Originally published on The Daily Flare.
India's telecom regulator has recommended government authorisation for apps that stream scheduled TV channels, putting services such as Samsung TV Plus and YuppTV under a proposed licensing framework.
A new category for internet-distributed television
The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) issued its recommendations on October 26, proposing that application-based linear television distribution services, or ALTD services, become a distinct category within the broadcasting authorisation framework. The recommendations cover services that aggregate and stream channels on a fixed schedule over the internet, rather than letting viewers select individual programmes on demand.
These services include free ad-supported streaming television, commonly known as FAST. They can be built into smart TVs, downloaded as apps or accessed through websites. TRAI's proposed scope includes services delivered on internet-connected devices, whether or not they are free to viewers.
The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) asked TRAI to examine the issue in December 2025. The regulator consulted on a framework in April 2026, receiving 207 comments and 11 counter-comments before holding an open-house discussion.
The recommendations are not yet final rules. MIB will decide whether to accept them and what framework to put in place.
Proposed fees, eligibility and platform duties
Under TRAI's proposal, service providers would seek authorisation under the Telecommunications Act, 2023, through a government portal. The recommended application processing fee is Rs 10,000, with a one-time entry fee of Rs 1 lakh. Authorisation would initially run for 20 years, with renewals for successive 10-year periods. TRAI has proposed no minimum net-worth requirement for applicants.
Applicants would have to be companies or limited liability partnerships registered in India. Foreign providers would need to operate through an Indian entity and comply with applicable foreign investment and security rules.
Apps would be permitted to carry channels that have government permission, registered internet-only channels and channels owned by the app provider. Internet-native channels would need to register, while news channels would not be eligible for that registration route. Providers would have to remove channels that fall outside the permitted categories and stop carrying a channel if directed by the government.
The proposal also places duties on smart-TV manufacturers, operating-system providers and app stores. They would be expected to verify that covered apps are authorised and remove unlicensed services from their platforms.
Other proposed requirements include security assessments before launch and at regular intervals, a grievance officer based in India, and compliance reports to MIB every six months. The recommendations also call for user data, including viewing history, to be stored in India.
Traditional TV rules and exclusions
TRAI says the proposal addresses a difference in treatment between internet-based services and conventional television distribution. Cable and satellite providers operate within a licensing system, while apps can deliver scheduled channels over the public internet.
In its recommendations, TRAI described the lack of oversight as a regulatory gap because television content is being distributed outside the established system. Responsibility for following the Programme Code and Advertising Code would remain with broadcasters and channel owners.
The proposed framework would not cover broadcaster-owned apps that carry only the broadcaster's own channels or those of its group companies. Social media livestreams would remain under the Information Technology Act, while on-demand services such as Netflix would sit outside the rules because viewers choose what to watch and when. TRAI has also recommended including ALTD viewing in television audience measurement.
The recommendations set out a proposed licensing system, but the next decision rests with MIB. Until the ministry acts, the fees, eligibility requirements and platform duties remain proposals rather than obligations in force.
Top comments (0)