Inside broadcasting meltdown: India’s TV crisis is policy-made, not market-made

New Delhi: For far too long, the crisis in India’s television industry has been dressed up as nothing more than routine commercial squabbles. The truth is far darker. At the heart of the collapse lies a structural distortion so deep that it threatens to gut the very future of Indian broadcasting.

Shielded from the rules that bind every private player, government-owned distribution platforms have become the single biggest parasite feeding on the industry’s health, diversity, and survival. 

“Licensed pay TV platforms are not losing to regular competition, but to unfair, unregulated practices. The government is aware of the risks, both to the pay TV ecosystem and to society at large, but continues to expand its presence in broadcasting and OTT without addressing disparities,” a veteran from the cable industry pointed out. 

Cable industry: A textbook case of neglect


It has been more than three years since BestMediaInfo.com warned about the dangerous precedent set by Tamil Nadu government-owned Kalvi TV and Arasu Cable, and Andhra Pradesh government-owned Andhra Pradesh State FiberNet Ltd (APSFL), where a state government openly operates broadcasting businesses. 

Only after that did the Centre issue an advisory directing all state governments to exit broadcasting and distribution. The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting made it clear, no central or state departments, UT administrations or their entities should run TV platforms, setting a deadline of December 31, 2023.

That deadline passed 1 year, 8 months ago. Yet, state-run networks continue to operate, comfortably bypassing the licensing, encryption, and taxation frameworks that private distribution platform operators (DPOs) are compelled to follow under TRAI rules.

“In telecom, BSNL and private players follow the same TRAI rules. But in broadcasting, Prasar Bharati operates without such regulation. This unfair competition is damaging the ecosystem. The regulations are not applied evenly. Private operators follow strict rules, while government-run networks enjoy exemptions,” one of the industry veterans noted.

What was once a vibrant ecosystem valued at nearly 67,900 crore has now become a textbook example of how failed government regulation can bleed an industry dry. Industry reports show the television sector lost between Rs 2,500 - 3,000 crore in just two years. This contradiction is stark, especially against Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s repeated assertion that “the government has no business to be in business.”

Yet government-owned networks not only persist, but actively erode market value.

DD Freedish: Market disruptor without rules

The largest disruptor is DD Freedish, a state-owned free-to-air platform operated by Prasar Bharati, which reaches an estimated 49 million households. Despite being a public service, its operational model and regulatory exemptions have allowed it to distort the market.

A critical problem is its non-addressable system, which makes subscriber numbers unverifiable. This lack of verifiable data makes it difficult for broadcasters and advertisers to accurately size the market, calculate return on investment, and plan strategically.

The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) has recommended that DD Freedish be upgraded to a fully addressable system, but it has not been directed to comply with the same regulations that apply to private operators. 



“Competing with private players on such unequal terms makes it impossible for private operators to survive. When asked about subscriber numbers, the government simply claims unverified figures, like saying DD Freedish has 50 million households, without encryption or CRM to track actual subscribers. These inflated numbers also mislead advertisers,” the veteran explained.

State-run networks strain India's cable industry

At the state level, operators such as Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation (TACTV) and Andhra Pradesh State FiberNet Ltd (APSFL) function with immunity from regulation while actively undercutting private players.

“The government initially entered broadcasting to safeguard national interests and mandated that private operators carry national and regional public channels free of cost. With technological changes, they also moved into satellite broadcasting (DTH), offering channels free-to-air. This undercut private players, since viewers couldn’t distinguish between free and pay content,” a veteran said.

Manoj Chhangani, Secretary General & Head Public Policy at the All India Digital Cable Federation (AIDCF), was more direct, “It’s no longer a hidden fact that the cable TV industry is going down entirely. The government is meant to protect and regulate the industry, not wipe it out.”

TACTV alone had over 14.7 million subscribers in 2024–25 and owes broadcasters more than Rs 500 crore, a debt publicly acknowledged by a Tamil Nadu minister. Broadcasters fear retaliation if they issue disconnection notices, which risks both advertising and subscription revenue.

Meanwhile, APSFL serves nearly one million households with “Triple Play” services that include pay-TV channels, an encroachment into a domain constitutionally reserved for the Centre.

“Private operators provide BIS-certified boxes and comply with taxation, while government platforms distribute uncertified boxes without encryption or licensing. Essentially, private players pay taxes while competing with free government services,” a veteran pointed out.

Chhangani stressed the imbalance: “At the very least, there has to be regulatory parity. The rules of the game cannot be different for state-run platforms and public service broadcasters, whether it’s DD Free Dish running without encryption or Pay channels being aired as FTA on DD Free Dish until very recently.”

Carriage fees and OTT push add fuel

Carriage fees further tilt the scales. “Private DPOs are capped on how much they can charge broadcasters. Yet, if a broadcaster wants to be on DD Freedish, they must pay the government Rs. 20 crore or more, while the government itself carries 27 channels free across all networks. This creates a massive imbalance,” the veteran explained.

The government’s OTT aggregation push is making matters worse. “Manufacturers preload content and pirated apps on smart TVs, competing directly with licensed DPOs, again without regulation. Customers end up accessing content for free, fuelling piracy,” another veteran said.

“OTT platforms further complicate matters by streaming the same content as broadcasters without following programming and advertising codes, while also promoting semi-adult or violent content. This places regulated broadcasters at a disadvantage. Ultimately, there is no level playing field,” he added.

Chhangani compared the situation with global models: “Look at the BBC in the UK, it fulfils its public service mandate but under a strict regulatory framework that prevents it from unfairly competing with private broadcasters. In India, unfortunately, the state’s role has blurred into that of a direct competitor.”

Regulation, not competition, is bleeding pay TV

The crisis facing India’s pay-TV industry is not driven by market forces but by regulatory distortion. “Licensed pay TV platforms are not losing to regular competition, but to unfair, unregulated practices. The government is aware of the risks, both to the pay TV ecosystem and to society at large, but continues to expand its presence in broadcasting and OTT without addressing disparities,” a veteran warned.

Chhangani cautioned of a wider fallout: “If cable collapses, it’s not just operators who suffer. The entire broadcasting value chain, especially regional and local content ecosystems, will take a hit. That’s a social and cultural loss, not just an economic one.”

So far, the government has offered no clarity on how it plans to address this imbalance and bring parity. At the time of writing, no official comment was received.