Quick answer: Yes, in most cases. The MIB told the TDSAT on 12 October 2026 that OTT platforms are governed by the IT Rules, 2021, not the 2022 satellite uplinking and downlinking guidelines. The open risk is for broadcasters: the guidelines limit who may receive their satellite decoders, so how the feed reaches the OTT app matters. The tribunal has not ruled yet.
Putting a satellite TV channel on OTT apps is now the most contested move in Indian TV distribution. Prasar Bharati invited licensed satellite channels to stream on its WAVES app. India’s cable distributors went to the TDSAT to stop it. And on 12 October 2026 the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) told the tribunal that OTT is not broadcasting at all.
This guide is for broadcasters weighing a third-party OTT carriage deal, and for OTT platform owners who want to carry linear channels. You will learn what the dispute is really about, why one decoder clause sits at its center, and the question most coverage skips: how the channel’s signal physically reaches the app. That detail decides how much risk a broadcaster carries. We build OTT and linear playout platforms at Flicknexs, so we look at it from the feed side.
Key takeaways
- The WAVES dispute is about signal supply, not about whether OTT apps may show live TV.
- Clause 11(3)(f) of the 2022 guidelines lets broadcasters give reception decoders only to cable MSOs, DTH, HITS and IPTV operators. OTT apps are not on that list.
- The MIB argues an OTT platform is sourcing content over IP and is not a distribution platform operator at all.
- A channel delivered to an app as a direct IP feed from the broadcaster’s own playout is a different fact pattern from an app pulling the channel off satellite with a decoder. Most coverage treats them as one thing.
- The draft Telecommunications (Television, Radio and Associated Services) Rules, 2026 will replace the 2022 guidelines. Watch how the final text defines “television channel”.
- No TDSAT ruling has been reported as of 15 October 2026. Contracts signed now should plan for either outcome.
What is the WAVES dispute about?
WAVES is Prasar Bharati’s OTT app. Since late 2025 it has been trying to add private satellite TV channels to its line-up, which is what triggered the case.
| Date | What happened | Source |
| 17 Nov 2025 | Prasar Bharati issues a notice inviting applications (NIA) from MIB-licensed satellite channels to stream on WAVES for one year | Prasar Bharati circulars |
| 19 Feb 2026 | Application deadline extended to 31 March 2026 | Storyboard18 |
| Mar 2026 | AIDCF, which represents cable MSOs, petitions TDSAT; tribunal issues notice to Prasar Bharati | exchange4media |
| 29 May 2026 | IBDF, the broadcasters’ industry body, joins on Prasar Bharati’s side; TDSAT gives it four weeks to reply | exchange4media, 29 May 2026 |
| 14 Jul 2026 | TDSAT makes 64 broadcasters whose channels stream on WAVES parties to the case, at AIDCF’s request; next hearing listed for 31 August | exchange4media, 14 Jul 2026 |
| 12 Oct 2026 | MIB files its reply, saying OTT falls outside the satellite TV rules and asking for the petition to be dismissed | Broadcast and CableSat |
The commercial terms explain why broadcasters were tempted. The NIA offered channels a 65% share of ad revenue, with Prasar Bharati keeping 35% (Storyboard18 on the WAVES revenue split). It asked for a clean feed carrying SCTE-35 ad markers so WAVES could insert its own ads, and it accepted applications only from companies holding their own MIB channel permissions (WAVES NIA terms, Storyboard18).
Many broadcasters signed up. Prasar Bharati told the tribunal that WAVES has onboarded 88 content providers and channels, and that it does not take part in the uplinking or downlinking chain that broadcast rules govern (Prasar Bharati’s submission on WAVES onboarding). The 64 broadcasters now named as parties include Zee Media, TV Today Network, ABP Network, Network18, NDTV and TV9 Network (list of impleaded broadcasters). Prasar Bharati’s CEO has said linear channels are among the platform’s most-viewed genres, while declining to discuss the case because it is sub judice (exchange4media).
Bottom line: WAVES is a test case. Whatever TDSAT decides will be read by every broadcaster considering a channel deal with a private OTT app too.
What does Clause 11(3)(f) actually restrict?
The clause is a condition on broadcasters, not on OTT apps. A broadcaster with permission to downlink a channel in India must supply reception decoders only to four kinds of distribution platform operator (DPO): multi-system operators (cable), DTH, HITS and IPTV providers (exchange4media).
A reception decoder (often called an IRD, integrated receiver decoder) is the box that takes the encrypted satellite signal and turns it into a usable video feed. Controlling who gets one is how the system controls who can redistribute a channel.
AIDCF’s argument runs like this:
- Onboarding a satellite channel on an OTT app means the app needs the channel’s signal.
- The usual way to get a satellite channel’s signal is a decoder.
- OTT platforms are not one of the four permitted DPO categories.
- So a broadcaster supplying its channel to WAVES risks breaching a condition of its own downlinking permission.
The federation also argues a parity point: cable and DTH operators carry tariff, interconnection and quality duties that an OTT app does not, so letting apps carry the same channels creates an uneven field (AIDCF parity argument, Broadcast and CableSat).
Note where the risk lands. If AIDCF is right, the party breaching a permission condition is the broadcaster, not the app. This is no longer theoretical: AIDCF asked for the 64 broadcasters streaming on WAVES to be added as parties because the outcome affects their rights and commercial interests, and TDSAT agreed (TDSAT impleads 64 broadcasters). That matters for every carriage contract.
Bottom line: the clause regulates decoder supply. Step 2 of AIDCF’s argument, that the app needs a decoder, is the one to test.
Why does the MIB say OTT is not broadcasting?
The ministry made four separate arguments in its reply, as reported in the Broadcast and CableSat report on the MIB reply and by Indian Broadcasting World.
1. Delivery method. OTT content travels over internet protocol networks. It does not involve uplinking and downlinking satellite signals in the way the 2022 guidelines contemplate. Calling the content a “linear satellite channel” does not by itself pull the app into the satellite framework.
2. No permission, so not a DPO. OTT platforms do not hold broadcasting permissions or licenses from the MIB, so they cannot be distribution platform operators under the existing framework. The ministry put it plainly: “An OTT service is not a broadcasting service.”
3. Different rulebook. OTT services are governed by the Information Technology Act and the IT Rules, 2021, not the broadcasting licensing regime.
4. Jurisdiction. The MIB questioned whether TDSAT can hear the dispute at all, since it does not involve a licensor–licensee relationship or service providers covered by Section 14(a)(ii) of the TRAI Act, 1997.
The ministry also leaned on precedent. In All India Digital Cable Federation vs Star India (order of 4 October 2023), TDSAT observed that an OTT platform was prima facie not a television channel and did not need a central government license to operate (2023 TDSAT order cited in the MIB reply). That earlier dispute was also brought by AIDCF, which tells you this is a long-running fight over where cable’s rulebook ends.
What the MIB did not say. The reply addresses whether the 2022 satellite guidelines reach OTT. It does not say what a broadcaster may or may not hand to an OTT app under its own permission conditions, and it does not settle how app-based linear TV may be regulated later. Read it as a strong signal, not a ruling.
Bottom line: the government’s position favors OTT carriage. The tribunal still has to decide, and it may decide on jurisdiction alone without touching the merits.
How does a satellite channel’s signal reach an OTT app?
This is the part legal coverage skips, and it is where Flicknexs works every day. There are three common ways a linear channel ends up inside an OTT app. They look identical to the viewer. They are not identical under Clause 11(3)(f).
| Feed path | How it works | Does the OTT side touch a satellite decoder? | Fit with AIDCF’s argument |
| A. Decoder at the OTT headend | The OTT operator receives the satellite signal with an IRD, then re-encodes it to HLS or DASH for the app | Yes | Closest to AIDCF’s concern: a decoder sits with an entity outside the four DPO categories |
| B. Direct IP contribution feed | The broadcaster sends the channel from its own playout over the internet (for example SRT, RTMP or a managed IP link) straight to the OTT platform’s ingest, often with SCTE-35 ad markers | No | The decoder clause is harder to apply: no decoder changes hands. The MIB’s “IP sourcing” framing fits this path best |
| C. OTT-only playout channel | A separate linear channel is assembled from file-based programs in a cloud playout and published only to apps | No satellite signal involved | Generally outside the satellite guidelines; this is the classic FAST model |
Three practical points follow from the table.
The WAVES spec points to path B. The NIA asked broadcasters for a clean feed with SCTE-35 markers so WAVES could insert ads dynamically (NIA feed requirements). That is the language of an IP contribution feed from the broadcaster’s playout, not a decoder handover. Public reporting does not say how each WAVES channel is actually delivered, so treat this as our reading of the spec, not a fact about every channel.
Path B is also better engineering. A feed taken from the broadcaster’s playout before satellite encoding is cleaner than a satellite signal decoded and re-encoded a second time. It can carry ad markers intact, which is what server-side ad insertion on the OTT side needs. A decoded satellite signal often loses or mangles those markers.
Path C sidesteps the question. If a broadcaster builds an app-only version of a channel, with different ad breaks or a different schedule, there is no satellite signal to supply. It also changes the commercial deal, because the broadcaster is now licensing programs, not a channel.
None of this is legal advice. A tribunal may decide that “supplying the channel” is the issue, whatever the pipe. But if you are negotiating a deal, the feed path is the first technical fact your lawyer will ask about, and most broadcasters we speak with have not written it down.
Bottom line: the same channel on the same app can be delivered three ways. Choose path B or C and document it.
What does a broadcaster risk by joining an OTT platform?
A satellite channel’s downlinking permission is valuable and not cheap to hold. The MIB’s Broadcast Seva portal lists an annual permission fee of Rs 5 lakh per channel for downlinking a channel uplinked from India, and Rs 15 lakh per channel for one uplinked from abroad (Broadcast Seva). A threat to permission conditions is therefore a threat to the core business, not a side issue.
The realistic risks, from lowest to highest:
- Commercial pressure from cable distributors. MSOs carry most channels’ subscription and carriage revenue. A broadcaster seen to be feeding a rival app may face harder carriage negotiations, whatever the law says.
- A complaint or show-cause notice. If a distributor alleges a breach of Clause 11(3)(f), the broadcaster has to answer it. Clear records of the feed path make that answer short.
- An adverse TDSAT finding. If the tribunal accepts AIDCF’s reading, broadcasters already supplying OTT apps would need to stop or restructure. Contracts without an exit clause would make that expensive.
The reverse risk also exists. If TDSAT backs the MIB, broadcasters who stayed out will have given early movers a head start on app audiences and ad data.
Bottom line: the risk sits with the broadcaster’s permission. Manage it with feed choice, records and contract terms, not by guessing the verdict.
What changes when the 2026 telecom rules are notified?
The 2022 guidelines AIDCF relies on are about to be replaced. The MIB published draft Telecommunications (Television, Radio and Associated Services) Rules, 2026 on 12 June 2026, issued a revised draft in early September and closed comments on 2 October 2026 (Indian Broadcasting World). The rules consolidate the satellite uplinking and downlinking guidelines, DTH, HITS, IPTV and radio policies under the Telecommunications Act, 2023 (TeamLease RegTech). Trade press reported the final framework was expected to be notified shortly after the comment deadline.
For OTT carriage, two details in the final text matter more than anything else:
The definition of “television channel”. The Asia Video Industry Association warned in its submission that the draft definitions could leave the door open for open-internet linear streams to be brought under the rules, even if the intent was to cover only channels delivered to MSOs, distribution services and IPTV (AVIA submission on the draft rules). If the final wording is broad, an OTT linear stream could fall inside the TV rulebook by definition, which would cut against the MIB’s own TDSAT argument.
The successor to Clause 11(3)(f). Check whether the new rules repeat the four-category decoder restriction, widen it, or change it from “decoders” to “signals” or “feeds”. A change from decoder to feed language would close the path-B gap described above.
AVIA’s submission also welcomed the exclusion of online curated content providers from the draft (AVIA comments on OCCP exclusion). That keeps classic VOD services outside, but it does not by itself answer the question for linear streams.
Bottom line: the TDSAT case may be overtaken by the new rules. Read the final definitions before signing multi-year carriage deals.
How does this connect to FAST and ALTD rules?
There are three separate tracks, and they are easy to confuse:
| Track | Who runs it | What it decides | Status (15 Oct 2026) |
| AIDCF vs Prasar Bharati | TDSAT | Whether the 2022 satellite guidelines stop satellite channels being supplied to an OTT app | MIB reply filed; no ruling reported |
| Telecom (TV, Radio and Associated Services) Rules, 2026 | MIB | The new rulebook replacing the 2022 guidelines | Comments closed 2 Oct; final rules awaited |
| ALTD / FAST framework | TRAI, then MIB | Whether app-based linear TV gets its own authorization or registration | Consultation complete; TRAI recommendation awaited |
This guide covers the first two. If your question is whether a FAST channel or FAST app will need its own license, read our FAST channel license India explainer on TRAI’s ALTD rules, which tracks that consultation and the likely outcomes in detail.
Bottom line: a broadcaster’s satellite permission (tracks 1 and 2) and an app’s possible ALTD authorization (track 3) are different obligations on different companies.
What should an OTT carriage contract say?
Whether you are a broadcaster licensing a channel to an app, or an app carrying a broadcaster’s channel, these clauses protect both sides while the law settles. This checklist is our own; have it reviewed by a lawyer qualified in Indian media and telecom law.
| Clause | What to write | Why it matters now |
| Feed delivery method | Name the path: direct IP contribution from the broadcaster’s playout, with protocol, endpoint and backup route. State that no satellite reception decoder is supplied | Puts the path-B fact pattern on paper |
| Ad markers and ad sales | Who inserts ads, which SCTE-35 markers are passed, and the revenue split | WAVES-style deals depend on clean markers; disputes start here |
| Regulatory change | Either party may suspend or exit if a TDSAT order, notified rule or MIB direction makes carriage non-compliant | Avoids penalties if the law moves against OTT carriage |
| Territory and devices | India only or wider; apps, smart TVs, web | Channel rights and permissions are territory-specific |
| Content compliance | The broadcaster warrants the feed follows the program and advertising codes it already follows on satellite | Keeps the app feed and satellite feed aligned |
| Takedown | Time limit to stop the stream after notice | Needed for rights disputes and adverse orders |
| Records | Both sides keep feed logs, outage logs and change logs | Makes any regulator or tribunal question easy to answer |
Bottom line: one page of clear contract terms is cheaper than restructuring a channel deal after a ruling.
How we set up a linear simulcast on an OTT platform
Flicknexs builds white-label OTT platforms with 24/7 playout, scheduling, server-side ad insertion, geo-fencing and a content partner portal (Flicknexs). When a broadcaster asks us to put an existing channel inside an OTT app, this is the setup we walk through. It maps directly to the feed paths above.
- Agree the feed path first. We ask for a direct IP contribution feed from the broadcaster’s playout (path B), not a decoded satellite signal. It is cleaner technically and cleaner on paper.
- Ingest and package. The feed arrives at the platform’s live ingest and is packaged into adaptive HLS for apps, smart TVs and web players.
- Pass the ad markers through. SCTE-35 markers in the feed tell the server-side ad insertion system where breaks start and end, so the app can run its own ads in the broadcaster’s breaks.
- Fence the territory. Geo-fencing restricts the stream to the territories the deal covers.
- Keep the linear channel’s records separate. Feed uptime, schedule and ad logs for the linear channel are kept apart from the VOD library, so either can be reported on its own if a regulator, partner or tribunal asks.
When you assess any OTT platform for linear carriage, including ours, ask to see three things in a live demo: where the contribution feed lands, whether SCTE-35 markers survive end to end, and whether linear and VOD logs can be exported separately.
What to watch next
Three documents will settle most of the open questions in this guide. Check each one before you sign or renew a carriage deal.
| Watch item | Where to check | What changes for you |
| A TDSAT order on maintainability or jurisdiction in AIDCF vs Prasar Bharati | The TDSAT website cause lists and orders, and trade press | If the tribunal dismisses the petition on jurisdiction, the satellite-guidelines argument against OTT carriage loses its main forum. If it keeps the case, broadcasters already on WAVES stay exposed until a final order |
| Notification of the Telecommunications (Television, Radio and Associated Services) Rules, 2026 | The Gazette of India and MIB press releases | Read the definition of “television channel” and whatever replaces Clause 11(3)(f). These decide whether path B stays outside the rules |
| TRAI’s recommendation on app-based linear TV (ALTD) | TRAI’s ALTD consultation page | Decides whether the app itself needs an authorization or registration, separate from the broadcaster’s permission |
Two practical habits help. First, date every check in your compliance file, so you can show what the rules said on the day you signed. Second, when one of these three lands, re-read your carriage contract’s regulatory-change clause against it the same week. A clause written for “any adverse order” is easier to trigger than one that names a specific outcome.
Bottom line: one tribunal order, one gazette notification and one TRAI recommendation will decide this. Track all three, not just the case.
Mistakes to avoid
Treating the MIB’s reply as the verdict. It is a party’s submission. TDSAT has not ruled.
Pulling a channel off satellite for an app because it is quicker. Path A is the fact pattern AIDCF objects to. If you can get an IP feed from the broadcaster, use it.
Signing a long carriage deal without a regulatory-change clause. The 2026 rules and the TDSAT case could both land within months.
Assuming the app carries the risk. Under the decoder clause, the permission at risk is the broadcaster’s.
Confusing this case with FAST licensing. A satellite broadcaster’s permission conditions and a future ALTD authorization for apps are separate questions.
Frequently asked questions
What is the AIDCF vs Prasar Bharati case at TDSAT?
The All India Digital Cable Federation challenged Prasar Bharati’s notice inviting satellite TV channels onto its WAVES OTT app. It argues the move conflicts with the 2022 uplinking and downlinking guidelines and risks broadcasters breaching their downlinking permissions. IBDF supports Prasar Bharati, and 64 broadcasters streaming on WAVES are now parties (TDSAT’s July order, via exchange4media).
What is Clause 11(3)(f) of the uplinking and downlinking guidelines?
It requires broadcasters with downlinking permission to supply channel reception decoders only to cable MSOs, DTH, HITS and IPTV operators. OTT platforms are not one of the listed categories.
Is OTT a broadcasting service in India?
The MIB told TDSAT on 12 October 2026 that it is not. In its view OTT services are governed by the IT Act and the IT Rules, 2021, not the broadcasting licensing framework. The tribunal has not yet decided the case.
Has TDSAT ruled on OTT platforms before?
Yes, on a related point. In a 4 October 2023 order in AIDCF vs Star India, TDSAT observed that an OTT platform was prima facie not a television channel and did not need a central government license.
Can a broadcaster stream its own satellite channel on its own app?
That is a different situation from supplying a third-party app, because no decoder or feed goes to another distributor. Broadcasters should still keep the app feed aligned with the codes that apply to the satellite channel.
How does a satellite channel get onto an OTT app technically?
Usually by one of three paths: a decoder at the OTT operator’s headend, a direct IP contribution feed from the broadcaster’s playout, or a separate app-only playout channel. The second and third do not involve supplying a satellite decoder.
What revenue share did WAVES offer TV channels?
Prasar Bharati’s notice offered channels 65% of ad revenue, with Prasar Bharati keeping 35%, under a one-year streaming partnership (WAVES onboarding notice details).
Will the 2026 telecom rules cover OTT linear streams?
The draft rules consolidate the satellite, DTH, HITS and IPTV frameworks. Industry groups have warned that broad definitions could catch open-internet linear streams. Check the final notified definition of “television channel”.
Does a FAST channel need an MIB downlinking permission?
A FAST channel built from file-based programs and published only to apps does not involve satellite downlinking. Whether FAST apps will need a separate authorization is the subject of TRAI’s ALTD process, covered in our FAST licensing guide.
Final verdict
For satellite broadcasters: OTT carriage is likely lawful on the MIB’s reading, but your permission is the one at risk if TDSAT disagrees. Deliver by direct IP feed, write the feed path into the contract and add a regulatory-change exit.
For OTT platform owners: do not pull channels off satellite yourself. Ask broadcasters for a contribution feed with SCTE-35 markers and keep linear records separate from your library.
For FAST channel builders: this case barely touches you. Your watch item is TRAI’s ALTD recommendation.
For everyone: read the final Telecommunications (Television, Radio and Associated Services) Rules the week they are notified. The definition of “television channel” may matter more than the tribunal’s verdict.
Planning to carry linear channels on your own OTT app?
Flicknexs builds branded OTT platforms that run linear channels and VOD side by side, with live ingest, server-side ad insertion and geo-fencing. Build your own OTT platform with Flicknexs or talk to us about launching a FAST channel. Want to see linear ingest and SCTE-35 passthrough working first? Start a free trial or book a demo.
Related reading: what FAST channels are and how they work, how FAST channels make money through ads, how to launch a FAST channel in 2026 and OTT app requirements for connected TV in India.
Ready to build?
If you’re planning your next TV Apps project, Flicknexs handles the video infrastructure end-to-end — so you can ship in weeks, not months.
