MIB’s Revised Broadcast Rules Exclude IPTV and Cable From 20% Cross-Ownership Cap

MIB’s Revised Broadcast Rules Exclude IPTV and Cable From 20% Cross-Ownership Cap

India’s Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has proposed a revised broadcasting framework that retains the 20% cross-ownership ceiling for specified relationships involving television broadcasters, Direct-to-Home and Headend-in-the-Sky operators, while not extending the same restriction to broadcaster-MSO or broadcaster-IPTV relationships.

The distinction is contained in the revised draft Telecommunications (Television, Radio and Associated Services) Rules, 2026, issued for consultation on September 2.

The proposed framework seeks to consolidate multiple television and radio licensing regimes under the Telecommunications Act, 2023, creating a unified authorisation structure for broadcasters and distribution platforms.

One of its most significant structural implications concerns:

vertical integration.

While the draft continues to restrict certain cross-holdings involving DTH and HITS services to 20%, comparable ownership relationships involving cable television through multi-system operators and IPTV have not been brought under the same ceiling.

The distinction could give broadcasters and distribution companies greater flexibility to build integrated businesses across content, cable, broadband and IP-based television, even as DTH and HITS remain subject to tighter ownership restrictions.

However, the rules remain in draft form.

Stakeholders have until October 2, 2026 to submit comments and suggestions, and the provisions will take effect only after the government finalises and notifies the framework.

MIB Issues Revised Draft After Earlier Consultation

The September 2 proposal is not the first version of the new broadcasting rules.

MIB had released an earlier draft in June 2026 as part of its effort to reorganise India's fragmented broadcasting regulatory architecture.

The ministry subsequently examined stakeholder feedback before issuing the revised proposal.

The new framework is intended to consolidate rules governing:

satellite television channels,

Direct-to-Home services,

Headend-in-the-Sky services,

private FM radio,

community radio,

and:

Internet Protocol Television.

Instead of maintaining separate policy documents for each category, MIB wants these services to operate within a more unified authorisation framework.

Telecommunications Act 2023 Provides New Legal Framework

The regulatory restructuring follows the enactment of the:

Telecommunications Act, 2023.

The legislation replaced parts of India's older telecommunications legal architecture and created the basis for a new authorisation system.

Broadcast distribution involves telecommunications networks, making the new law relevant to services such as:

DTH,

HITS,

and IPTV.

MIB's proposed rules are designed to bring existing broadcasting permissions and licences into alignment with this newer statutory framework.

Cross-Ownership Is One of the Most Important Provisions

Among the most commercially significant elements of the revised rules is the treatment of:

cross-ownership.

Cross-ownership occurs when a company operating in one part of the media value chain owns a significant interest in a business operating in another part.

For example:

a broadcaster could own part of a distribution platform.

Or:

a distribution platform could own part of a broadcaster.

Such relationships can create economic efficiencies.

They can also raise concerns around:

market power,

channel access,

pricing,

and competitive neutrality.

20% Ceiling Remains for DTH Relationships

Under the revised proposal, a television broadcaster would generally not be permitted to hold more than:

20%

of the equity in a DTH operator.

The restriction also operates in the opposite direction.

A DTH operator would not be permitted to hold more than 20% in a television broadcaster.

The objective is to limit excessive vertical integration between companies controlling television content and companies controlling satellite-based distribution.

HITS Also Remains Under 20% Restriction

The same broad cross-ownership principle continues for:

Headend-in-the-Sky, or HITS, services.

HITS is a satellite-based infrastructure model through which television channels can be aggregated and distributed to cable networks.

Because HITS occupies an important position between broadcasters and downstream distribution networks, ownership relationships can influence how channels reach consumers.

The revised rules therefore retain the 20% ceiling for relevant broadcaster-HITS cross-holdings.

IPTV Is Treated Differently

The most notable difference concerns:

Internet Protocol Television.

IPTV delivers television channels using managed IP-based telecommunications networks rather than conventional satellite or coaxial cable distribution alone.

The revised draft formally incorporates IPTV within the broader television-distribution regulatory architecture.

However, the proposed 20% cross-ownership ceiling applicable to DTH and HITS has not been extended in the same manner to broadcaster-IPTV ownership relationships.

That omission creates significantly more flexibility for vertical integration.

Cable Networks Also Remain Outside Comparable Ceiling

The same distinction applies to relationships between broadcasters and:

Multi-System Operators, or MSOs.

MSOs aggregate and distribute television channels through cable networks to local cable operators and consumers.

The revised rules do not impose the same 20% cross-holding ceiling on broadcaster-MSO relationships that applies to DTH and HITS.

This means the ownership framework differs depending on which distribution technology is being used.

That difference could become increasingly important as cable networks evolve into broadband and IP-based infrastructure.

Draft Differs From Earlier TRAI Recommendation

The approach is particularly significant because the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India had previously recommended extending cross-holding restrictions to IPTV.

TRAI's recommendations on broadcasting-service authorisations had proposed applying restrictions comparable to those governing DTH and HITS.

Under that approach, broadcasting or cable companies would generally have been prevented from owning more than 20% in an IPTV distribution platform, with reciprocal restrictions applying in the other direction.

The revised MIB proposal does not adopt that recommendation in full.

TRAI recommendations are advisory and are not automatically binding on the central government.

Policy Choice Could Have Major Industry Consequences

The difference is more than a technical drafting issue.

Ownership rules influence:

who can build distribution networks,

which companies can combine content and connectivity,

and:

how media businesses structure investments.

If IPTV and cable remain outside the 20% ceiling, companies could potentially create deeper combinations between:

television channels,

broadband infrastructure,

cable networks,

and IP television services.

This could encourage investment and integration.

It could also increase regulatory debate around competition and media concentration.

Why Cross-Ownership Rules Exist

Cross-ownership restrictions generally seek to address a fundamental market concern.

Suppose one company owns:

popular television channels

and:

a major distribution platform.

That company could potentially favour its own channels.

It might provide them:

better placement,

preferential commercial terms,

or stronger promotion.

Rival broadcasters could argue that the distributor no longer operates neutrally.

Ownership restrictions are one way regulators attempt to reduce this risk.

Vertical Integration Can Also Create Efficiencies

Vertical integration is not inherently anti-competitive.

An integrated company may be able to reduce:

transaction costs,

technology duplication,

and distribution inefficiencies.

It may also invest more confidently in new infrastructure because it controls both:

content

and:

distribution.

This can be particularly relevant for IPTV, where television services increasingly form part of broader:

fibre,

broadband,

and connected-home offerings.

The regulatory challenge is balancing these efficiencies against competition concerns.

IPTV Is Becoming More Strategically Important

IPTV occupies an increasingly important position as television consumption moves toward internet-connected infrastructure.

Unlike open-internet OTT streaming, IPTV is typically delivered through a managed network.

This allows providers to control:

service quality,

channel delivery,

and network performance.

Telecom and broadband companies can therefore bundle IPTV with:

internet,

voice,

and other digital services.

As fibre broadband expands across India, the commercial relevance of IPTV could increase considerably.

Cable Networks Are Also Becoming Broadband Networks

Traditional cable television companies are undergoing a similar transition.

Many MSOs no longer operate solely as television distributors.

Their infrastructure can support:

broadband,

digital television,

and other connected services.

That makes the boundary between:

cable

and:

telecommunications

less rigid than it once was.

Ownership regulations designed around traditional television distribution therefore need to account for increasingly converged networks.

Exclusion Could Encourage Content-Distribution Integration

If the final rules preserve the revised structure, broadcasters may have greater freedom to invest in:

MSOs

and:

IPTV businesses.

Similarly, cable and IPTV operators could potentially take larger positions in broadcasting companies without automatically triggering the 20% ceiling applicable to DTH and HITS.

That could encourage more:

joint ventures,

strategic investments,

and vertically integrated media structures.

For companies seeking to combine content with direct consumer distribution, this could be commercially significant.

DTH Could Face Different Ownership Environment

The distinction could create a regulatory asymmetry.

DTH operators would continue operating under tighter cross-ownership restrictions.

Meanwhile, competing distribution technologies could potentially support deeper ownership integration.

This raises an important policy question:

Should ownership restrictions depend on the technology used to deliver television?

From the consumer's perspective, DTH, cable and IPTV can all provide access to television channels.

Yet the proposed ownership framework does not treat them identically.

Technology-Neutral Regulation Becomes Important Debate

As media distribution converges, regulators increasingly face pressure to adopt:

technology-neutral rules.

A technology-neutral framework attempts to regulate comparable services similarly regardless of the technical infrastructure used to deliver them.

That becomes more difficult when older industries developed under separate regulatory regimes.

DTH emerged under satellite broadcasting rules.

Cable developed under cable television legislation.

IPTV grew from telecommunications networks.

OTT developed through the open internet.

The revised framework is attempting to bring some of these systems closer together, but important distinctions remain.

IPTV Is Formally Brought Into Television Distribution Framework

One notable change is that IPTV is being formally incorporated into the television distribution framework.

The draft recognises IPTV as part of:

television channel distribution services.

That gives the service a clearer position within the broader regulatory structure.

Operators would therefore need to comply with the applicable authorisation and operational conditions.

This is important because IPTV previously sat at the intersection of broadcasting and telecommunications regulation.

IPTV Compliance Requirements Are Tightened

While IPTV receives greater flexibility on cross-ownership, the revised rules do not represent deregulation across the board.

The framework introduces stronger compliance obligations for IPTV operators.

Providers would need to comply with conditions covering:

authorisation,

security,

content distribution,

and other regulatory requirements.

This demonstrates that MIB is separating two policy questions:

how IPTV should be regulated operationally,

and:

how much cross-ownership should be permitted.

Unified Framework Replaces Multiple Guidelines

The broader objective of the rules is simplification.

India's broadcasting sector has historically operated through multiple policy frameworks developed at different times.

The new rules seek to consolidate six major areas:

satellite television uplinking and downlinking,

DTH,

HITS,

private FM radio,

community radio,

and IPTV.

A unified rule book could reduce the need for companies to navigate numerous separate guidelines.

MIB has positioned this as part of its:

ease-of-doing-business agenda.

Existing Licensees Can Transition

The proposed framework also provides a transition mechanism for existing operators.

Companies holding existing licences or permissions would have flexibility to:

migrate voluntarily to the new authorisation regime

or:

continue under existing permissions until migration becomes applicable.

This is intended to prevent sudden disruption.

Broadcasting infrastructure involves substantial long-term investment, so abrupt changes in licensing conditions could create significant commercial uncertainty.

DTH and HITS Authorisations Could Run for 20 Years

The revised draft proposes relatively long authorisation periods for television distribution services.

DTH and HITS authorisations would generally be valid for:

20 years.

Longer authorisation periods can improve investment certainty.

Distribution infrastructure requires capital expenditure in areas such as:

satellites,

headends,

technology systems,

consumer equipment,

and network operations.

Companies are more likely to make long-term investments when regulatory permissions have sufficient duration.

Renewals Would Generally Run for 10 Years

After the initial authorisation period, eligible operators could seek renewal.

Each renewal would generally be for another:

10 years.

However, renewal would not be automatic.

Companies would need to satisfy conditions relating to:

applicable laws,

government policy,

security clearance,

and:

compliance with authorisation requirements.

This gives MIB continuing oversight even while providing longer operating visibility.

Renewal Applications Need Earlier Filing

Operators would generally need to submit renewal applications at least:

120 days before expiry.

The requirement is intended to provide sufficient time for regulatory review.

Late or incomplete renewal processes can create uncertainty for both operators and consumers.

A defined timeline can therefore help improve administrative predictability.

Compliance Record Could Affect Renewal

The revised framework also links renewal eligibility to:

regulatory compliance.

For applicable services, entities would need to remain within prescribed limits on adjudicated violations of the Programme Code or Advertising Code.

The proposal provides that an operator should not have more than:

five adjudicated violations

for relevant renewal eligibility.

This introduces a clearer connection between content compliance and long-term operating permissions.

Programme Code Remains Important

The Programme Code governs the type of television content that broadcasters and distribution platforms can carry under Indian law.

It includes restrictions relating to categories of prohibited or inappropriate programming.

The Advertising Code performs a similar function for commercial communication.

By linking repeated violations with renewal, MIB is giving compliance history greater regulatory importance.

That could encourage broadcasters and distributors to strengthen internal monitoring systems.

Graded Penalty Structure Is Proposed

The revised rules also introduce a:

graded penalty framework.

Instead of treating every violation identically, penalties can vary according to factors such as the nature and seriousness of non-compliance.

A graded approach can create greater proportionality.

Minor administrative failures need not necessarily attract the same treatment as repeated or serious violations.

For regulated companies, this can provide greater clarity around compliance risk.

News Channels Face Higher Net-Worth Requirement

The proposed framework also creates different financial requirements for:

news

and:

non-news television channels.

For the first non-news channel, the proposed minimum net worth is:

₹5 crore.

Each additional non-news channel would require:

₹2.5 crore.

News broadcasters face a considerably higher threshold.

First News Channel Requires ₹20 Crore Net Worth

Under the revised proposal, an applicant seeking authorisation for its first news channel would require minimum net worth of:

₹20 crore.

Each additional news channel would require another:

₹5 crore.

The higher threshold creates a significantly greater financial entry requirement for television news businesses.

MIB appears to be distinguishing between news and entertainment broadcasting based on the regulatory and public-interest characteristics of the two categories.

DTH and HITS Face ₹10 Crore Threshold

DTH and HITS operators would each need minimum net worth of:

₹10 crore

under the proposed framework.

The requirements are intended to ensure that applicants possess sufficient financial capacity to operate distribution infrastructure.

However, net-worth requirements are only one part of the authorisation process.

Companies would also need to satisfy:

security,

ownership,

and operational conditions.

Trademark and Commercial Rights Requirements Tightened

The draft also addresses ownership of channel brands and commercial rights.

Applicants would generally need to possess:

the registered trademark for the channel name and logo

or:

an appropriate no-objection certificate.

They would also need relevant exclusive commercial rights for channels they seek to distribute, including rights connected with:

advertising

and:

subscription revenue.

This could reduce disputes involving brand ownership and distribution authority.

Foreign Investment Rules Continue to Apply

Broadcasting companies would remain subject to India's applicable:

foreign direct investment rules.

Applicants would need to comply with prevailing foreign-investment limits and approval requirements.

The revised broadcasting rules therefore do not replace India's wider FDI policy.

Instead, both regulatory systems would operate together.

Foreign investors considering Indian broadcasting assets would need to examine both:

sector authorisation

and:

investment rules.

Security Clearance Remains Central

Security clearance is another important component of the authorisation framework.

Broadcasting infrastructure can involve:

satellite capacity,

communications networks,

and mass-media distribution.

The government therefore retains security oversight of applicants.

Renewals can also depend on continued security clearance.

This means corporate ownership changes may require careful assessment where they affect the conditions under which authorisation was originally granted.

Consolidation Could Become Easier in Some Segments

The exclusion of IPTV and broadcaster-MSO relationships from the 20% ceiling could have particular significance for:

media consolidation.

Companies increasingly want to control multiple parts of the consumer relationship.

A content company may want direct distribution.

A broadband provider may want exclusive or owned content.

A cable operator may want digital programming assets.

The revised ownership structure could make some of these combinations easier.

Broadband Companies Could Gain Strategic Flexibility

Broadband providers may be among the most important beneficiaries if the structure remains unchanged.

Fibre companies increasingly compete by bundling:

internet,

entertainment,

television,

and digital services.

IPTV can form part of that package.

Greater ownership flexibility could allow broadband operators to build deeper content partnerships or potentially invest directly in broadcasters.

This could strengthen bundled consumer propositions.

Broadcasters Could Seek Direct Consumer Access

Broadcasters also have strategic reasons to invest in distribution.

Traditional broadcasters depend on intermediaries to reach viewers.

Owning or controlling part of the distribution infrastructure can provide:

customer data,

greater commercial control,

and direct consumer relationships.

As television becomes increasingly digital and addressable, these advantages become more valuable.

The revised framework could therefore influence broadcasters' long-term investment strategies.

Competition Concerns Will Remain

Greater integration can also create competition concerns.

An integrated broadcaster-distributor could potentially influence:

channel placement,

commercial negotiations,

subscriber packages,

and access conditions.

Regulators may therefore need to rely on other mechanisms to ensure:

non-discriminatory access

and:

fair competition.

Cross-ownership caps are only one regulatory tool.

Competition law and sector-specific distribution rules can also address potentially anti-competitive conduct.

TRAI Will Continue to Play Important Role

TRAI remains central to India's broadcasting distribution ecosystem.

Its responsibilities include regulations affecting:

tariffs,

interconnection,

quality of service,

and distribution relationships.

Even where MIB authorisation rules permit certain ownership structures, companies remain subject to other applicable regulatory requirements.

This means greater ownership flexibility does not necessarily mean unrestricted commercial conduct.

Distribution businesses still operate within a broader regulatory system.

MIB and TRAI Have Different Regulatory Roles

The distinction between the two institutions is important.

MIB primarily handles:

broadcasting policy,

permissions,

and authorisations.

TRAI regulates significant economic and technical aspects of telecommunications and broadcasting distribution.

A company may therefore satisfy MIB ownership requirements while still needing to comply with TRAI regulations governing how it interacts with broadcasters, distributors and consumers.

The regulatory architecture works through overlapping responsibilities.

OTT Remains a Different Category

The revised rules should also not be confused with regulation of:

OTT streaming platforms.

IPTV and OTT both use internet protocol technologies, but they are not identical.

IPTV generally operates over a managed network controlled by the service provider.

OTT services travel over the open internet and can be accessed through numerous broadband providers.

The September draft is focused on television, radio and associated broadcasting services rather than treating all internet video as IPTV.

Cable and IPTV Convergence Could Accelerate

The distinction between cable and IPTV may become increasingly blurred over time.

Cable operators are upgrading networks for broadband.

Broadband operators are adding television.

Consumers increasingly access the same screen through:

linear channels,

IP-delivered television,

and streaming applications.

This convergence makes regulatory classifications more difficult.

The revised rules are therefore being developed during a period when the underlying technology itself is changing rapidly.

Industry Feedback Could Still Alter Final Rules

The current ownership framework is not final.

Stakeholders have until:

October 2, 2026

to submit comments and suggestions.

Broadcasters,

DTH companies,

HITS operators,

MSOs,

telecom companies,

IPTV providers,

and industry associations

could all seek changes.

Competition concerns around unequal treatment of distribution technologies may become one of the important areas of consultation.

Final Notification Will Determine Actual Regime

The proposed provisions will not take effect simply because the revised draft has been released.

The government must first consider consultation responses and issue the final rules.

The rules will then become effective from a date specified by the central government.

Companies should therefore treat the September 2 framework as a:

regulatory proposal

rather than current binding law.

This distinction is particularly important when evaluating potential ownership transactions.

Policy Direction Still Sends Important Signal

Even before finalisation, the revised draft sends a meaningful policy signal.

MIB appears willing to distinguish IPTV and cable from DTH and HITS in the application of cross-ownership restrictions.

If preserved, that approach could reshape investment incentives across India's television distribution market.

Capital may increasingly favour:

broadband,

cable,

and IP-based platforms

where companies have greater flexibility to integrate content and distribution.

Conclusion

MIB's revised Telecommunications (Television, Radio and Associated Services) Rules, 2026 retain a 20% cross-ownership ceiling for specified relationships involving television broadcasters, DTH and HITS operators while leaving broadcaster-MSO and broadcaster-IPTV relationships outside the same restriction.

The distinction could become one of the most commercially significant elements of the new broadcasting framework because it gives cable and IPTV businesses greater potential flexibility for vertical integration.

It is also notable because TRAI had previously recommended extending comparable cross-holding restrictions to IPTV, an approach the revised MIB draft has not fully adopted.

The proposed rules simultaneously bring IPTV formally within television channel distribution services, consolidate six existing broadcasting policy frameworks and introduce revised requirements around authorisation, renewal, financial eligibility and compliance.

For India's media industry, the ownership distinction could influence future investments across:

broadcasting,

cable,

broadband,

and IP-based television.

However, the framework remains a draft.

Stakeholders can submit comments until October 2, 2026, and the final ownership regime will depend on the rules ultimately notified by the government.

If the current distinction survives consultation, India could enter a new phase of television-market integration in which cable and IPTV platforms have materially greater ownership flexibility than DTH and HITS operators.