MUMBAI: Imagine walking a tightrope without a safety net, knowing that a single misstep could send you plummeting.
That’s exactly the precarious position the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) finds itself in after daring to blur the lines of its statutory jurisdiction. Like a rebellious teenager ignoring well-meant advice, TRAI’s bold move to propose a framework for regulating broadcasting services under the Telecommunications Act, 2023, has sparked a firestorm of backlash. Industry heavyweights, including the Indian Broadcasting and Digital Foundation (IBDF) and the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce & Industry (FICCI), are up in arms, accusing TRAI of overstepping its authority by attempting to shoehorn content regulation into licensing conditions. The result? A Pandora’s box of controversy that could reshape the broadcasting landscape.
IBDF and FICCI argue that content regulation should remain under dedicated legislation, overseen by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB), and not be conflated with telecommunications services. TRAI’s role, they assert, should focus solely on carriage-related aspects such as signal transmission and spectrum allocation.
IBDF’s submission criticised TRAI’s proposal as an overreach. “The framework attempts to regulate content, which is beyond TRAI’s jurisdiction as defined by the TRAI Act, 1997,” IBDF stated. The association emphasised that Section 11(1)(a) of the TRAI Act limits TRAI to recommending licensing terms and conditions, not fundamentally altering the regulatory structure of broadcasting.
Similarly, FICCI highlighted the historical context, noting that broadcasting was placed under telecommunication services in 2004 as a stopgap measure to regulate distribution services. “Broadcasting is a distinct sector, and equating it with telecommunications disrupts industry operations and consumer satisfaction,” FICCI stated.
The News Broadcasters and Digital Association (NBDA) also opposed the move, cautioning that the framework could impose restrictive telecommunications-style authorisations on broadcasting. “TRAI should collaborate with MIB to develop a coherent strategy that avoids overregulation and supports self-regulation mechanisms for content,” NBDA recommended.
Both IBDF and FICCI called on TRAI to focus on carriage issues and exclude content from the proposed framework. FICCI further suggested strengthening self-regulation for content and maintaining the sector’s distinct regulatory framework under the MIB.
TRAI has concluded the consultation process and will announce the date for an open house discussion with stakeholders to finalise the framework.
