On 26 October 2026 the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India sent the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) its recommendations for what it calls Application-based Linear Television Distribution (ALTD) services. These are apps that stream scheduled, channel-style TV over the internet, such as Samsung TV Plus, YuppTV and Xiaomi's TV+. MIB asked for the recommendations in December 2025 and will decide whether to accept them. Several of the proposals are reasonable. The legal route and the data and news provisions are the problems.
The strongest case for TRAI
The case for acting is real. Cable and DTH operators pay licence fees and carry compliance costs. An app that delivers the same linear channels to the same television set, pre-installed by the manufacturer, currently faces none of them. Broadcasters such as Zee Entertainment argued during the consultation for regulatory parity, according to exchange4media's coverage of the consultation. TRAI also notes that viewers on these services cannot choose what plays or when, which is why it treats them differently from on-demand streaming. That distinction is coherent, and a licence that costs Rs 1 lakh is hardly a heavy barrier.
What TRAI proposes
According to MediaNama's summary of the recommendations:
- Apps would need an authorisation under the Telecommunications Act, 2023, with a Rs 10,000 processing fee, a Rs 1 lakh entry fee and a 20-year term renewable in 10-year blocks.
- Apps could carry only government-approved channels, channels registered with MIB, and their own registered channels.
- Internet-native channels would register with MIB for Rs 1 lakh a year, compared with Rs 5 lakh a year for a non-news satellite channel. They would have to follow the Programme and Advertising Codes and keep recordings for 90 days.
- Internet-only news channels could not register.
- User, payment and viewing data would have to sit on servers in India.
- TV makers and app stores would not need a licence, but would have to remove unlicensed apps.
- Existing apps and channels would get one year from notification to comply.
The consultation was opened in a paper dated 6 April 2026. MediaNama reports that TRAI received 207 comments and 11 counter-comments. I could not machine-read the 206-page recommendations PDF, so the details above rest on MediaNama's reading of it.
The legal stretch
The weakest point is the legal basis. TRAI says these apps provide a "telecommunication service" under the Telecommunications Act, 2023 because they transmit video over networks. MediaNama reports that the government has previously said the Act does not cover OTT services, and that a Department of Telecommunications official called that exclusion a conscious decision in 2024. TRAI's answer is that linear apps are not OTT because the viewer does not control the schedule.
That argument has a weakness. The transmission is the same in both cases: packets over the public internet. Sony argued in the consultation that these apps are users of telecom networks, not telecom service providers, and that the framework exceeds TRAI's remit. Jio Platforms argued that FAST is a form of OTT regardless of scheduling. If "the viewer cannot pick the programme" is enough to make something a telecom service, a live news stream or a scheduled webcast could be pulled in on the same logic. A rule this significant should rest on a clear statute from Parliament, or on an explicit amendment. An expansive reading by a regulator is a poor substitute.
Data localisation without a demonstrated need
TRAI itself acknowledges, per MediaNama, that the Digital Personal Data Protection Act does not require all personal data to be stored in India. The recommendation therefore creates a sector-specific mandate that the general privacy law deliberately avoided. The stated justification is that local storage would help authorities investigate security incidents. That is a convenience argument, not evidence of harm.
The costs are concrete. Smaller and foreign-run apps would have to maintain India-resident infrastructure for a Rs 1 lakh-licence business. Viewing history is a sensitive record of what people watch, and a rule that makes it readily available to authorities, with no safeguards on access yet specified, deserves more scrutiny than it has received. Better options exist: apply the DPDP Act's existing obligations, and require a lawful-access process with judicial or independent oversight.
The news bar
The most troubling provision is the ban on internet-only news channels. TRAI's stated worry is that lighter registration for news could create "an alternate regulatory route for television news distribution." Such channels could still carry news if they obtain TV news permission, which requires security clearance from the Ministry of Home Affairs. In effect, an internet-native news outlet that wants a linear stream would need the same clearance as a satellite broadcaster. That is a prior-permission gate on speech, and it sits poorly with the principle that a new medium should not inherit the heaviest controls of an older one. Combined with MIB's power to suspend registrations on public-order grounds, it gives the state a lever over which news reaches viewers on connected TVs. A narrower route would be a registration regime for news with post-publication accountability, not a security-clearance gate.
Gatekeeping by TV makers
Making device makers and app stores remove unlicensed apps turns hardware firms into enforcement agents. TRAI describes this as "reasonable due diligence," but the duty is open-ended. LG and the industry body MAIT had asked to be excluded from scope. A master repository of approved apps also invites a single point of control. It is unclear whether sets already sold would have to disable apps after the one-year transition.
What MIB should do
The small fees and the one-year transition are sensible, and parity on advertising and programme codes is defensible. MIB should take that part and leave the rest. First, settle the legal basis through the Telecommunications Act process or an amendment, rather than a contested reading. Second, drop the localisation mandate unless a specific harm is shown. Third, replace the news bar with a proportionate registration route. About 70% of channels on these apps are internet-native, according to stakeholders cited by MediaNama, so the rules would reach most of the content on these services. A licence that is cheap in rupees but expensive in legal uncertainty and speech restrictions is not a light-touch regime.