NEW DELHI: Main incumbent telecom operators have steered that the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) deliver third-party IP purposes and over-the-top (OTT) communication platforms underneath a regulatory regime, arguing {that a} separate, parallel market is rising following curbs on spam on cell networks.
Nonetheless, Truecaller and the Web and Cell Affiliation of India (IAMAI), amongst others, have sharply opposed the telcos’ opinion, arguing that regulating OTTs would end in “jurisdictional overreach”.
“It’s pertinent to say that the ever-increasing stringency by the Authority on the SMS channel is accelerating the shift of visitors from the regulated SMS channel to unregulated channels like IP messages and OTTs,” Reliance Jio not too long ago stated in its submission to the regulator’s session paper on “Draft Telecom Business Communications Buyer Choice (Third Modification) Laws, 2026”.
Jio stated the absence of regulatory oversight of those channels is resulting in the cannibalisation of the SMS channel, which is each authorized and controlled. “As a double whammy, the TSPs (telecom service suppliers) which can be investing thousands and thousands for controlling UCC are being served FD notices, that too for a fraction of incidents in comparison with these occurring on these unregulated channels unabated.
The operators have been struggling to include unsolicited business communications (UCC) by way of voice and SMS channels, regardless of intensified efforts by the sector regulator and the Division of Telecommunications (DoT).
UCC is presently ruled by the Telecom Business Communications Buyer Choice Laws (TCCCPR), 2018. The sector watchdog has amended TCCCPR twice earlier.
Telcos, nonetheless, say that the regulation unfairly punishes them whilst their position is proscribed to an middleman that has no management over the content material of the decision or SMS.
“We submit that the optimum method to deal with this situation is to fully revamp the TCCCPR 2018 and make all people, Principal Entities (PEs), and all of the registered and unregistered telemarketers with supply operate/aggregator operate chargeable for any violations,” the Mumbai-headquartered telco stated.
Vodafone Concept (Vi), in its submission, really useful that the monetary and regulatory penalties for UCCs ought to instantly be connected to principal entities and registered telemarketers by way of applicable mechanisms. “Additional, TRAI also needs to prescribe a DLT (distributed ledger know-how)-based direct sender-side consequence mannequin,” it added.
Bharti Airtel, in flip, additionally stated that the regulator should contemplate extending the applicability of related provisions of the TCCCPR to third-party purposes and OTT-based communication platforms, proposing that companies performing related roles within the communication chain are subjected to comparable obligations in a know-how and platform-agnostic method.
“At a minimal, such platforms ought to be topic to baseline obligations aligned with the telecom ecosystem, together with adherence to consent frameworks, enforcement of anti-spam guidelines, and compliance with regulatory classifications of business communication,” the Gurugram-headquartered telco stated in its submission.
The Sunil Mittal-led telco cited latest findings from the Normal Anti-Rip-off Alliance (GASA), which point out that 86% of fraud makes an attempt in India over the previous 12 months have shifted to OTT communication platforms providing messaging and calling.
The Mobile Operators Affiliation of India (COAI), which represents Jio, Airtel, and Vi, famous that neither the Telecommunications Act, 2023, nor the TRAI Act, 1999, envisages differential remedy between comparable communication companies primarily based solely on the community or platform structure.
“Accordingly, selective regulation of TSPs with out corresponding obligations on functionally related platform-based service suppliers might result in a non-level taking part in discipline and dilute general shopper safety goals,” the Delhi-based affiliation stated.
“As operators more and more deploy AI/ML techniques to detect suspected rip-off exercise, it’s important that such actions…don’t expose operators to disproportionate legal responsibility,” GSMA stated. “The absence of such protections dangers making a disincentive for proactive intervention, thereby undermining the very goal of fast rip-off prevention.”
IAMAI, Truecaller oppose
Truecaller careworn that Regulation 34A of the TCCPR particularly seeks to control the performance of any “name administration utility or related companies” and “third-party apps”, which fall outdoors the regulator’s definition of “telecommunication companies” or licensed companies.
“…by making an attempt to dictate the software program mechanics of unbiased OTT platforms, TRAI is severely exceeding the rulemaking powers conferred upon it by the TRAI Act, 1997, which strictly limits its jurisdiction to telecommunication companies,” the decision administration and ID utility stated.
The IAMAI equally argued that the TCCCPR Amendments try to control the performance of OTT platforms, although these don’t fall inside the scope of telecommunication companies, thereby elevating considerations of “jurisdictional overreach”.
“Furthermore, provisions underneath the TCCCPR Amendments, empowering the TRAI to strip non-compliant intermediaries of their protected harbour protections stemming from Part 79 of the Info Expertise Act 2000, additionally represent gross jurisdictional overreach,” stated the affiliation, which represents web corporations together with Razorpay, PhonePe, Paytm, IndiaMART, and JioHotstar.
