The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) has recommended that apps showing TV channels over the internet, such as Samsung TV Plus, YuppTV and Xiaomi’s TV+, get a government licence to operate in India.
Under TRAI’s recommendations, released on October 26:
- Licences: Apps would be licensed under the Telecommunications Act, 2023, which TRAI says covers them.
- Enforcement: TV makers and app stores would have to remove unlicensed apps.
- Channels: Channels made only for the internet would need to register, and news channels could not.
- Data: Apps would have to store user data, including viewing history, in India.
The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB), which asked TRAI for these recommendations in December 2025, will decide whether to accept them. TRAI had consulted on the framework in April 2026.
What kind of apps are these?
These apps show TV channels that play continuously on a fixed schedule, like a regular TV channel, instead of letting viewers pick a show to watch. TRAI calls this “linear” TV.
Many of these apps are free and make money from ads. The industry calls them Free Ad-Supported Streaming Television (FAST) services. They often come pre-installed on smart TVs.
TRAI has named the category Application-based Linear Television Distribution (ALTD) services, because these apps may later charge subscriptions. Its framework covers any app, website or similar interface that streams such channels over the internet, on any device.
Three kinds of services fall outside it:
- Broadcasters’ own apps: Apps that show only a broadcaster’s own channels, or those of its group companies.
- Social media live streams: These remain under the Information Technology (IT) Act.
- On-demand services: Services such as Netflix, where viewers choose what to watch and when.
Why does TRAI want to regulate these apps?
TV channels in India normally need government permission, must follow the Programme Code and Advertising Code that govern TV content, and reach viewers through licensed distributors such as DTH and cable operators. These apps distribute channels outside that system.
An association of cable operators complained to MIB that these apps operate outside the rules cable operators follow, and that some channels that cost money on cable are free on these apps.
Submissions from three companies to MIB showed gaps in how these apps check content:
- A smart TV company: Its FAST service is run by an affiliated overseas company, and its Indian entity does not monitor, record or archive content.
- An operating system provider: It does not check channels for compliance with the Programme Code and Advertising Code at the platform level.
Many channels on these apps also have no government permission. Industry stakeholders told TRAI that about 70% of the channels are made only for internet platforms.
“This is a regulatory gap, as any content that is broadcast in India should have oversight of the Central Government.” – TRAI.
What would apps have to do?
App providers would need a licence, which TRAI calls an authorisation, in the same category of TV distribution licences as DTH and HITS services. They would apply through an online government portal, which would also handle channel registration and compliance reports.
- Fees: A Rs 10,000 processing fee and a Rs 1 lakh entry fee, for a 20-year national licence renewable for 10 years at a time.
- Indian entity: Only companies or limited liability partnerships (LLPs) registered in India could apply. Foreign companies running these apps would have to operate through an Indian entity and follow foreign investment and security rules.
- Ownership limits: The limits on ownership and cross-holdings that apply to broadcasters and TV distributors would also apply to these apps.
- Approved channels only: Apps could carry only channels with government permission, registered internet-only channels and their own channels. They would have to remove any other channel immediately, and stop carrying any channel when the government orders it.
- Their own channels: Apps could run any number of their own channels, unlike satellite and cable distributors, which face a cap. Each would need registration.
- Security: Apps would need security assessments, including penetration testing, before launch and at regular intervals.
- Reporting: Apps would file a compliance report with MIB every six months, appoint a grievance officer in India, and face government monitoring and inspection.
Responsibility for complying with the Programme Code and Advertising Code would stay with the broadcasters and channel owners, TRAI said.
Some obligations of cable and DTH operators would not apply. Apps would not have to carry Doordarshan channels or take sports feeds shared with Prasar Bharati.
What data would apps have to keep in India?
All servers that store or process user data for these services would have to be in India. The data covered includes:
- User details: Name, mobile number, email, and Aadhaar or PAN numbers.
- Payment data: Account details and payments made.
- Viewing data: What users watched and when, their content preferences, the app’s recommendations and analytics on viewing.
Apps would have to make these records available “to the Central Government or any other competent authority, as and when required under applicable law.”
India’s data protection law, the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, does not require all personal data to be stored in India, TRAI noted. It said local storage would help authorities access records and investigate security incidents.
What changes for channels made only for the internet?
These channels would need to register with MIB as “Internet-native linear television channels”:
- Fees: A Rs 10,000 processing fee and a Rs 1 lakh annual fee per channel, for 10 years. A non-news satellite TV channel pays Rs 5 lakh a year for permission.
- Content rules: They would have to follow the Programme Code and Advertising Code, and keep recordings of their programmes for 90 days for government agencies.
- Indian partner: Each channel would need a distribution agreement with an Indian company.
- Approval for changes: Any change in name, logo, ownership or editorial control would need prior approval or notice to MIB.
- Suspension: MIB could suspend or cancel a registration “in the interest of national security, public order,” or for breaking the law or registration conditions.
Why can’t news channels register?
Only non-news channels could register. News channels made only for the internet could not appear on these apps unless they hold the permission that TV news channels need, which involves security clearance from the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA).
“News and current affairs content have a direct bearing on public discourse and may have significant implications for public order, national security, social harmony and the integrity of information disseminated to the public.” – TRAI.
Allowing internet-only news channels through lighter registration could create “an alternate regulatory route for television news distribution,” it added.
What would TV makers and app stores have to do?
TV makers and companies that make TV operating systems would have to check apps against a government list:
- Master list: MIB would keep a “Master ALTD app repository” of licensed apps. TV makers and app stores would allow only apps on this list, “in a non-discriminatory manner.”
- Removal: They would have to remove unlicensed apps “immediately,” and remove any app when the government directs or when its licence is suspended or cancelled.
- Annual report: They would file an annual compliance report with MIB.
TV makers had asked to be left out. LG called them “neutral technology enablers,” as MediaNama reported in June. TRAI agreed TV makers would not need a licence but said they should exercise “reasonable due diligence” over which apps they allow.
Broadcasters, in turn, could supply their channels only to licensed apps. Existing apps and internet-only channels would get one year from when the rules are notified to get a licence or register.
Why does TRAI call these apps a telecom service?
TRAI says these apps provide a “telecommunication service” under the 2023 Act. The Act defines a “message” to include video and data streams, and telecommunication as the transmission of messages over wire, radio or optical systems. These apps send video over such networks, so they qualify, TRAI said.
“The transport layer through which a service is delivered is a technological attribute and does not, by itself, alter the essential character of the service offered to consumer,” TRAI wrote.
The government has said the 2023 Act does not cover OTT services.
“OTT has been regulated by the IT Act of 2000 and continues to be regulated by the IT Act,” communications minister Ashwini Vaishnaw said when the law was passed.
Additionally, a Department of Telecommunications (DoT) official said in 2024 that leaving OTT services out was “a conscious decision”. But TRAI says these apps are different from OTT services because viewers cannot choose what plays or when.
Who opposed the framework?
TRAI received 207 comments and 11 counter-comments. Existing TV distributors, a few broadcasters and consumer groups wanted the same rules for these apps as for cable and DTH. App providers and some broadcasters opposed it:
- Jio Platforms: Argued that FAST is a form of OTT, and that content stays OTT “irrespective of whether the content is scheduled or non-scheduled,” as MediaNama reported in May.
- Sony: Called these apps “users of telecommunication networks, and not providers of telecommunication services,” and said the framework would exceed TRAI’s powers.
- Other opponents: Some said there is “no demonstrable market failure,” and that regulation could create barriers to entry, according to TRAI.
TRAI called the argument that internet delivery places these apps outside broadcasting rules “misplaced.”
What has TRAI left for later?
TRAI will take up pricing for pay channels shown free on these apps, rules for apps that start charging subscriptions, and service quality standards after MIB finalises the framework. It also recommended that viewing on these apps count towards TV ratings, with rating agencies to develop a method once the framework is final.
What happens next?
If MIB accepts the recommendations, the terms would be notified as rules under Section 56 of the Telecommunications Act, 2023. MIB is separately drafting rules for TV and radio under the same Act, and its September draft defines a TV channel as programming “transmitted in a fixed, time-bound sequence,” which matches TRAI’s approach.
What questions remain unanswered?
- Where does the telecom definition stop? TRAI’s reasoning rests on apps sending video over networks, which every streaming service does. Will MIB and DoT accept this reading, given the government’s position that the 2023 Act does not cover OTT services?
- What about services that offer both? Some streaming services offer on-demand content alongside live channels from several broadcasters. TRAI’s definition covers apps “with or without” on-demand content, but does not say which existing services would need a licence.
- What limits apply to government access to viewing data? TRAI cites investigations and security incidents, but the condition lets any “competent authority” obtain records “as and when required under applicable law,” without naming the law or setting safeguards.
- What happens to apps already on TVs? Many smart TVs come with these apps pre-installed. The recommendations do not say whether TV makers would have to disable apps on devices already sold if those apps fail to get a licence.
- What happens to internet-only news channels? News channels streaming on these apps would lose that route unless they get TV news permission. TRAI does not say how many such channels exist.
- Who regulates what? Sony argued the framework exceeds TRAI’s powers. TRAI says on-demand content on these apps would stay under the IT Act and IT Rules, so a single app could answer to two sets of rules, overseen through different laws.
Also read:
- TRAI consults on regulating FAST services like Samsung TV Plus
- Sony, Jio say FAST services are OTT, oppose TRAI proposal
The post Lowdown: TRAI wants live TV apps like Samsung TV Plus to get a govt license appeared first on MEDIANAMA.