At the centre of submissions filed by Culver Max Entertainment and Jio Platforms to TRAI’s consultation paper on regulating Application-based Linear Television Distribution (ALTD) and Free Ad-Supported Streaming Television (FAST) services is a shared claim: FAST sits in the application layer and functions as an OTT service, not a telecom or broadcasting carriage service. In comments submitted to the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), both companies argued that FAST platforms may look like television channels, carrying scheduled programming and ads, but still run over the open internet on a consumer’s existing broadband or mobile connection.
TRAI’s consultation paper seeks views on whether such services should face a regulatory and authorization framework similar to cable TV, DTH, HITS, or IPTV operators. Both companies, however, argued that doing so would collapse the long-standing legal distinction between internet services and licensed broadcasting networks.
FAST is OTT, not broadcast carriage: Both submissions insist that format does not change character. Jio says OTT content remains OTT “irrespective of whether the content is scheduled or non-scheduled and irrespective of whether it carries and is supported with advertisement or not; such content delivery through internet remains OTT services.” It argues that FAST is simply a category of OTT because it is delivered over the public internet and is free at the point of consumption.
Sony makes the same broad point, saying ALTD and FAST operate “at the application layer” and are “structurally, technologically, and conceptually distinct” from the network infrastructure that supports telecom services.
Jio also says scheduled streams on platforms such as JioTV and YouTube still qualify as OTT, while Sony says FAST sits apart from linear broadcasting because it relies on user choice rather than one-to-many distribution.
TRAI is targeting the wrong framework: From there, both companies argue that TRAI is trying to apply a broadcasting model to services that live on the internet. Jio says OTT media services use open, shared internet infrastructure and do not rely on scarce resources such as spectrum or dedicated carriage networks. Sony says the same broad distinction applies: ALTD and FAST platforms are “users of telecommunication networks, and not providers of telecommunication services.”
Jio adds that the consumer pays the ISP separately, while the platform either charges nothing or charges a separate content fee. That structure, it says, makes FAST platforms fundamentally different from traditional broadcasting, where carriage and content charges are bundled by Distribution Platform Operators (DPOs). Both companies argue that no separate telecom-style authorization should be imposed on application providers.
The legal boundaries and jurisdiction: Sony goes further on jurisdiction. They argue that TRAI’s role in broadcasting has always been limited to carriage-related aspects such as interconnection, technical standards, quality of service, and tariff regulation. It argues that the authority has no jurisdiction over content, programming, or how platforms disseminate content over the open internet.
The company says the consultation paper would effectively rebuild the regulatory architecture and push TRAI beyond its power under section 11 of the TRAI Act. Jio makes a similar point in a different register: it says a separate FAST regime would violate technological neutrality and create “regulatory asymmetry” by treating similar internet-delivered content differently simply because it is scheduled.
Sony refers to court affidavits: Culver Max places heavy weight on what it says TRAI itself has argued in court. The company points to TRAI’s affidavit in All India Cable Operators Association v. TRAI, where TRAI said its broadcasting framework applies only to licensed platforms such as DTH, Cable TV, HITS, and IPTV and “does not cover OTT services.” It also cites TRAI’s statement that, without guidelines from the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB), it was “unable to take any action” against OTT services like Hotstar and that Hotstar did not fall within TRAI’s purview.
They added that MIB has repeatedly drawn the same line, including in Un-Canned Media and in the Star India litigation, where it said OTT services transmit content over the internet and are governed by the IT Act, not broadcasting-carriage rules. The submission says TRAI cannot now reverse that settled position without express statutory authority.
What they say the law already does: The companies also argue that OTT is not a regulatory vacuum. Jio says internet-delivered media content already sits under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (IT Rules), which cover content classification, grievance redressal, and due diligence.
It says those rules already satisfy the core concern of non-discriminatory access because net neutrality requires internet service providers to carry content without discrimination. Both submissions frame the issue as one of overlap: a new FAST regime, they say, would not fill a gap but would add a second layer over an existing framework.
What they want instead: Both companies finish with a policy warning. Sony says any new framework would chill investment, raise compliance costs, and hurt innovation in a sector it describes as nascent and highly innovative. Jio similarly says treating FAST like broadcasting would create practical problems, from defining which streams count as channels to deciding whether a platform or an individual stream is the regulated unit.
Jio also argues that the better policy response, if TRAI wants parity, would be forbearance for traditional broadcasting rather than extra burdens on OTT. Sony makes the same broader plea: keep the “carriage” and “content” tracks separate and leave FAST within the existing OTT regime rather than a licensing model built for cable and satellite.
Also read
