Why the MIB wants broadcasting back: Inside the push to remove TRAI’s oversight

The Centre is moving closer to one of the most consequential policy shifts the media sector has seen in decades — taking broadcasting out of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India’s (TRAI) purview and placing it entirely under the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting (MIB). What began as quiet conversations in mid-2024 is now a fast-moving proposal, formally initiated by the ministry and under consideration at the highest levels of government.

If cleared, the restructuring could be implemented by mid-2026, effectively ending TRAI’s two-decade role in shaping broadcasting policy. Broadcasters, long at odds with the regulator, view this as a long-overdue correction. But why is the MIB pushing so hard now — and why is the industry backing it almost unanimously?

A Telecom Regulator for a Non-Telecom Sector?

At the heart of the shift is a simple but recurring argument: TRAI was built to regulate telecom networks, not content-driven industries.

A senior executive at a major network put it bluntly: “It’s like asking a road-traffic regulator to oversee filmmaking. TRAI’s framework is rooted in telecom principles — and we’ve paid the price for that mismatch for years.”

Broadcasters have consistently argued that TRAI’s policies often mirror telecom logic: heavy procedural requirements, strict caps, and prescriptive operational rules. While telecom is a service-delivery infrastructure driven by measurable metrics, broadcasting — especially the content side — requires cultural, creative, and market-specific sensitivity.

According to an industry insider involved in recent consultations, The Flashpoint: Ad-Limit Notices to 250+ Broadcasters. The immediate trigger behind the proposed separation was TRAI’s decision to issue show-cause notices to more than 250 broadcasters for alleged violations of the 10+2 advertising cap — despite the matter being legally stayed by the Delhi High Court.

A senior legal head at a major media conglomerate said, “Reopening a matter that’s sub judice isn’t just unnecessary — it’s disruptive. The notices were seen as an overreach, and many in the government agreed.”

For industry players, this episode reinforced a long-standing belief: TRAI’s enforcement tends to be rigid, sometimes without accounting for legal or market context.

“TRAI’s telecom-first thinking has repeatedly clashed with the business realities of TV networks. The ministry knows this. The industry has been flagging it for over a decade.”

Adding to the frustration was TRAI’s recent proposal to limit broadcasters’ audit rights over DPOs and MSOs. Under the proposed system, broadcasters would need TRAI’s approval and navigate a multi-step process — potentially delaying audits by 16 to 20 months.

An industry operations chief described the concern, “If audits are delayed by nearly two years, we lose visibility on revenue flows. It weakens our position and strengthens distributors who already have more leverage.”

Broadcasters argue that timely audits are essential for revenue reconciliation in a market plagued by under-reporting and complex distribution chains. TRAI has also floated a unified legal framework for telecom and broadcasting — a move that has drawn sharp resistance across the board.

Their fear is that merging carriage (distribution networks) and content (programming, editorial oversight) would create a hybrid regulator that has sweeping, ambiguous powers. A senior executive at an industry body said, “Content cannot be regulated like SIM cards. Merging frameworks would blur responsibilities and create a compliance nightmare.”

Industry groups argue that only the MIB — which traditionally governs media content, standards, and programming — has the domain expertise to regulate broadcasting holistically.

Linear TV, which remains heavily regulated, faces fixed advertising caps, prescriptive pricing frameworks, mandated audits, strict distribution rules. Meanwhile, OTT platforms operate with far fewer constraints.

A top network strategy head said, “We’re competing in the same market for the same viewer — but under completely different rulebooks. TRAI hasn’t addressed this imbalance.” With consumer behaviour shifting rapidly toward digital, broadcasters argue that over-regulation is eroding their competitiveness.

Why the MIB Is Intervening Now

For the MIB, the timing is strategic. India’s media ecosystem is undergoing structural transformation: bundled services are blurring lines between TV, broadband, and OTT, digital platforms are outpacing legacy networks, broadcasters are fighting shrinking margins, distribution models are evolving rapidly. The ministry believes a single, domain-focused regulator can provide: policy stability, sector-specific expertise, faster decision-making, better alignment with global broadcasting norms, clearer separation between carriage and content oversight.

According to a senior official involved in internal discussions, “The friction between TRAI and broadcasters has reached a level where the system is no longer functioning smoothly. The MIB feels the sector needs a regulator that understands broadcasting culture, not telecom mechanics.”

What Happens Next?

With the MIB formally recommending the withdrawal of broadcasting from TRAI’s jurisdiction, the next steps, if successful, the restructuring would mark the most significant rewrite of India’s media regulatory system since the early 2000s.

A senior industry stakeholder summed up the prevailing sentiment, “This isn’t about turf or power. It’s about fixing a structural misalignment. Broadcasting needs a regulator designed for broadcasting.” For now, the sector watches closely — hoping that the long-running tug-of-war may finally be settled, and that a more coherent regulatory future lies ahead.