Skip to content

Tech Law Forum @ NALSAR

A student-run group at NALSAR University of Law

Menu
  • Home
  • Newsletter Archives
  • Blog Series
  • Editors’ Picks
  • Write for us!
  • About Us
Menu

Over-The-Top Services: A Regulatory Quandary (Part II)

Posted on November 19, 2020November 19, 2020 by Tech Law Forum NALSAR

[This is the second part of a two-part post authored by Abhilash Roy and Hrishikesh Bhise, fourth-year students at the National Law Institute University, Bhopal. Click here for Part I]

Argument for a Level Playing Field
‘Fair and reasonable opportunities to all market players’ and the concept of ‘a level playing field’ for market participants is important for a regulatory framework. A good regulatory framework is designed to induce confidence in the market and stems from necessity, more so, the imperativeness that positive competition practices in the market thrive and ensure opportunities to all participants without indirectly favouring a specific section of the market. It is evident that absence of a regulatory framework for OTT services is fostering poor competitive environment. For example, massive digital ad-revenue and the power/outreach of internet has facilitated the growth of OTT companies as giants in the industry and gives them an advantage over TSPs with respect to similar services such as messages and VoIP, among other things such as lack of a digital ad-revenue space for TSPs. However, there is ample evidence to suggest that telecom industry is not a ‘victim’ in a clinical sense as TSPs still charge customers for data consumption for using OTT services and an increase in these services results in increased data consumption which then translates to increased revenue for telecom companies. Any regulatory framework would have to be formulated by keeping in mind the revenue model of both stakeholders.

How Should Law Develop around OTTs
The TSPs are required to comply with a host of laws and regulations. Some of them are the Telegraph Act 1885, TRAI Act 1997, IT Act 2000, conditions imposed by the license agreement between the service provider and the government, etc. There are several obligations imposed on the service providers and in case of non-compliance, penalties and restrictions are imposed. However, in case of OTTs, the regulatory environment is almost non-existent. Provisions of the IT Act and Indian Penal Code continue to ensure content-based regulation and seek to protect the ‘citizens’ from ‘harmful content’, thus fulfilling the second way mentioned above with reference to policy objective. Escaping the shackles of program and advertisement regulation, OTT streaming platforms are riding the creative wave in the nation while attracting usership from all segments of the society.

Recently, a famous OTT platform advertised liquor while airing a cricket match; in absence of advertisement codes there would be more examples like this in the future until it is absorbed in self-regulation codes. As expected, OTT streaming services are interested in the self-regulation model that functions on set of rules devised by the players themselves and is monitored by an independent association. While this model might turn out to be fruitful, several platforms have already raised their objections regarding this that mainly dealt with fear of excessive scrutiny of content and loss of business associated with it. This is a blow to the already weak self-regulation model which is incapable of addressing all the issues created by the OTT industry and is more streaming services oriented while not catering to communication-based OTTs, on the other hand, the clamour for content regulation can be addressed by existing provisions of the law. To address the concerns of streaming platforms, a progressive ombudsman model was recently suggested and adopted by OTT players instead of placing a separate council for self-regulation, this would definitely reduce the objections in place because the involvement of council reduce the risk of malicious targeting and collusion within  a council and allows every OTT to setup their complaint division for first-hand registering of complaints. However, there is still no clever solution for regulation of the communication-based OTTs as content regulation is not the sole consideration there.

The important question which still lies in the open is how will the government resolve the conflict between TSPs and OTTs while keeping in mind that the OTT services account for the sudden surge in social and economic well-being due to increase in access to information, entertainment and business opportunities; and imposing a regulatory regime involving licensing and programming qualifications equivalent to TSPs may break the momentum with which they are growing. The government, thus, needs to strike a fine balance between the growth of the industry built around OTT services and the interests of the stakeholders.

Subscribe

Recent Posts

  • Analisis Faktor-Faktor yang Berhubungan dengan Kejadian Ketuban Pecah Dini di RSUD Lamaddukelleng Kabupaten Wajo
  • The Fate of Section 230 vis-a-vis Gonzalez v. Google: A Case of Looming Legal Liability
  • Paid News Conundrum – Right to fair dealing infringed?
  • Chronicles of AI: Blurred Lines of Legality and Artists’ Right To Sue in Prospect of AI Copyright Infringement
  • Dali v. Dall-E: The Emerging Trend of AI-generated Art
  • BBC Documentary Ban: Yet Another Example of the Government’s Abuse of its Emergency Powers
  • A Game Not Played Well: A Critical Analysis of The Draft Amendment to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021
  • The Conundrum over the legal status of search engines in India: Whether they are Significant Social Media Intermediaries under IT Rules, 2021? (Part II)
  • The Conundrum over the legal status of search engines in India: Whether they are Significant Social Media Intermediaries under IT Rules, 2021? (Part I)
  • Lawtomation: ChatGPT and the Legal Industry (Part II)

Categories

  • 101s
  • 3D Printing
  • Aadhar
  • Account Aggregators
  • Antitrust
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Bitcoins
  • Blockchain
  • Blog Series
  • Bots
  • Broadcasting
  • Censorship
  • Collaboration with r – TLP
  • Convergence
  • Copyright
  • Criminal Law
  • Cryptocurrency
  • Data Protection
  • Digital Piracy
  • E-Commerce
  • Editors' Picks
  • Evidence
  • Feminist Perspectives
  • Finance
  • Freedom of Speech
  • GDPR
  • Insurance
  • Intellectual Property
  • Intermediary Liability
  • Internet Broadcasting
  • Internet Freedoms
  • Internet Governance
  • Internet Jurisdiction
  • Internet of Things
  • Internet Security
  • Internet Shutdowns
  • Labour
  • Licensing
  • Media Law
  • Medical Research
  • Network Neutrality
  • Newsletter
  • Online Gaming
  • Open Access
  • Open Source
  • Others
  • OTT
  • Personal Data Protection Bill
  • Press Notes
  • Privacy
  • Recent News
  • Regulation
  • Right to be Forgotten
  • Right to Privacy
  • Right to Privacy
  • Social Media
  • Surveillance
  • Taxation
  • Technology
  • TLF Ed Board Test 2018-2019
  • TLF Editorial Board Test 2016
  • TLF Editorial Board Test 2019-2020
  • TLF Editorial Board Test 2020-2021
  • TLF Editorial Board Test 2021-2022
  • TLF Explainers
  • TLF Updates
  • Uncategorized
  • Virtual Reality

Tags

AI Amazon Antitrust Artificial Intelligence Chilling Effect Comparative Competition Copyright copyright act Criminal Law Cryptocurrency data data protection Data Retention e-commerce European Union Facebook facial recognition financial information Freedom of Speech Google India Intellectual Property Intermediaries Intermediary Liability internet Internet Regulation Internet Rights IPR Media Law News Newsletter OTT Privacy RBI Regulation Right to Privacy Social Media Surveillance technology The Future of Tech TRAI Twitter Uber WhatsApp

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org
best online casino in india
© 2025 Tech Law Forum @ NALSAR | Powered by Minimalist Blog WordPress Theme