On 26 October two things surfaced on the same day. The Information and Broadcasting Ministry is reportedly weighing a law to regulate streaming content. And TRAI published recommendations that show, in detail, what that kind of law looks like once it is written down.
Read them together, because separately they are a rumour and a dull consultation paper, and together they are the shape of the next five years.
What TRAI actually recommended
TRAI’s recommendations cover “Application-based Linear Television Distribution services”, meaning apps that stream live TV channels. They came at MIB’s reference of December 2025, after an April 2026 consultation that drew 207 comments and eleven counter-comments. MIB decides whether to accept them. MediaNama has the detail.
The proposals: authorisation under the Telecommunications Act, 2023, with a ₹10,000 processing fee and a ₹1 lakh entry fee for a twenty-year national licence, open only to Indian-registered entities. Apps could carry only government-approved channels, registered internet-only channels, and their own. Internet-only channels would register with MIB at ₹10,000 processing plus ₹1 lakh per channel per year, keep ninety days of recordings, and have an Indian distribution partner. Data localised in India. Security assessments, six-monthly compliance reports, an Indian grievance officer, government inspection. Television manufacturers and app stores would be permitted to carry only apps on MIB’s master list. One year to transition. Broadcasters’ own apps, social media live streams and on-demand services are excluded.
And news channels would be barred from registering as internet-only channels at all.
Two sentences worth more than the fee schedule
TRAI’s own reasoning is the part to keep. On why the gap needs filling: “This is a regulatory gap, as any content that is broadcast in India should have oversight of the Central Government.”
And on why the medium should not matter: “The transport layer through which a service is delivered is a technological attribute.”
That second line is the load-bearing one. If how something reaches you is merely a technical detail, then there is no principled difference between a cable channel, a live-TV app, a streaming service and anything else that puts moving pictures on a screen. The logic that brings live-TV apps inside the licensing system is the same logic that brings everything else in, and the only thing currently keeping on-demand streaming out is that this particular reference did not ask about it.
Note also what a government master list for app stores and television manufacturers means in practice. It is not content regulation. It is distribution control. An app that is not on the list is not merely in breach, it is unavailable on the device.
The law nobody has drafted
Separately, MIB is reported to be considering a streaming content law in one of three shapes: amending the Cinematograph Act, 1952, amending the IT Act, 2000, or writing something new, with a three-tier structure modelled on the IT Rules of 2021. Self-regulation, then grievance redressal, then government oversight. MIB and MeitY have reportedly held several discussions.
The stated driver is volume of complaint. Per the reporting, MIB has received more than a thousand representations a month for six months seeking greater oversight, and an unnamed official says: “The representations include asking for regulation on the basis of obscenity, vulgarity, among others.” Officials are also quoted saying self-regulation should remain primary.
We are going to be straight about how thin this is. There is no public draft. The original reporting is NDTV’s, which we have not read directly. MediaNama, which we did read, says plainly that it is relaying NDTV, has not independently verified the claims, and received no response from MIB, IAMAI or the DPCGC. So: reported plans, no Bill, nothing to oppose yet. Anyone telling you a streaming law exists is ahead of the evidence.
And the quiet one
One more item from this month deserves flagging, with a caveat: we have it from a single aggregator and have not been able to confirm it independently, so treat it as a lead rather than a fact. PhonePe has reportedly signed an arrangement with the Digital Publisher Content Grievances Council, the self-regulatory body under the IT Rules, under which membership of that body becomes a condition of payment gateway onboarding for streaming platforms.
If that is accurate it is the most interesting regulatory development of the month, because it is not regulation at all. It is self-regulation acquiring commercial teeth through the payments layer. No law, no notification, no hearing. Just a condition on getting paid. We would like somebody to confirm or deny it.
Bengaluru Baath Take
Indian film and television people have spent two years arguing about OTT regulation as though it were a culture war about obscenity. On the evidence of 26 October, that is not where it will be decided.
It will be decided in fee schedules, registration requirements, data localisation clauses, ninety-day retention obligations and a master list that determines which apps a television set is allowed to show. None of that is about what a show contains. All of it is about who can afford to be in the business at all.
Work out who a ₹1 lakh per channel annual fee removes from the market. Not JioHotstar. Not Netflix. It removes the small independent channel, the regional documentary outfit, the three-person operation streaming Kannada theatre or Tulu drama or a film society’s archive. The compliance cost is trivial for an incumbent and fatal for everyone else, which is the oldest outcome in regulatory history and never once the stated intention.
And the barring of news channels from internet-only registration should be argued about now, loudly, while it is still a recommendation in a document most people will never open.
No Bill exists. That is the moment to read the paperwork, not after.
Sources
- MediaNama: TRAI recommends licensing for live TV apps
- MediaNama: Five years on, a law for streaming content
The MIB story originates with NDTV and is unverified by the outlet we read. TRAI’s recommendations are a public document and can be checked against the original.
