BIF Challenges Proposal to Regulate OTT Services with Telecom Licences

Broadband India Forum (BIF) has opposed telecom operators' proposal to regulate internet call and messaging apps like WhatsApp, Telegram, and Google Meet under telecom licences. BIF President TV Ramachandran stated that including over-the-top (OTT) services under the Telecom Act violates Article 14 of the Constitution, which ensures equal treatment for all.

Representative image

Telecom operators have argued that OTT services should be regulated similarly to traditional telecom services. They claim that OTT services generate significant data traffic, which burdens their infrastructure. The Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI) estimates that telecom companies spent an additional Rs 10,000 crore in 2022-23 to support traffic from large entertainment and communication apps.

Telecom Operators' Demands

Reliance Jio, Bharti Airtel, Vodafone Idea, and COAI have submitted their views to the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai). They argue that OTT apps like WhatsApp, Signal, and Telegram should be included under the new Telecommunication Act's licensing regime. According to COAI, OTT communication services fall under the new Telecom Act as an access service.

Reliance Jio highlighted that the new Telecommunication Act's definition of telecommunication services includes all forms of communication services provided over the top using public internet platforms. "In order to ensure the same rules for the same or similar services, it is important to bring such over-the-top (OTT) communication service providers under Access Services authorisation," Reliance Jio said.

Differences Between Telecom and OTT Services

Ramachandran pointed out that comparing OTT services to traditional telecom services is flawed. He noted that telecom providers have exclusive rights like interference-free spectrum and infrastructure setup rights. In contrast, OTT players do not own networks or control access to telecom infrastructure.

Bharti Airtel supported this view by stating that the Telecom Act's broad definition of telecommunications includes various forms of communication. This definition leaves room for regulating OTT communication services under the Act. Airtel also mentioned that while traditional telecom communications can be monitored by law enforcement agencies, OTT communications remain unmonitored, hindering crime prevention efforts.

The debate continues as both sides present their arguments. Telecom operators insist on regulatory measures for OTT services due to infrastructure costs and security concerns. On the other hand, industry bodies like BIF argue against such regulations, citing constitutional violations and fundamental differences between telecom and OTT services.