Here's why TRAI’s 'fact-check' won't clean up its TV pricing mess

New Delhi: If half knowledge is dangerous, half truth can be worse. And the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India’s (TRAI) recent social media post is a textbook example.

The regulatory body recently took to social media to wash its hands of increasing the TV bills of consumers. 

In the post, it said, “Channel prices are fixed by broadcasters, not TRAI,” adding that the regulatory body only empowers consumers to choose what they want to watch.

"TV bills are high because of TRAI regulations."#TRAIexplains: That's not correct!#FactCheck: TRAI doesn't fix channel prices. Its regulations empower consumers - you can select the channels you want to watch, and pay for what you choose.#MythBusting pic.twitter.com/a8kH1iUY3o

— TRAI (@TRAI) July 12, 2025

Sounds noble, right? But upon digging a little deeper, TRAI is not nearly as consumer-friendly.

The “fact check” by TRAI, while technically correct, conceals a far more layered reality and is contextually misleading.

Claim #1: Channel prices are fixed by broadcasters, not TRAI

Reality:

Over the past six years, TRAI’s policies, particularly the various versions of the New Tariff Order (NTO), have systematically reshaped the economics of television distribution in the country. 

NTO caps the MRP of a channel to become part of a bouquet, and it regulates how much discount can be offered in a pack.

While the regulator claims that it is broadcasters who fix channels’ prices, the fact is that it is TRAI that regulates the pricing through NTO.

Claim #2: TRAI regulations empower consumers - you can select the channels you want to watch, and pay for what you choose

Reality:

Six years later, this claim appears as the regulator’s posturing for showing concerns for the consumer.

While the system was put in place for à la carte selection of channels at their MRPs, the regulator failed to create a user-friendly environment, and the result was a costly, confusing experience for consumers.

To push à la carte further, TRAI launched its own channel selection app, encouraging subscribers to “easily” choose their preferred set of channels. In reality, the app was cumbersome to use, poorly publicised, and saw negligible adoption. Most consumers didn’t even know it existed.

Meanwhile, at the height of the NTO confusion, DPOs requested and were granted the authority by TRAI to migrate customers to a so-called “Best Fit Plan” without broadcaster involvement. This “best fit” starter pack, built at the DPO’s discretion, further undermined the idea of genuine consumer choice and left many viewers with line-ups that suited operator convenience, not individual preference.

For cable viewers in particular, the process of channel selection remained difficult, DPOs made little effort to enable true à la carte selection, rendering the regulator’s empowerment claims hollow.

Before we decode how pricing regulations hurt both the consumer and the broadcast sector, the fact remains that more than 95% of television consumers are subscribed to bouquets from DPOs or broadcasters.

Since its introduction, the à la carte mechanism appears to be a ‘matter of pride’ only for the regulator. Consumer sees this as a troublesome and costly exercise. DPO uses this as a tool in its fight with the broadcaster, and no broadcaster likes its channel to be put on à la carte only.

With its so-called fact-check, TRAI just behaved as an ostrich burying its head in the sand which does not want to see what’s happening in the world or pretends to see nothing.

The TRAI’s claim is laughable amid the longest-ever ongoing dispute between Tata Play and Sony Pictures Networks India, beginning end of May.

What role did ‘NTO’ play in the price pressures?

TRAI first implemented the New Tariff Order (NTO) in 2019, claiming to bring transparency to TV pricing and give consumers greater control. Under this framework, broadcasters had to declare MRPs (maximum retail prices) for individual channels, and viewers could pick and pay for what they actually wanted to watch.

To regulate bundling practices, TRAI also introduced a cap: only channels priced at Rs 19 or less could be included in a bouquet. This allowed broadcasters to create value packs of popular channels at reasonable prices, keeping bills relatively steady.

However, in January 2020, TRAI rolled out NTO 2.0, which featured a major shift. Thanks to the pressure on TRAI by cable operators, the bouquet eligibility cap was brought down from Rs 19 to Rs 12. This meant that most premium channels, flagship GECs, movie, and sports channels, could no longer be bundled in a pack. 

Consumers who wanted to watch them had to purchase them individually at full price.

This change, aimed at encouraging true à la carte selection, disrupted the ecosystem. The result? Viewers who once enjoyed rich content bundles found themselves paying significantly more just to watch the same channels.

So much for empowering the consumers. 

Post this, the pressure started brewing from the broadcaster’s end. The Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF), as it was called back then, and a few broadcasters approached the Bombay High Court against the amendments in the New Tariff Order.

The case escalated to the Supreme Court, after which, the then TRAI chairman, PD Vaghela, engaged with broadcasters and DPOs to resolve the issues. The sticky points in the implementation of NTO 2.0 were the MRP, designing the bouquet and giving discounts on it. 

Through a series of course corrections, TRAI rolled out another amendment, this time reinstating the Rs 19 cap for bouquet eligibility. 

How did this increase TV bill? 

This back-and-forth, from  Rs 19 to Rs 12 and back, made pricing volatile and unpredictable. Each shift gave broadcasters a reason to revise packages, tweak line-ups, or launch higher-priced super-bouquets, each time nudging the consumer to pay a little more.

With the new order in place, consumers, apart from paying the base fee, which included a primary set of 100 channels (free-to-air). The popular channels had to be bought by consumers separately from broadcasters. 

Let us paint a picture around this. 

Under the new regime, the viewer starts by shelling out Rs 130 plus taxes just to unlock a base set of 100 channels. But hold on; it’s free-to-air (FTA) content. Don’t expect your favourite mainstream channels in there.

Now, let’s say the viewer wants to add some actual entertainment. The most economical upgrade? A so-called "basic value pack" is 95 channels from 10 broadcasters at a cost of Rs 184. 

But that’s not all. Thanks to the revised framework, picking 20 extra pay channels means an additional Rs 25 in network fees. In total, the consumer ends up paying around Rs 100 in network capacity fees just for this selection.

By the time everything adds up, a consumer watching just the basic value pack is already looking at a monthly bill of Rs 450. And remember, this is only for SD (standard definition) channels, so certainly no premium content. 

If you prefer HD, you’ll be paying roughly double. Choose to go a la carte instead of bundled packs? Be ready to burn a big hole in your pocket, since individual channels come without the benefit of bundled discounts.

This is not transparency. It is death by fine print.

Forbearance tussle

In defending NTO 2.0, TRAI had argued that the move would prevent large players from dominating and give smaller broadcasters space to survive. But the reality proved otherwise, larger networks were better positioned to absorb the impact, while smaller ones struggled.

Recognising these effects, Chairman Vaghela eventually advocated regulatory forbearance on channel pricing, that is, letting broadcasters set prices with minimal interference, as long as quality of service standards were maintained.

The forbearance sentiment was echoed by Anil Malhotra, ex-CEO of Siti Network, and currently the Head - Public and Regulatory Affairs, ZEEL. 

While addressing a forum, Malhotra quipped, “Honestly, the most frustrated stakeholder in our industry today is the regulator.” 

He added, “Yes, must-carry and must-provide clauses are essential; many DPOs and broadcasters depend on them. But beyond that, the regulator should step back. We need to stop blaming and start negotiating directly.” 

He brought attention to the digital space where “deals happen, content flows, and business runs without much drama.” 

Malhotra, who has been on both sides - DPO and broadcaster - pressed for light-touch framework. 

“Must carry, must provide clauses and forbearance. That is the only sustainable way forward,” he said. 

Another glaring shortcoming in the TRAI’s framework is its treatment of commercial establishments, like hotels, restaurants, offices, and cafés, as if they were ordinary household subscribers. By applying the same pricing and distribution rules to both, TRAI ignores the fundamentally different use cases and viewership patterns. 

A senior industry voice, commenting on the matter, said, “If forbearance is allowed, quality of service is implemented in letter and spirit, and TRAI doesn’t equate commercial subscribers with ordinary ones, the regulator can truly unlock the potential of the broadcasting sector.” 

According to the executive, this will enable the broadcasting sector to compete effectively with digital platforms, creating a win-win for both the Indian creative economy and end consumers. 

“Ultimately, viewers will have the freedom to choose what, where, and when to watch, and this will also push the quality of content in broadcasting upward,” he noted. 

BMI's take

TRAI may not print the monthly invoice, but it wrote the script. Through various NTO amendments, the regulator’s attempt to restructure how television is monetised has had a very real impact on how much consumers pay.

Its rules on price caps, bouquet restrictions, and discount ceilings fundamentally altered the pricing logic of the industry. And as broadcasters did what any business would, maximise revenue within those rules, consumers were left to foot the bill.

Now we leave it to the readers: Was TRAI’s recent post really a myth-buster? Or just a carefully worded escape from accountability?