to the Ministry opposing any changes to the usage of landing pages. Several small broadcasters have separately submitted their concerns, signalling widespread industry resistance to the amendment.

As the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting (MIB) moves forward with its proposed amendments to India’s TV rating framework, cable operators and smaller broadcasters have mounted strong opposition to key provisions—particularly the plan to exclude landing-page viewership from official TRP measurement and the move to recognize Connected TV within the ratings ecosystem. In formal submissions to the ministry, including a detailed response from the All India Digital Cable Federation (AIDCF), industry stakeholders warned that the new rules could distort audience measurement, undermine smaller networks, and trigger significant revenue losses across the cable distribution sector.

The All India Digital Cable Federation on Friday opposed the government’s proposal to exclude landing page viewership from television rating measurement, calling the move “neither technically justified nor operationally feasible” in its detailed response. While supporting most of the draft amendments to the TRP policy guidelines, AIDCF told the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting that the landing page is a legitimate part of the viewing journey in digital TV homes and cannot be treated as “non-viewership”.

While cable and satellite broadcasters operate under the strict purview of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, and require uplinking, downlinking, and programme code compliance, FAST channels have so far remained outside this framework. These platforms currently function without the licensing and content obligations applicable to traditional broadcasters. Industry stakeholders, including the All India Digital Cable Federation (AIDCF), have repeatedly called this situation a “regulatory vacuum” that puts licensed operators at a disadvantage.