Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited (ZEEL) has taken a sharply different position from JioStar and Culver Max Entertainment in submissions filed to the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India’s (TRAI) consultation on regulating Application-based Linear Television Distribution (ALTD) and Free Ad-Supported Streaming Television (FAST) services.
While JioStar and Culver Max argued that FAST and ALTD services are application-layer OTT services operating over the open internet, ZEEL has argued that such platforms are “functionally identical” to traditional TV distribution because they deliver scheduled linear channels to viewers simultaneously.
In its submission, ZEEL said “Application-based Linear Television Distribution (ALTD) Services should be defined as services that distribute linear television channels to consumers through applications or web-based platforms over the internet while retaining the original definition of the Linear Television Channel.”
The company further argued that ALTD platforms “should be recognised as replicating traditional linear television viewing on digital platforms and should not be clubbed with OTT Services.”
ZEEL pushes broadcasting-style regulation: At the centre of the submission is the argument that regulation should follow the nature of the service rather than the technology used to deliver it.
The company said ALTD services “perform the same essential function as traditional television distribution, namely the delivery of permitted linear television channels to consumers.” It also argued that the “defining feature of a linear channel is continuous and real-time transmission for all the viewers.”
Accordingly, Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited has sought a formal authorisation framework for ALTD services under the television distribution regulation. The broadcaster proposed that the “Application Provider should be designated as the primary stakeholder responsible for obtaining authorisation for the provisioning of ALTD Services.”
The company justified this by saying the application provider “aggregates and distributes linear television channels”, “manages the application interface,” controls the electronic program guide, and “enables service delivery to end-users across devices.”
ZEEL also said application providers “should be held accountable for regulatory compliance, including adherence to content quality, anti-piracy and security, consumer protection obligations, and any other applicable conditions.”
Calls for parity with DTH and cable: The broadcaster said licensed TV distribution platforms already comply with “Programme and Advertising Codes, consumer protection frameworks, tariff and interconnection regulations, as well as mandatory carriage of public service broadcasting content.”
In contrast, it argued that the absence of similar obligations for ALTD and FAST services creates “regulatory arbitrage” and a “non-level playing field for the licensed platforms.” The company consequently proposed that common terms applicable to television channel distribution services should also apply to ALTD platforms “with adaptations for application-based delivery.”
Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited further argued that “Must Carry and Must Provide provisions should be made applicable” because “there is no bandwidth constraint in ALTD services.” The broadcaster also said the “mandatory sharing of sports broadcasting signals with Prasar Bharati and the compulsory transmission of certain channels should also be treated similar to other DPOs.”
Smart TVs, operating systems and app stores: ZEEL’s submission also addressed connected television ecosystems, including smart TV manufacturers and operating system providers. The broadcaster said TV manufacturers and operating system providers “should be required to ensure that applications provisioning ALTD services made available on their platforms are duly authorised by the competent authority.”
It proposed an assurance mechanism that could include “self-declaration by the manufacturer or operating system provider”, “periodic verification of authorised applications” and compliance with “suspension, takedown, or disabling directions issued by the competent authority.”
Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited also argued that ALTD application providers should carry only channels holding “valid permission from the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB).”
Cross-holding and telecom operators: In an annexure attached to its submission, ZEEL also raised concerns around cross-holding restrictions between broadcasters, distribution platforms, and telecom operators.
The company noted that existing broadcast regulations impose equity restrictions between broadcasters and DTH or HITS operators, while “Telecom operators currently face no cross-holding restrictions under telecom licensing regimes.”
ZEEL argued that this creates an “uneven regulatory landscape” and recommended that vertical integration restrictions should also extend to telecom service providers “who increasingly own and control both the distribution pipe and content libraries.”
The broadcaster concluded that “cross-holding restrictions either should be removed in totality or implemented across the value chain, whether linear or digital, similarly to provide plurality and fair competition between stakeholders at all levels.” They also called for platform neutrality, saying that it should “ensure that distribution platforms—whether DTH, cable, or IPTV—do not provide preferential treatment or discriminatory pricing to their own vertically integrated platforms.”
Also read
For You
此内容由惯性聚合(RSS阅读器)自动聚合整理，仅供阅读参考。 原文来自 — 版权归原作者所有。