The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has argued that over-the-top (OTT) platforms operate under a different technological and regulatory framework from conventional satellite television broadcasting. The position has emerged in a dispute involving Prasar Bharati’s WAVES streaming platform and a petition filed by the All India Digital Cable Federation (AIDCF).
The ministry has asked the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) to dismiss the petition, maintaining that existing satellite broadcasting guidelines should not automatically extend to content delivered through internet-based platforms.
Why the WAVES Dispute Matters
The dispute centres on Prasar Bharati’s initiative to onboard linear television channels on WAVES, its OTT platform. AIDCF has challenged the move, arguing that the existing broadcasting framework limits the distribution of satellite television signals to authorised distribution platform operators.
Under the Uplinking and Downlinking Guidelines, 2022, broadcasters are required to provide signal reception decoders to specified categories of operators, including multi-system operators, direct-to-home providers, headend-in-the-sky operators and IPTV service providers.
AIDCF has argued that OTT platforms are not included in these recognised categories. It contends that making linear television channels available through WAVES raises questions about compliance with the conditions attached to broadcasters’ permissions.
MIB Says Internet Streaming Is Different From Satellite Broadcasting
In its response, the ministry has emphasised that OTT services deliver content through internet protocol-based networks rather than through the satellite uplinking and downlinking process addressed by the 2022 guidelines.
According to the ministry’s position, an OTT platform does not become a satellite broadcasting service simply because it carries content from providers that also operate conventional television channels.
The ministry has also argued that OTT platforms do not fall within the same categories of regulated distribution operators covered by the existing satellite broadcasting framework. It maintains that internet-based services are governed by the applicable information technology laws and rules, rather than the licensing framework designed for satellite television distribution.
The Question of Regulatory Jurisdiction
The ministry has also challenged whether AIDCF’s petition is maintainable before TDSAT. Its response argues that the dispute does not involve the type of licensor-licensee relationship or service-provider dispute that would bring the ministry within the tribunal’s jurisdiction in the manner alleged.
To support its position, the ministry has referred to the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India’s 2017 tariff order, which distinguished licensed or permitted distribution platforms from services that were not covered by permissions granted under the existing framework.
It has also cited an earlier TDSAT observation that, on a prima facie basis, treated an OTT platform as distinct from a television channel. The ministry is relying on this observation as support for its argument; it does not mean the tribunal has already decided the current WAVES dispute.
Content Providers and Distribution Platforms: A Key Distinction
Another issue is whether a content provider’s association with a linear satellite channel should determine how its content is regulated when it is delivered through an OTT service.
The ministry has argued that the method of distribution matters. Content made available through internet-based streaming does not automatically become satellite broadcasting merely because the provider also operates a traditional television channel.
This distinction sits at the centre of the disagreement between the ministry’s interpretation and AIDCF’s concerns about applying existing broadcasting conditions to WAVES.
What This Could Mean for India’s Media Industry
The dispute highlights a broader challenge for India’s media and entertainment sector as television networks, streaming platforms and digital distribution services increasingly overlap.
Traditional cable and DTH operators operate within established licensing and distribution rules. OTT platforms, meanwhile, deliver content over the internet and have developed under a different regulatory framework. The question is how existing rules should apply when these models begin to carry similar types of content.
For broadcasters and distribution companies, the outcome could influence how linear television channels are made available through streaming services, as well as how compliance responsibilities are interpreted.
Tribunal’s Decision Remains Crucial
The ministry has sought dismissal of AIDCF’s petition and maintained that satellite broadcasting guidelines should not be extended to WAVES solely because the platform distributes television content online.
The tribunal’s handling of the dispute will be important in determining how the legal arguments progress. Until a decision is reached, the ministry’s position should be understood as its argument in the ongoing proceedings, rather than a final judicial determination of the regulatory status of OTT platforms.