For nearly a decade, India’s broadcast ecosystem has been shaped by a
slow, often opaque tug of war between two centres of authority, the sector regulator and the government’s policy arm.
While the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) frames itself as the guardian of consumer interest and market order, the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting (MIB) retains control over licensing, policy framing and final rule-making. The result has been a layered, often fragmented system of governance in which regulation rarely moves in straight lines.
Over the years, TRAI has flagged a steady stream of reforms on advertising limits, pricing frameworks, licensing architecture, audience measurement and digital transition. Many of these proposals have gone through elaborate consultations, stakeholder debates and formal recommendations. Yet, implementation has frequently slowed down once files reached the ministry, weighed down by policy sensitivities, political considerations and competing industry interests.
In between, crucial decisions have lingered in consultation papers, courtrooms and inter-ministerial corridors, leaving broadcasters operating in a climate of prolonged uncertainty. In this shared but divided system of oversight, the cost of delayed consensus is borne not just by regulators and policymakers, but by an industry waiting for clarity on who ultimately calls the shots.
The 12-minute advertising cap
A striking illustration of this regulatory limbo is the revival of the 12-minute advertising cap, a rule that had remained largely dormant for over a decade. Late last year, TRAI issued more than 250 show-cause notices in November 2025 seeking strict enforcement of the cap, triggering fresh turmoil across the television industry.
Introduced under TRAI’s Quality of Service (Duration of Advertisements) Regulations in 2012–13, the rule limits advertising to 12 minutes per clock hour on television channels. While the regulation technically remained in force all these years, enforcement had been sporadic, allowing broadcasters to routinely exceed the limit in a fiercely competitive advertising market.
TRAI’s sudden push to revive the rule has drawn sharp resistance from broadcasters, who argue that rigid ad limits threaten their already fragile revenue models at a time when linear television faces mounting pressure from digital platforms. Several broadcasters have challenged the move in court, contending that the regulation is outdated, impractical and blind to current market realities.
The dispute is now before the Delhi High Court, which is set to commence final arguments on January 27. For TRAI, the hearing represents an opportunity to reassert its role as a consumer watchdog determined to curb excessive commercialisation. For broadcasters, it is a defining battle over commercial viability. Until the court settles the matter, the future of the ad cap remains uncertain, a reminder of how a regulation can lie dormant for years only to resurface abruptly and plunge the industry into fresh legal and business uncertainty.
Also read: 12-min TV ad cap ruling soon: Broadcasters call for forbearance
National Broadcasting Policy: A long consultation, no final blueprint
A similar sense of unfinished business surrounds the National Broadcasting Policy, 2024, which was meant to provide a long-term roadmap for a rapidly converging media ecosystem. In April 2024, TRAI released an extensive consultation paper seeking inputs for the formulation of the policy, offering detailed recommendations on convergence, competition, consumer protection, licensing and technology adoption.
The exercise raised expectations of a comprehensive policy reset for a sector grappling with the blurring of lines between broadcasting, telecom and digital media. Yet, more than a year later, the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting has not notified a final National Broadcasting Policy. For industry stakeholders, the prolonged delay has meant continued uncertainty over regulatory jurisdiction, platform parity and the future framework governing linear and digital broadcasting.
Also read: Govt completes stakeholder consultations on Draft Broadcasting Services Bill
Licensing regime: The unfinished transition under the Telecom Act
The stalled transition to a new licensing regime under the Telecommunications Act, 2023 offers another window into the slow pace of reform. After issuing a consultation paper in October 2024 and final recommendations in February 2025, TRAI proposed a unified authorisation framework covering broadcasters, DTH platforms, HITS operators and cable networks, along with harmonised fees and simplified licensing terms.
The proposals were widely seen as a long-overdue attempt to modernise the licensing architecture inherited from the colonial-era Telegraph Act and align it with the realities of technological convergence. Yet, MIB has not notified the necessary rules under the new Act. As a result, broadcasters continue to operate under legacy licences even as uncertainty persists over future compliance obligations, renewal terms and fee structures.
Closely tied to this transition is the unresolved issue of DTH licensing and licence fee rationalisation. Through a January 2023 consultation and subsequent recommendations under the service authorisation framework, TRAI proposed reducing the DTH licence fee from 8 per cent to 3 percent of Adjusted Gross Revenue and phasing it out over time, arguing that the existing levy had become untenable in a shrinking pay-TV market.
Despite repeated industry appeals, the ministry has not acted on the proposal so far. With no formal notification in sight, India’s four private DTH operators - Dish TV, Tata Play, Bharti Telemedia and Sun Direct - continue to operate under the existing regime while grappling with falling subscriber bases and mounting financial stress. Executives from these companies have repeatedly warned that the absence of regulatory relief threatens the long-term viability of the sector.
Also read: DTH operators paid Rs 692 crore to MIB as licensing fee in FY23-24
Channel pricing: A sector waiting for NTO 4.0
Tariff regulation represents yet another area where reform has moved in cycles without settling into stability. Since the introduction of the New Tariff Order in 2019, the industry has witnessed three major pricing resets in six years - a pace that many stakeholders believe has created regulatory fatigue and discouraged long-term investment.
In August 2023, TRAI launched a consultation to review bouquet pricing, discounts, Network Capacity Fee and channel bundling practices. While revised regulations were subsequently notified, the regulator itself acknowledged that deeper structural issues remained unresolved and flagged the need for a more comprehensive review.
TRAI has since proposed undertaking a fresh round of consultations in 2025 as part of what is expected to become NTO 4.0. That exercise, however, has yet to begin. As the industry waits, broadcasters, distribution platform operators and cable networks are seeking predictability and pricing fairness in what could become the most consequential tariff reset since 2022.
With frequent regulatory changes already behind them, many stakeholders are urging the regulator to prioritise stability over constant structural experimentation.
DD Free Dish: Encryption proposal still pending
Questions of regulatory parity have also surfaced around DD Free Dish, the public DTH platform that continues to operate under a different set of rules from private players. As part of its service authorisation consultations and a separate recommendation issued in 2024, TRAI called for encryption of DD Free Dish and harmonised authorisation norms to create a level playing field.
Private broadcasters and DTH operators have long argued that the unencrypted, free-to-air model distorts competition by offering premium reach without the regulatory and financial obligations borne by private platforms. Yet, MIB has not accepted or notified TRAI’s recommendations. DD Free Dish continues under its existing framework, leaving the question of parity unresolved and private operators increasingly frustrated.
Also read: TRAI push or industry pressure: Why is DD Free Dish facing calls for reforms?
TRP measurement: Draft rules, no final framework
Reforms in television audience measurement add another layer to this unfinished regulatory landscape. While TRAI has not issued a standalone order on TRP methodology, the issue has gained prominence following controversies around rating manipulation and governance lapses. MIB has released draft guidelines proposing reforms, including provisions for multiple rating agencies and changes to display architecture.
However, the draft’s proposal to introduce a landing page requirement has triggered strong opposition from broadcasters and distribution platforms, who argue that it interferes with channel discoverability and viewer choice. Stakeholder consultations have concluded, but final guidelines are yet to be notified. Until then, the future architecture of India’s ratings ecosystem remains unsettled.
Also read: MIB proposal to drop landing page from TRPs puts Rs 250-crore cable revenue at risk
A system caught between consultation and closure
Taken together, these stalled initiatives reveal the structural complexity of India’s broadcast governance model. TRAI continues to function as the sector’s primary consultative engine, producing detailed frameworks and reform proposals. MIB, in turn, retains ultimate authority over licensing and policy, often proceeding cautiously amid competing political, economic and stakeholder pressures.
In the absence of clearly defined timelines and sharper demarcation of jurisdiction, reforms frequently drift into limbo, neither abandoned nor fully implemented. Courts increasingly become the final arbiters, stretching timelines further and deepening uncertainty.
As broadcasting converges rapidly with digital media and telecom, the need for coherent, timely and predictable regulation has never been more pressing.
Yet, until the balance of authority between regulator and ministry is clarified, India’s broadcast industry may continue to operate in a system where reform travels slowly, consensus arrives late, and clarity remains elusive.