Law Updates

Subject

Summary: TRAI has amended the rules pertaining to Voice and SMS Only STV's (Special Tariff Vouchers). Under the Telecom Consumers Protection (Thirteenth Amendment) Regulations, 2026, the telecom service providers are required to provide Voice and SMS Only STVs in specified shorter, monthly, and longer validity segments with proper tariff reduction in comparison to the plans having data as well. This rule change is meant primarily for those consumers who need to make calls and send messages via their phones but do not necessarily need mobile internet. TRAI discovered that despite amending the rules in 2024, the operators had launched only a few such plans, with most of them having longer validity periods. The final regulations are numbered as 6 of 2026 and dated 21st September 2026. TRAI has issued these in public through its press release dated 22nd September 2026. The amendments will take effect 30 days from their publication in the Official Gazette. Regulation at a Glance Particular Verified Details Regulatory authority Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) Official legal title Telecom Consumers Protection (Thirteenth Amendment) Regulations, 2026 Regulation number 6 of 2026 Notification/reference number No. RG-8/(2)/2025-ADV_FEA-I Regulation date 21 September 2026 Public announcement 22 September 2026 Principal regulations amended Telecom Consumers Protection Regulations, 2012 Provision amended Regulation 4(2)(c)(iii), fourth proviso Legal basis Section 36 read with Section 11(1)(b)(i) and (v) of the TRAI Act, 1997 Main subject Voice-and-SMS-only Special Tariff Vouchers Main affected entities Telecom service providers covered by the principal regulations Core change More Voice-and-SMS-only STVs across specified validity categories Pricing condition Appropriate reduction in tariff Commencement 30 days after publication in the Official Gazette Fixed retail price prescribed? No Mandatory six-month review? No TRAI may review the provisions when required The operative amendment substitutes the fourth proviso under Regulation 4 and sets out three categories of Voice-and-SMS-only STVs that service providers must offer.  What Is a Special Tariff Voucher or STV? Under the Telecom Consumers Protection Regulations, an STV or Special Tariff Voucher is a voucher that changes one or more tariff items under a consumer's tariff plan for a specified period. The original regulations recognise benefits relating to voice, SMS and data, among other tariff elements.  For the present amendment, the important distinction is between two broad types of offering. Voice-and-SMS-only STV This is an STV under which the relevant benefits are restricted to voice calls and SMS rather than also including mobile-data benefits. Voice, SMS and Data STV This is a bundled STV containing voice, SMS and mobile data, with or without value-added services. The 2026 amendment does not eliminate bundled plans. It requires operators to make suitable Voice-and-SMS-only choices available alongside relevant bundled offerings. TRAI expressly states in its explanatory memorandum that standalone Voice-and-SMS options are meant to supplement rather than replace existing bundled offers.  The Regulatory Framework The 2026 amendment forms part of the Telecom Consumers Protection Regulations, 2012, which govern several aspects of vouchers and consumer-facing telecom tariff information. The Thirteenth Amendment has been issued by TRAI using its powers under the TRAI Act, 1997.  The immediate background lies in the Telecom Consumers Protection (Twelfth Amendment) Regulations, 2024. That amendment required service providers to offer at least one STV exclusively for Voice and SMS with a validity period not exceeding 365 days.  TRAI later found that the outcome was narrower than it intended. According to the explanatory memorandum, telecom operators introduced one or two Voice-and-SMS-only STVs, but these were mainly available for longer validity periods such as 80/84 days and 336/365 days. TRAI also recorded that no shorter-validity Voice-and-SMS-only STVs had been launched at that stage.  The Thirteenth Amendment therefore goes beyond simply requiring "at least one" such voucher. It creates a more structured requirement around short validity, monthly renewal, and longer-validity options. Why Did TRAI Introduce the Thirteenth Amendment in 2026? The main issue identified by TRAI was not the complete absence of Voice-and-SMS-only recharge plans. The issue was the limited choice of validity periods. TRAI observed that bundled Voice, SMS, and data STVs were available across several validity options, while consumers looking only for calls and SMS had far fewer choices. The available standalone plans were concentrated mainly in longer validity periods, which usually require a higher payment in one transaction.  Affordability of shorter recharges. For a consumer with limited disposable income, paying for a quarterly or near-yearly recharge in one go may be more difficult than purchasing a shorter-duration plan. TRAI specifically connected this issue with low-income consumers, rural users and feature-phone users who may primarily require calls and SMS.  Consumers paying for data they may not need TRAI also recorded concern that a person who did not require data could be pushed towards a bundled Voice-SMS-data STV simply because a standalone plan of the desired validity was unavailable. Regulator’s stance: Consumers must be allowed to choose a package of telecom services depending on their needs, not just because the data has been made a part of all available packages. Pricing of earlier standalone plans The explanatory memorandum also states that when Voice-and-SMS-only STVs were initially introduced after the Twelfth Amendment, TRAI did not consider the initial price reduction reasonable or commensurate with the removal of data. It records that prices were subsequently reduced.  This pricing experience explains why the final 2026 regulation does not deal only with validity. It also requires an appropriate reduction in tariff. From Draft to Final Regulation: How TRAI Reached the 2026 Amendment TRAI did not move directly from the 2024 rule to the final 2026 amendment. A public consultation took place first. The draft Telecom Consumers Protection (Thirteenth Amendment) Regulations were released on 7 April 2026. The original deadline for comments was 28 April 2026, which was subsequently extended to 5 May 2026. Counter-comments were invited until 12 May 2026. TRAI also held an Open House Discussion on 15 June 2026.  A total of 1,132 responses were received from stakeholders. These included responses from telecom service providers, associations, consumer groups, and other stakeholders.  Regulatory Stage Date Development Twelfth Amendment 23 December 2024 At least one Voice-and-SMS-only STV was required. Draft Thirteenth Amendment 7 April 2026 TRAI proposed wider corresponding validity options. Extended comments deadline 5 May 2026 Stakeholders received additional time. Counter-comments 12 May 2026 Counter-comments invited Open House Discussion 15 June 2026 Stakeholders discussed the proposal Final regulation 21 September 2026 Thirteenth Amendment dated TRAI/PIB announcement 22 September 2026 Final regulations publicly released Commencement 30 days after Gazette publication Exact date depends on Official Gazette publication One important point emerged from this process: the final rule is not identical to the draft. TRAI moderated both the validity-matching requirement and the proposed pricing approach after examining stakeholder comments. What Has Changed Under the TRAI Thirteenth Amendment Regulations, 2026? The final regulation replaces the earlier fourth proviso under Regulation 4(2)(c)(iii). Every covered service provider must offer Voice-and-SMS-only STVs, with appropriate tariff reduction, across three specified validity situations.  1. Voice-and-SMS-only STVs for 30 Days and Below Where a telecom provider offers a Voice-SMS-data STV for a validity period of 30 days or less than 30 days, a corresponding Voice-and-SMS-only STV must be offered for that validity. This is much more specific than the 2024 requirement. The rule effectively requires operators to examine each bundled STV of up to 30 days and check whether the required standalone Voice-and-SMS counterpart exists. Importantly, this requirement applies whether the bundled STV is provided with or without value-added services.  2. Same-Date Monthly Renewable STV Service providers must also offer a Voice-and-SMS-only STV with validity that is renewable on the same date every month. If that calendar date does not exist in a particular month, renewal must fall on the last date of that month.  This should not be confused with a simple 30-day plan. A 30-day validity runs for a fixed number of days. A same-date monthly renewal works by the calendar. The distinction becomes relevant because months contain different numbers of days. 3. At Least One Longer-Validity Voice-and-SMS-only STV Operators must also offer at least one Voice-and-SMS-only STV with a validity longer than the short/monthly categories described above. That longer validity must correspond to the validity of an STV that the operator already offers for Voice, SMS and data, with or without value-added services.  This is an important limit on the new rule. TRAI did not ultimately require operators to create a Voice-and-SMS-only counterpart for every single bundled STV validity above 30 days. Its explanatory memorandum says a one-to-one requirement across all bundled validity periods was not considered necessary.  The Three-Part Voice-and-SMS-only STV Requirement Requirement What the Operator Must Provide Practical Meaning 30 days and below Voice/SMS-only STV corresponding to each bundled STV validity of 30 days or less Short-duration non-data choices cannot be restricted to a few selected validities Monthly renewable validity STV renewable on the same date every month Consumers get a calendar-based Voice/SMS option Longer validity At least one longer Voice/SMS-only STV corresponding to an existing bundled validity A longer-term option remains available without requiring one-to-one matching for every longer validity The structure shows TRAI's attempt to provide meaningful choice without requiring operators to duplicate every bundled tariff offer in the market. What Does "Appropriate Reduction in Tariff" Mean? The words "appropriate reduction in tariff" are important because the final regulation does not prescribe a fixed percentage discount or a single national recharge price. The draft amendment had used a stronger concept of a largely proportional reduction. During the consultation, TRAI examined the difficulty of applying a fixed proportional approach to different kinds of data packs and changed the final wording to "appropriate reduction."  TRAI identified two broad forms of bundled data STVs: plans containing a consolidated quantity of data and  plans providing a per-day data allowance.  For consolidated-data plans, the regulator states that an operator can assess the data component using per-GB data cost while working out the price of the Voice-and-SMS-only STV. For daily-data plans, TRAI recognised that actual usage is not simply equal to the daily allowance multiplied by the number of days. Consumption varies among users and over time. A straight-line calculation may therefore fail to reflect the commercial and network assumptions used in pricing.  TRAI consequently gives broad pricing guidance rather than a mandatory mathematical formula. Its memorandum refers, among other factors, to assessed data consumption, average revenue realisation per subscriber per GB and quantity-discounted per-day pricing. Competitive market forces may also affect the final tariff.  What operators should not assume "Appropriate reduction" does not mean that every Voice-and-SMS-only plan must carry an identical percentage discount. It also does not mean that operators can remove an arbitrary amount from the bundled price without considering the excluded data component. The pricing decision remains with the telecom service provider, but the reduced tariff must satisfy the regulatory requirement that the Voice-and-SMS-only offer reflects an appropriate reduction. Has TRAI Fixed the Price of Voice-and-SMS-only Recharge Plans? No. TRAI has not fixed a single retail price for these STVs under the Thirteenth Amendment. The explanatory memorandum directly addresses this issue. Some stakeholders argued that the proposal amounted to retail price control or component-wise pricing. TRAI's response was that the amendment does not notify prices and does not remove the commercial pricing flexibility available to telecom service providers.  The telecom tariff regime therefore retains pricing flexibility. What TRAI has regulated here is the availability of appropriate Voice-and-SMS-only choices and the requirement for an appropriate tariff reduction, rather than a fixed rupee amount. Earlier Position vs TRAI's 2026 Amendment Compliance Area Earlier Position Position Under 2026 Amendment Minimum Voice/SMS-only option At least one STV exclusively for Voice and SMS, validity not exceeding 365 days Structured validity requirements introduced Short-duration options TRAI observed that operators had not introduced shorter Voice/SMS-only STVs Corresponding options required for bundled STV validities of 30 days and below Monthly validity Earlier requirement did not create the present specific monthly condition Same-date monthly renewable STV specifically required Longer validity Operators mainly offered longer-duration plans At least one corresponding longer-validity plan remains mandatory Pricing TRAI found initial price reductions insufficient in practice "Appropriate reduction in tariff" expressly required One-to-one matching Not required Required for relevant validities of 30 days and below, but not every longer validity The biggest change is therefore not simply "more plans." It is the introduction of a defined structure for the validity periods operators must cover. Who Is Covered by the New TRAI Requirement? The operative rule applies to service providers covered by the Telecom Consumers Protection Regulations. The principal 2012 regulations apply to service providers covered by the specified access and cellular mobile framework, subject to later legal and licensing developments.  In practical terms, the immediate compliance burden falls on telecom providers offering the relevant STVs. Consumers are beneficiaries of the regulatory change, but they do not have a compliance obligation under the amendment. Who Will Be Affected? Telecom Service Providers Operators will need to review their STV catalogue against the three new validity requirements. That review is likely to involve tariff, regulatory, product, billing, IT and consumer-facing teams. Low-Income Consumers The amendment has been explicitly linked by TRAI to customers for whom making a higher one-time payment would be tough. Another option in such cases would be to use the Voice-and-SMS services with shorter validity periods. Feature-Phone and Limited-Data Users The explanatory memorandum refers to feature-phone users, rural consumers, elderly persons and consumers who have little or no requirement for mobile data.  These references explain the policy concern behind the amendment. They should not be read as restricting the new STVs only to these consumer groups. Regulatory, Product and Tariff Teams For operators, the issue goes beyond introducing a recharge plan. Existing validity periods must first be mapped, followed by pricing and system implementation. Stakeholder Impact Matrix Stakeholder Immediate Effect Likely Operational Concern Telecom service providers Must meet revised STV availability requirements Tariff portfolio and implementation review Regulatory teams Need to interpret the amended proviso correctly Applicability and evidence of compliance Product/tariff teams New or revised standalone products may be needed Validity mapping and pricing Billing/IT teams STVs may need creation or configuration System setup and testing Consumer-facing teams New plans must be communicated accurately Clear tariff and validity information Consumers Wider Voice/SMS-only options Greater choice according to usage and budget Operational effects in this table are practical business implications the exact internal implementation method is not prescribed by the amendment. What Telecom Service Providers Need to Review After the Amendment Existing STV Inventory Operators should first identify each current Voice-SMS-data STV and group it according to validity. The central question is whether all relevant bundled plans of 30 days or less have the required Voice-and-SMS-only counterpart. Monthly Renewable Option The tariff portfolio should contain the required same-date monthly renewable option. Its configuration must also deal correctly with a month where the chosen date is unavailable by using the month's last date. Longer-Validity Option At least one suitable longer-validity Voice-and-SMS-only STV must correspond to an existing longer bundled validity. Tariff Reduction Pricing teams should be able to explain how the tariff reduction was determined. TRAI has provided broad guidance but no single mandatory percentage. Customer-Facing Availability The explanatory memorandum records TRAI's concern that existing Voice-and-SMS-only STVs were not prominently displayed at all customer touchpoints such as websites, apps and retail outlets.  For operators, this makes visibility and consistent communication an important implementation consideration even though the amendment's operative proviso is principally framed around offering the STVs. Does the TRAI Amendment Remove Data from Existing Recharge Plans? No. The amendment does not require operators to remove mobile data from existing bundled recharge plans. TRAI expressly states that Voice-and-SMS-only STVs are intended to supplement, not replace, offerings that already combine Voice, SMS, and data. Consumers who prefer data-inclusive plans remain free to purchase them.  The regulatory objective is choice: a consumer who wants data can choose a bundled plan, while a consumer who does not need data should have meaningful standalone options. Are Voice-and-SMS-only STVs Mandatory Under the 2026 Amendment? Yes, the prescribed Voice-and-SMS-only STV categories are mandatory for covered service providers. The final provision uses mandatory language requiring the service provider to offer these vouchers. But this should not be interpreted as saying that every bundled STV, regardless of validity, must have an identical Voice-and-SMS-only counterpart. The one-to-one correspondence is specifically relevant to STVs of 30 days and below. For longer periods, the regulation requires at least one corresponding longer-validity STV.  What the TRAI Amendment Does Not Mean The new regulation should not be read more broadly than its actual wording. Mobile-data recharge plans are not being abolished.  Consumers are not required to shift to Voice-and-SMS-only plans.  TRAI has not prescribed one nationwide rupee price for these STVs.  No fixed percentage tariff reduction appears in the final operative provision.  Operators do not have to duplicate every longer-validity bundled STV.  The regulation does not relax anti-spam or unsolicited commercial communication requirements.  The 22 September press-release date should not automatically be treated as the commencement date.  TRAI also rejected the idea that introducing standalone STVs means loosening controls against misuse of telecom resources. Its memorandum says existing anti-UCC and technological safeguards continue to apply.  Business Impact of the TRAI Thirteenth Amendment on Telecom Operators The amendment may look narrow because it changes only one proviso, but implementation cuts across several operational functions. Tariff Portfolio Restructuring Operators that currently offer many short-duration data-inclusive STVs may have to create corresponding Voice-and-SMS-only options for each relevant validity of 30 days and below. That creates a larger product catalogue than the earlier "at least one" requirement. Pricing Review The tariff team must determine a defensible reduction for the excluded data component. The final wording leaves operators’ room to take account of their commercial strategy, demand, usage, and market conditions. However, the reduction still needs to satisfy the regulatory standard of being appropriate. Billing and IT Configuration New validity structures or tariffs may require changes across recharge engines, billing systems, apps, websites, dealer platforms, and customer-support systems. This is a practical implementation issue rather than a separately stated statutory process. Consumer Communication Consumers should be able to identify: what the STV includes,  how long it remains valid,  whether it is monthly renewable,  and what tariff applies.  The wider Telecom Consumers Protection framework already places importance on clarity around STV tariffs, validity, and benefits.  Potential Benefits of the New Voice-and-SMS-only STV Framework For consumers who do not regularly use mobile data, the revised framework may provide a more useful range of options. Potential benefits include shorter-duration standalone recharges, reduced need to purchase unwanted data, lower one-time payment requirements in relevant cases, more choice between bundled and non-data plans, and a calendar-based monthly option. TRAI's stated policy concern is especially focused on low-income, feature-phone and limited-data consumers. The regulator considers shorter validity options capable of allowing people to recharge according to their financial capacity and service requirements.  The rule does not guarantee that every Voice-and-SMS-only recharge will always be cheaper on a per-day basis than every bundled product. Final pricing remains commercially determined within the amended framework. Implementation Challenges for Telecom Service Providers The main challenge is likely to be the combination of choice, pricing and tariff simplicity. TRAI itself recognised that requiring one-to-one matching across every bundled validity could result in too many tariff options and greater complexity. That is one reason the final framework uses a more limited structure: full correspondence for the specified shorter validity category, a monthly option, and at least one longer-validity plan.  Pricing may be another difficult area because data benefits are not always structured in the same manner. A consolidated-data pack and a daily-data allowance do not necessarily allow the same calculation method. Operators therefore have flexibility, but that flexibility places more importance on internal pricing rationale and regulatory review. Consumer Protection vs Operational Burden: How Should the Amendment Be Viewed? The consultation shows that the proposal generated different views. Supporters of wider Voice-and-SMS-only availability argued that consumers should not be required to pay for data they do not use and that shorter validity options were especially relevant for consumers with lower spending capacity and feature phones.  Other stakeholders raised concerns about consumer demand, digital inclusion, tariff complexity, financial viability of operators, potential impact on network investment, and misuse by unsolicited telemarketers.  TRAI did not simply adopt the original draft unchanged. The regulator dropped the draft's wider one-to-one matching approach for all validity periods and replaced "largely proportional reduction" with the more flexible standard of "appropriate reduction." That final structure reflects an attempt to widen consumer choice while retaining operator flexibility over pricing and avoiding unnecessary multiplication of longer-duration tariff products. Compliance Checklist for Telecom Service Providers Review Area Internal Compliance Question Final regulation Has the operator reviewed the notified Thirteenth Amendment rather than relying only on the press release? Commencement Has the actual Official Gazette publication date been confirmed? STV inventory Have all Voice-SMS-data STVs been mapped according to validity? Below 30 days Is a corresponding Voice/SMS-only STV available for every relevant validity? 30-day validity Is the required corresponding Voice/SMS-only offer available? Monthly renewal Is a same-date monthly renewable STV available? Month-end treatment Does the system handle months in which the renewal date does not exist? Longer validity Is at least one compliant longer-validity STV available? Pricing Is there a documented basis for the appropriate tariff reduction? Customer channels Are plan details consistently communicated across applicable channels? Systems Have billing and recharge configurations been checked before implementation? Regulatory records Is the operator able to show how the amended requirements were assessed and implemented? The last few items are sensible internal controls rather than separate forms prescribed by the Thirteenth Amendment. Compliance Risks Telecom Operators Should Avoid One of the biggest risks is reading only the press release and overlooking the explanatory memorandum and actual amended proviso. Operators should also avoid treating a 30-day STV and a same-date monthly renewable STV as the same concept, assuming that one long-duration Voice/SMS-only voucher satisfies the entire amendment, applying an unsupported fixed percentage for tariff reduction, or assuming that every bundled validity above 30 days needs a matching standalone plan. Another risk is using the 22 September 2026 announcement as the automatic effective date. The regulation itself says it takes effect 30 days after publication in the Official Gazette.  What Telecom Service Providers Should Do Next Obtain the final regulation and confirm Gazette publication. The operative legal text should control implementation, not only the press release.  Map all existing bundled STVs by validity. separate plans of less than 30 days, 30 days, monthly renewable validity, and longer durations.  Spot the missing Voice-only and SMS only versions. Note, in particular, the 30 days and below bundles of STVs. Confirm the implementation of the monthly renewable product with same-day renewal logic and month-end fallback option. Confirm the condition for longer validity requirement. Confirm that there is at least one eligible Voice and SMS only STV matching the bundled validity. Examine the pricing methodology. Describe the rationale behind the reduction of the relevant bundle STV. Coordinate regulatory and commercial teams. Product, finance, tariff, regulatory, billing, IT, and customer-facing functions may all be involved.  Check consumer-facing communication. Tariff, validity, and benefits should be displayed consistently.  Keep implementation records. Internal documentation can help demonstrate how the operator interpreted and implemented the amended provision.  Monitor future TRAI action. The Authority has said a fixed six-month review is not necessary, but it may review the rules whenever required.  How Corpseed Can Help Telecom Businesses with Regulatory Compliance This amendment needs more than just introducing another recharge plan. Telecom operators have to analyze the entire range of tariffs available, know the validity period of these tariffs, check the tariffing strategy, and ensure that internal implementation is aligned with the finalized regulation. Corpseed can support businesses through telecom regulatory compliance services focused on the actual requirements applicable to their operations. TRAI Regulatory Applicability Assessment Corpseed can assist in reviewing whether and how a TRAI notification, regulation, or tariff-related amendment applies to the business and its current service offerings. Telecom Regulatory Compliance Consulting The regulatory team can support interpretation of the operative provisions, explanatory memorandum, and connected compliance requirements. Compliance Gap Assessment Existing STVs can be mapped against the new validity requirements to identify areas that may require a tariff, product, or system review. Tariff and Compliance Documentation Review Corpseed can assist with reviewing internal regulatory documentation, tariff records, and relevant customer-facing information from a compliance perspective. I mplementation Readiness Support Businesses can receive support in organising the regulatory actions that product, billing, tariff and compliance teams may need to coordinate before the applicable commencement date. Regulatory Update Monitoring TRAI regulations can continue to develop through amendments, directions and clarifications. Ongoing monitoring helps businesses identify changes that may require further action. Ongoing Compliance Support Corpseed's telecom regulatory compliance services can also support businesses that need continuing regulatory review rather than one-time interpretation of a particular notification. Professional support does not replace the operator's commercial decision-making or guarantee a regulatory outcome. Still, it can help reduce the risk of overlooking an operative requirement or implementing it inconsistently. Key Takeaways TRAI has issued the Telecom Consumers Protection (Thirteenth Amendment) Regulations, 2026 (6 of 2026).  The amendment is aimed at expanding meaningful Voice-and-SMS-only STV choices.  Corresponding Voice/SMS-only STVs are required for bundled STV validity periods of 30 days and less than 30 days.  A same-date monthly renewable Voice-and-SMS-only STV is also required.  Operators must maintain at least one longer-validity corresponding Voice-and-SMS-only STV.  The final regulation requires an appropriate tariff reduction, but TRAI has not fixed a universal percentage or retail price.  Voice/SMS-only plans supplement rather than replace bundled Voice-SMS-data plans.  The regulations take effect 30 days after publication in the Official Gazette, so the Gazette publication date should be confirmed before fixing the commencement date.  Telecom service providers should review validity mapping, pricing, systems, and consumer-facing tariff information as part of implementation.

Subject

Summary: Three completely unrelated telecom products fall under the latest TEC standard notification that was issued in September 2026. The first concerns solar power supply for wireless telecom terminals, including Wi-Fi and similar technology the second pertains to IPS, while the third is related to PON Optical Time Domain Reflectometers used for FTTH. S.O. 5179(E) has been released by the Ministry of Communications via the Department of Telecommunications and the Telecommunication Engineering Centre (TEC). The date of the latest standard notification is 18 September 2026, and that of the Gazette release containing it is 21 September 2026. The three notified documents are TEC 66101:2026, TEC 49141:2026 and TEC 88321:2026. All three are described specifically as Test Guides. That wording matters. A test guide is a technical document used in evaluation and testing it should not automatically be treated as a standalone order, making fresh certification compulsory for every product that looks similar to the title.  So, for manufacturers, importers, testing laboratories, and telecommunication compliance officers, the relevant question is no longer, “Has TEC come up with a new test standard?” Instead, the question that should be asked is, “Is this test applicable for this particular device, and which test or certification process applies for this product under TEC guidelines?” TEC Notification 2026 at a Glance Particular Details Issuing Ministry Ministry of Communications Department Department of Telecommunications Technical Authority Telecommunication Engineering Centre Notification Number S.O. 5179(E) Notification Date 18 September 2026 Gazette Issue Date 21 September 2026 Governing Law Telecommunications Act, 2023 Relevant Provision Section 19 Rules Referred Telecommunications (Framework to Notify Standards, Conformity Assessment and Certification) Rules, 2025 Number of Test Guides 3 TEC 66101:2026 SPV-based standalone/hybrid power supply for Wi-Fi and similar telecom terminals TEC 49141:2026 Intrusion Prevention System TEC 88321:2026 PON Optical Time Domain Reflectometer for FTTH applications File Number F. No. 24-01/2025-STD/TEC Effective-Date Wording From the date of publication in the Official Gazette The Government has used Section 19 of the Telecommunications Act, 2023 together with Rule 5 of the 2025 framework rules to notify these standards. The Gazette expressly ties their commencement to publication of the notification in the Official Gazette.  What Has Actually Changed Through S.O. 5179(E)? The change is fairly focused. TEC has not issued an entirely new telecom certification scheme through this two-page notification. It has formally notified three identified test guides as standards for telecommunication equipment. The notified documents are: TEC 66101:2026 -  Test Guide for Solar Photovoltaic-Based Standalone/Hybrid Power Supply for Wi-Fi Terminals & Other Similar Telecom Terminals.  TEC 49141:2026 -  Test Guide for Intrusion Prevention System.  TEC 88321:2026 - Test Guide for Passive Optical Network Optical Time Domain Reflectometer for FTTH Applications.  That is the legal development created by this particular Gazette. What the Gazette does not do is equally important. It does not contain the full technical test parameters, product-wise certification process, fee schedule, application documents, validity period, or transition arrangements. Those details, where applicable, have to come from the relevant TEC standard, Generic Requirement, Essential Requirement, conformity-assessment measure, or certification procedure. Legal Basis of the New TEC Test Guides Section 19 of the Telecommunications Act, 2023 S.O. 5179(E) expressly states that it has been issued by exercising powers under Section 19 of the Telecommunications Act, 2023.  The 2025 standards and conformity-assessment framework now sits behind TEC's work on telecom standards, testing and certification. TEC describes itself as the technical arm of the Department of Telecommunications responsible for standards and specifications for telecom equipment and networks. Its current procedures also recognise that telecom products may be tested and certified against relevant TEC documents.  For a business, the practical meaning is simple: a technical standard cannot be looked at in isolation. The product, the applicable standard, the test reference and the certification route—where one applies need to be matched correctly. Rule 5 of the 2025 Rules The Gazette also specifically refers to Rule 5 of the Telecommunications (Framework to Notify Standards, Conformity Assessment and Certification) Rules, 2025.  TEC has been using Rule 5 for stakeholder consultation before finalisation of standards. Official consultation documents issued under Rule 5(2), for example, invite manufacturers and other stakeholders to comment on draft standards before they move forward.  The three test guides covered by S.O. 5179(E) also passed through TEC's consultation process during 2026. Before the Gazette: The Three Test Guides Were Put Out for Comments The September notification was not the first time these documents appeared publicly. TEC's official consultation records show: Draft Test Guide Consultation Issued Comments Sought By TEC 49141:2026- Intrusion Prevention System 6 May 2026 30 July 2026 TEC 66101:2026- SPV-based power supply for Wi-Fi/similar telecom terminals 12 May 2026 11 July 2026 PON OTDR for FTTH Applications 17 June 2026 16 August 2026 These records show that TEC invited stakeholder input before the documents reached their notified stage.  For manufacturers that participated in or followed these consultations, S.O. 5179(E) is therefore the next regulatory stage rather than a completely unexpected technical document. Which Three TEC Test Guides Have Been Notified? TEC Standard Equipment/Subject Broad Business Relevance TEC 66101:2026 SPV-Based Standalone/Hybrid Power Supply for Wi-Fi Terminals & Similar Telecom Terminals Telecom power equipment manufacturers and suppliers TEC 49141:2026 Intrusion Prevention System Network-security equipment manufacturers and suppliers TEC 88321:2026 PON Optical Time Domain Reflectometer for FTTH Applications Fibre-testing equipment manufacturers, suppliers and FTTH businesses The three guides should not be grouped simply because they appear in one Gazette. Their technical purposes are entirely different. A solar-based telecom power unit, a network-security appliance and an optical-fibre test instrument will naturally require different product reviews. TEC 66101:2026- Test Guide for SPV-Based Telecom Power Supply The first notified document is TEC 66101:2026. Its full title is: Solar Photovoltaic (SPV) Based Standalone/Hybrid Power Supply for Wi-Fi Terminals & Other Similar Telecom Terminals.  What type of equipment does this relate to? The title points to power-supply systems used with Wi-Fi terminals and other similar telecom terminals. “SPV” means Solar Photovoltaic. In practical terms, this category deals with telecom power arrangements using solar photovoltaic energy, either on a standalone basis or as part of a hybrid arrangement. The test guide should not be confused with a general solar-product standard. The subject is narrower: it is linked with power supply for Wi-Fi and comparable telecom terminals. There is also a related Generic Requirement. TEC's official list of Gazette-notified standards shows that TEC 66100:2026, the Generic Requirement for Solar Photovoltaic-Based Standalone or Hybrid Power Supply for Wi-Fi Terminals and Other Similar Telecom Terminals, had already been notified on 11 June 2026.  This relationship is useful: Document Standard Number Role Generic Requirement TEC 66100:2026 Sets out the relevant product requirements. Test Guide TEC 66101:2026 Provides the corresponding testing reference Manufacturers should therefore avoid reading the September Gazette in isolation. The underlying GR and the final test guide need to be reviewed together where they apply. What the Gazette does not tell us S.O. 5179(E) does not reproduce technical values for: power output  solar module configuration  battery arrangement  electrical protection  environmental performance  efficiency  test conditions  pass/fail criteria.  Those values should be taken from the applicable TEC documents, not created from the short Gazette notification. TEC 49141:2026- Test Guide for Intrusion Prevention System The second document is TEC 49141:2026, covering an Intrusion Prevention System (IPS).  An IPS is used in network security. Its purpose is broadly to monitor network traffic and respond to activity identified as harmful or unauthorised. TEC already maintains TEC 49140:2025 as the Generic Requirement for Intrusion Prevention System. Its standards database identifies GR and lists it in the IT category.  The GR itself explains that an IPS is used to protect a service provider's IT infrastructure and can monitor network traffic for external attacks, internal attacks, and network misuse.  Why TEC 49141:2026 matters The Gazette now formally notifies the associated 2026 test guide. That matters for: IPS manufacturers  network-security equipment suppliers  telecom operators procuring such equipment  technical evaluation teams  laboratories or testing teams  businesses maintaining TEC technical files.  Do not treat every cybersecurity product as an IPS A firewall, Intrusion Detection System, Unified Threat Management appliance, and Intrusion Prevention System can serve different functions and may sit under different TEC documents. TEC's telecom-infrastructure listing itself separately identifies Firewall, UTM, Intrusion Detection System, and Intrusion Prevention System under IP Security Equipment.  So a supplier should not classify an appliance as falling under TEC 49141 merely because it has some cybersecurity features. The exact function and applicable TEC category need to be checked. TEC 88321:2026 – PON OTDR Test Guide for FTTH Applications The third notified document is TEC 88321:2026, covering Passive Optical Network Optical Time Domain Reflectometer for FTTH Applications.  The name sounds technical, but the basic idea is easier to understand once the abbreviations are separated: PON- Passive Optical Network  OTDR- Optical Time Domain Reflectometer  FTTH- Fibre to the Home  An OTDR is used while testing and examining optical-fibre links. Equipment in this category can help technical teams assess fibre characteristics and locate problems along a fibre link. Related Generic Requirement TEC's standards database lists TEC 88320:2026 – PON Optical Time Domain Reflectometer (For FTTH Applications) as a Generic Requirement. The database shows it as a Type Approval category document.  The relationship therefore follows the same broad pattern: Document Standard Subject Generic Requirement TEC 88320:2026 PON OTDR for FTTH Applications Test Guide TEC 88321:2026 Testing reference for the same product area A manufacturer or supplier should review the underlying GR before deciding whether its instrument falls within the scope. Test Guide, Generic Requirement and Essential Requirement Are Not the Same Thing This distinction is where many compliance discussions become unnecessarily confusing. A business may hear that a “TEC standard” has been notified and immediately assume that a fresh mandatory certificate is required. That conclusion can be premature. A simple way to understand the documents is: Term What It Generally Deals With Generic Requirement- GR Technical requirements for a product or equipment category Test Guide Testing approach/reference connected with the relevant requirements Essential Requirement- ER Requirements used for mandatory conformity assessment under MTCTE where applicable Conformity Assessment Process for checking whether equipment meets prescribed requirements Certificate of Conformity Assessment Certificate issued where the applicable certification framework requires it. TEC's current MTCTE portal states that equipment notified under MTCTE cannot be sold, deployed, or otherwise used in India without a valid Certificate of Conformity Assessment as prescribed for that equipment. The portal also makes clear that testing under MTCTE is against applicable Essential Requirements.  That is why product-specific verification matters. Does S.O. 5179(E) Automatically Mean Fresh TEC or MTCTE Certification Is Required? Not from this Gazette alone. S.O. 5179(E) notifies three test guides. It does not contain a separate statement saying that all three product categories are being introduced as a fresh MTCTE phase or that every existing product must immediately obtain a new certificate.  That does not mean certification requirements can be ignored. The correct compliance exercise is to check: the exact product  its TEC classification  the applicable GR  the applicable Essential Requirement, if any  whether the equipment appears under the relevant MTCTE coverage  the current certification status  whether the new test guide affects the testing reference being used.  This distinction is particularly important for businesses looking for TEC Certification Services in India. Certification support should begin with applicability, not with filing an application before anyone has confirmed which route applies. Which Businesses Should Review the Notification? The Gazette does not list a stakeholder matrix, but its three product categories make several business groups clearly relevant. Telecom Equipment Manufacturers Manufacturers should check whether any current or upcoming model falls within the subject of the new test guide. The review should cover: exact model  technical function  associated GR  testing standard currently used  existing approval or certificate, where applicable  changes between older and current technical documents.  OEMs Developing Products for India An overseas or Indian OEM may already test a product against international requirements. That does not automatically answer the Indian TEC compliance question. The OEM should check whether: an Indian TEC document covers the exact model  the test evidence matches that model  an Indian conformity-assessment route applies  additional Indian testing or documentation is required.  Importers Importers are often dependent on documents supplied by an overseas manufacturer. Before commercial import or supply, they should check: model number  equipment description  TEC product category  applicable certification position  test reports  certificate details, where relevant  consistency between imported goods and compliance documents.  Testing Laboratories Testing teams need to work from the correct version of the technical reference. For a newly notified test guide, the laboratory or technical team should check whether the testing plan, product configuration, and requirement document all refer to the correct standard. Telecom Service Providers and Network Businesses Where such businesses procure IPS equipment, telecom-terminal power systems, or PON OTDR instruments, procurement and technical teams may also need to check the applicable product standards before accepting equipment. Product-to-Standard Mapping A short mapping exercise can prevent a great deal of unnecessary compliance work. Product Situation Standard to Review First Additional Check SPV-based standalone power supply for Wi-Fi telecom terminal TEC 66100:2026 / TEC 66101:2026 Certification/conformity-assessment applicability Hybrid solar power supply for similar telecom terminal TEC 66100:2026 / TEC 66101:2026 Exact product scope Intrusion Prevention System TEC 49140:2025 / TEC 49141:2026 IP Security Equipment/ER position PON OTDR for FTTH TEC 88320:2026 / TEC 88321:2026 Type Approval/certification route applicable to exact equipment The “additional check” column is important. Matching the product with a test guide is only one part of the compliance exercise. What Should Manufacturers Review Now? A manufacturer should begin with its product file. 1. Check the exact product configuration  Do not rely only on the marketing name. Review: equipment function  hardware configuration  software/firmware where relevant  interfaces  intended network use  model variations.  2. Identify the applicable TEC GR For the three notified test guides, related GR documents exist for the relevant product families. The technical team should work from the correct GR instead of using the Gazette as a substitute for the engineering document. 3. Match the correct test guide Check whether the test plan or test report currently refers to: TEC 66101:2026  TEC 49141:2026 or  TEC 88321:2026,  as applicable. 4. Review existing testing Where the product was tested earlier, check: test-report date  test-guide version  product model  configuration tested  laboratory details  whether the testing remains acceptable under the applicable scheme.  5. Check certification separately Do not assume that test-guide notification automatically creates or removes a certification requirement. What Should Importers Check Before Relying on Supplier Documents? A foreign supplier may send an importer a large compliance pack, but the number of documents is less important than whether those documents actually cover the imported equipment. Importers should match: Invoice model → technical model → test report → certificate → applicable Indian requirement. Any mismatch deserves attention. For example, the imported unit should not be assumed compliant simply because the manufacturer has a certificate for a related family or an earlier version unless that coverage is actually permitted by the applicable certification framework. A TEC Compliance Consultant or product compliance team can help with this document-matching exercise before the shipment or certification process reaches a stage where correction becomes more difficult. What Should Testing Teams Check? Testing teams should not treat the Gazette number as the testing methodology. S.O. 5179(E) only identifies the three notified test guides.  The technical team should instead work with the actual test guide and the corresponding product-requirement document. Useful review points include: correct TEC document number  correct edition/year  exact product model  applicable clauses  required test configuration  supporting technical information  applicable conformity-assessment procedure.  Where a laboratory's scope or recognition is relevant to certification, that should also be checked under the applicable TEC procedure. Is There a Separate Transition Period? The short answer is: S.O. 5179(E) does not expressly state one. There is no separate line in this Gazette giving businesses a 30-day, 60-day, 90-day or six-month transition period. It would therefore be unsafe to publish an assumed grace period. If TEC separately issues: a transition circular  revised implementation instruction  certification clarification  acceptance provision for older reports or  product-specific compliance direction,  that separate document would need to be read on its own terms. Until then, the article should not manufacture a transition period simply because similar regulatory changes sometimes have one. What Happens to Existing Test Reports and Certificates? The Gazette does not expressly cancel existing reports or certificates. Nor does it expressly say that every older report will remain acceptable without review. Businesses already holding compliance documents should therefore check them rather than immediately discarding them. Existing test report review Look at: product name  exact model  standard used  revision/year  date of testing  configuration covered.  Existing certificate review Check: product/category covered  model coverage  validity status  referenced Essential Requirement or standard  whether any separate TEC instruction affects it.  Application already in progress Where certification or testing is already underway, confirm whether the authority or certification process requires the application to move to the newly notified test guide. Do not assume either outcome without checking. Notification Date vs Effective Date There are two dates that should not be mixed. Event Date Date appearing below “Notification” 18 September 2026 Date of Gazette issue carrying the notification 21 September 2026 Commencement wording From publication of the notification in the Official Gazette The Gazette itself states that the standards are notified with effect from the date of publication.  For website content, it is therefore better to write: “The notification is dated 18 September 2026 and takes effect from its publication in the Official Gazette.” This is more accurate than simply saying, “The standards became effective on 18 September.” What the Gazette Does Not Provide Readers often expect a regulatory update to answer every operational question. This particular Gazette cannot do that because it is only a standards-notification document. It does not expressly provide: TEC application steps  MTCTE application steps  application documents  application fee  testing charges  certification fee  certificate validity  renewal period  detailed technical values  laboratory test conditions  penalty amount  transition period  grandfathering rule  treatment of each existing certificate  treatment of each existing test report.  Those points should not be filled in with generic TEC information unless it genuinely applies to the product being discussed. This is especially important for TEC Certification Services in India. A responsible service page or compliance article should first establish the product-specific route rather than giving one generic process for every telecom device. Business Impact of the New TEC Test Guides Stakeholder Likely Impact Immediate Priority Manufacturers Technical files may need review against the notified test guide Map models with the correct TEC document. OEMs Indian standard may need to be checked against product design/testing Confirm product applicability. Importers Supplier compliance documents may need validation Match model, test report and certificate. Testing Laboratories Testing reference may need updating Confirm latest applicable guide. Network-Security Vendors IPS products need correct TEC classification Review TEC 49140/49141 FTTH Equipment Suppliers PON OTDR category needs technical review Check TEC 88320/88321 Compliance Teams New notified documents need to be added to regulatory tracking Update compliance register. These are practical implications rather than new statutory duties expressly written in S.O. 5179(E). Compliance Risks Businesses Should Avoid Using a Product Name as the Only Basis for Classification Names used in brochures are not always enough to establish regulatory scope. Technical function matters. Assuming Every Notified TEC Document Creates a Fresh Certificate Requirement The September Gazette notifies test guides. Mandatory certification applicability needs a separate product-specific check. Testing Against the Wrong Document Version A report prepared using an earlier standard may require review once a new test guide becomes relevant.  Mixing Up GR, Test Guide and ER Numbers These documents can be related, but they do not serve identical purposes. Maintain a simple internal matrix showing: Product → GR → Test Guide → ER → Certificate where each element is applicable. Assuming There Must Be a Grace Period The Gazette does not state one. Automatically Retesting Everything A new notification should trigger a review, not an automatic decision that every product must be tested again. First establish what changed and whether the exact model is affected. Assuming Existing Certificates Are Automatically Invalid S.O. 5179(E) does not say that. Practical TEC Compliance Checklist Businesses dealing with any of the three product categories can use the following internal checklist. Product Identification Confirm exact product name.  Record model number.  Confirm intended telecom application.  Document major technical functions.  Standard Mapping Identify the relevant TEC Generic Requirement.  Identify the relevant Test Guide.  Check whether an Essential Requirement applies.  Confirm whether the model falls within MTCTE or another TEC certification route.  Testing Review Check existing test report.  Verify the standard number used.  Verify year/version.  Check whether the report covers the exact model.  Confirm laboratory acceptability where applicable.  Certification Review Check existing TEC/MTCTE certificate.  Verify model coverage.  Confirm current status.  Check whether any separate transition instruction applies.  Internal Records Update regulatory register.  Update technical-document index.  Record the applicable TEC standard.  Keep correspondence and compliance evidence together.  Track future TEC clarification affecting the same product.  What Businesses Should Do Next A practical response does not need to begin with a fresh application. Step 1: Identify the Product Properly Write down exactly what the equipment is and what it does. Step 2: Check Which of the Three Test Guides Is Relevant Do not match equipment purely by a broad word such as “solar”, “security” or “fibre”. Step 3: Review the Related Generic Requirement The GR gives the product context needed to understand the test guide. Step 4: Review Current Compliance Documentation Consider existing reports, certificates, and technical documentation prior to determining that testing must be done. Step 5: Determine MTCTE or Other Certifications’ Relevance The official MTCTE standard of TEC uses compulsory certification for equipment certified under this standard. This status of the product must be determined by the current requirements of the MTCTE rather than by S.O. 5179(E). Step 6: Sort Out Mismatches Prior to Testing or Submittals If any document or technical information is inconsistent, it must be sorted out first. This will save businesses from embarking on an inappropriate path towards compliance. How Corpseed Can Help With TEC Certification and Telecom Product Compliance Telecom compliance rarely comes down to a single certificate number. The difficult part is usually deciding which technical standard applies, whether certification is actually required, and whether the documents held by the manufacturer or importer are enough for the next compliance step. Corpseed's TEC Certification Services in India can support manufacturers, OEMs, and importers where TEC or MTCTE requirements apply to their telecom equipment. 1. TEC Standard Applicability Check Corpseed can assist in reviewing: product description  model  technical purpose  intended use  applicable TEC product category  relevant GR, Test Guide, or ER.  This helps establish the correct compliance route before testing begins. 2. TEC Certification Services in India Where TEC certification is applicable to the product, Corpseed can support the business with the certification process and related documentation. Support may include: product information review  document preparation  application support  technical document coordination  compliance tracking  response support during processing.  Certification requirements remain product-specific, so applicability should be checked first. 3. MTCTE Certification Services In relation to telecommunication equipment covered under MTCTE, Corpseed will be able to help business entities understand the relevant Essential Requirements and prepare for the appropriate certification process. It is clearly established through TEC’s official MTCTE portal that the equipment covered under MTCTE requires a valid Certificate of Conformity Assessment according to the prescribed standards. 4. Product Testing and Certification Support Where testing is required, Corpseed can assist with coordination between: manufacturer  importer  technical team  laboratory and  compliance documentation team.  The objective is to make sure the equipment being tested matches the equipment described in the application and technical documents. 5. Existing Certificate and Test Report Review Businesses already holding TEC or related compliance documents can get their records reviewed before deciding whether a fresh action is necessary. The review can focus on: standard version  model coverage  test report  certificate  technical changes  new TEC notification.  6. Telecom Product Compliance Services Corpseed also has the ability to offer Telecom Product Compliance Services for situations where there are many regulations applicable to one product. This is relevant for manufacturers and importers who would like to know all the compliance procedures before bringing any telecom equipment into India. 7. Compliance Gap Assessment A compliance gap review can identify issues such as: wrong TEC category  outdated standard reference  missing product evidence  mismatched model number  incomplete technical documentation  unclear MTCTE applicability.  Correcting these issues early is usually easier than discovering them after testing or filing has started. Need Support With a TEC-Regulated Telecom Product? Businesses manufacturing or importing telecom equipment can use Corpseed's TEC Certification Services in India, MTCTE Certification Services, and Telecom Product Compliance Services to understand the applicable standard, review technical documentation, and determine the correct testing or certification path for the product. Key Takeaways The September 2026 notification is narrow but technically important. The Government has notified three TEC test guides through S.O. 5179(E).  TEC 66101:2026 relates to SPV-based standalone/hybrid power supplies for Wi-Fi and similar telecom terminals.  TEC 49141:2026 covers Intrusion Prevention Systems.  TEC 88321:2026 covers PON OTDR equipment for FTTH applications.  All three documents are Test Guides they should not automatically be treated as fresh MTCTE product notifications.  Manufacturers and importers should map their exact product with the relevant GR, test guide, and certification framework.  S.O. 5179(E) does not expressly provide a separate fee, application process, transition period, or certificate-validity rule.  Existing test reports and certificates should be reviewed before any decision is made about fresh testing.  Businesses seeking TEC Certification Services in India should first establish whether certification applies to the exact product rather than starting with a generic filing process.

Subject

Summary: Two TEC test guides have undergone revision and notification through the Central Government in the month of September 2026. The two guides include the Element Management System (eMS) for the Next Generation Network (NGN) and the Structured LAN Cabling. The notification S.O. 5177(E) has been done through the Ministry of Communication and the Department of Telecommunications and Telecommunication Engineering Centre. The TEC 49111:2026 and the TEC 52011:2026 are identified to be the revised test guides.  For businesses, however, the real issue is not simply that two standard numbers have changed. Manufacturers, testing teams, network integrators, suppliers and compliance departments need to check whether either Test Guide applies to their products or projects and whether their existing technical documents still refer to an older version. The Gazette itself is short. It does not provide an application procedure, a new fee, a transition period or a blanket direction requiring every existing product to be retested. That distinction should guide how businesses respond to the update. TEC Revised Standards 2026: Notification at a Glance Particular Details Ministry Ministry of Communications Department Department of Telecommunications Technical Authority Telecommunication Engineering Centre Notification Number S.O. 5177(E) Notification Date 17 September 2026 Gazette Issue Date 21 September 2026 Governing Law Telecommunications Act, 2023 Relevant Section Section 19 Governing Rules Telecommunications (Framework to Notify Standards, Conformity Assessment and Certification) Rules, 2025 Relevant Rule Rule 5 Revised Standard 1 TEC 49111:2026 Test Guide Subject Element Management System (eMS) for Next Generation Network (NGN) Revised Standard 2 TEC 52011:2026 Test Guide Subject Structured LAN Cabling Separate Compliance Deadline Not expressly specified Transition Period Not expressly specified File Number F. No. 24-01/2025-STD/TEC-Part(1) Date of notification is 17th September, 2026 whereas the date of Gazette published in the document is 21st September, 2026. This point is important since the notification mentions that the new standards will be effective from the date of notification in the Official Gazette.  What Has the Government Actually Notified? The Government has notified two revised standards for telecommunication equipment. They are: TEC 49111:2026 Test Guide -  Element Management System (eMS) for Next Generation Network (NGN)  TEC 52011:2026 Test Guide -  Structured LAN Cabling  The Gazette does not reproduce the technical contents of either Test Guide. This means a business cannot use S.O. 5177(E) alone to determine: which technical test parameters changed,   whether a previous testing method has been withdrawn, whether new acceptance criteria have been established, whether a new test sample is needed, whether a current certificate has to be changed, or whether a product must be tested again. The answers to those questions are dependent on the respective TEC Test Guide and, if necessary, additional implementation/conformity assessment instructions. Legal Framework Behind the Revised TEC Standards The notification is not made separately as an individual technical circular. The power of this notification stems from the regulatory framework applicable to the telecoms sector. S.O. 5177(E) directly makes reference to: Section 19 of the Telecommunications Act, 2023, and  Rule 5 of the Telecommunications (Framework to Notify Standards, Conformity Assessment and Certification) Rules, 2025. This is important to note when interpreting the notification. Telecommunications Act, 2023 The Telecommunications Act, 2023 contains the legislative provisions enabling the notification of standards and conformity related provisions in the telecoms sector. The September notification is based specifically on Section 19. 2025 Standards, Conformity Assessment and Certification Rules The 2025 Rules provide the broader framework within which standards, conformity assessment and certification are addressed. The Gazette specifically refers to Rule 5 when notifying the revised standards.  The bottom line is straightforward: The Gazette informs businesses about revised standards that have been notified. Product-specific certifications, testing, and requirements for conformity still need to be reviewed within the broader framework. Role of the Telecommunication Engineering Centre The Telecommunication Engineering Centre, commonly referred to as TEC, is identified in the notification under the Department of Telecommunications. For manufacturers and other businesses dealing with regulated telecom equipment, TEC standards can form an important part of technical and conformity documentation. Where a revised TEC standard is relevant, the business should make sure that the version used in its technical files, testing records, and future compliance work is the correct one. Which TEC Standards Have Been Revised? The September 2026 notification contains two standards. Standard Official Name Main Area TEC 49111:2026 Test Guide - Element Management System (eMS) for Next Generation Network (NGN) NGN element management TEC 49111:2026 Test Guide - Structured LAN Cabling Structured network cabling The Gazette calls both of them revised standards.  It does not provide a clause-by-clause comparison with their earlier versions. TEC 49111:2026 – Element Management System for Next Generation Network The first standard is TEC 49111:2026 Test Guide for Element Management System (eMS) for Next Generation Network (NGN).  In simple terms, an Element Management System is used to manage and supervise network elements. NGN stands for Next Generation Network. Businesses working in this space should not assume that every NGN-related product falls within the same technical scope. The exact applicability has to be checked against the relevant final TEC document. Businesses that may need to examine TEC 49111:2026 include: telecom equipment manufacturers,   NGN solution providers,   network-management solution providers,   technology suppliers,   system integrators,   testing teams,   compliance departments,   certification teams.  The Gazette does not provide detailed test parameters, so those should not be recreated from assumptions. TEC 52011:2026 – Structured LAN Cabling The second notified standard is TEC 52011:2026 Test Guide for Structured LAN Cabling.  Structured LAN cabling generally relates to the organised cabling infrastructure used to support local network connectivity. The standard may therefore be relevant to businesses dealing with network infrastructure, structured cabling systems and related telecom projects, depending on the exact application and regulatory scope. Businesses likely to have a practical reason to review this Test Guide include: structured cabling solution providers,   network integrators,   telecom equipment manufacturers,   project engineering teams,   telecom infrastructure suppliers,   testing laboratories,   tender teams,   technical procurement departments.  Again, the notification itself does not state individual cable categories, technical values, or testing limits. What Does a “Revised TEC Standard” Mean in Practice? The word “revised” deserves attention. It means the Government has notified an updated version of an existing technical standard or Test Guide. It does not automatically mean every business using the earlier version has committed a compliance violation from the date of notification. The first task is to identify whether the revised standard is relevant to the particular equipment or project. A business should ask: Does this TEC standard cover our equipment?  Which version appears in our existing test report?  Does our certificate refer to an earlier version?  Are we currently preparing a new testing or certification application?  Is an older standard mentioned in a tender?  Has TEC issued a separate transition or implementation instruction?  Does the applicable conformity-assessment route require any immediate action?  This review is far more useful than assuming that every old document has become invalid. When Do TEC 49111:2026 and TEC 52011:2026 Take Effect? The notification contains an important sentence on commencement. It says that the Central Government notifies the revised standards with effect from the date of publication of the notification in the Official Gazette.  That wording should be followed carefully. The notification bears the date 17 September 2026, whereas the Gazette issue displayed on the document is dated 21 September 2026.  Businesses should therefore avoid using 17 September as the effective date merely because it appears beneath the notification heading. Notification Date and Gazette Date Are Not the Same Thing This is an obvious point that can easily be overlooked. At the beginning of the English notification, it says: New Delhi, 17 September 2026 However, the operative clause connects implementation with gazette notification. Why is this important? Consider the case of a company assessing: A test conducted about the time of this notification,  An application for certificate which is in process,    A tender based on the old standard,   or technical documentation prepared before publication.  The relevant dates need to be checked accurately before deciding which version applies. This is particularly important for regulatory and technical teams because a simple date assumption can lead to unnecessary rework. Who Should Review These TEC Revised Standards? The Gazette does not publish a separate list of affected businesses. The relevance depends on the equipment, system and applicable conformity-assessment route. Still, several business groups should consider reviewing the change. Telecom Equipment Manufacturers Manufacturers should first identify whether their equipment is technically linked to either of the revised Test Guides. Where it is, the next check should cover: technical specifications,   current test reports,   existing certification documents,   product files,   new certification applications,   proposed product changes.  The objective is not to replace everything immediately. It is to find where an older standard is still being relied upon. Telecom Equipment Importers and Suppliers Importers and suppliers may receive test reports, certificates, and technical declarations from overseas manufacturers. If the product falls within the relevant regulatory scope, they should check whether those documents refer to the correct TEC standard. Typical review points include: test-report version,   certificate reference,   manufacturer declaration,   technical specification,   model details,   product description.  Importers should not assume that an overseas test report automatically satisfies the applicable Indian telecom compliance requirement. NGN and Network-Management Solution Providers Businesses working with Element Management Systems for Next Generation Networks should specifically examine TEC 49111:2026. The review may cover: system description,   existing testing records,   technical documentation,   vendor documents,   certification references,   project specifications.  Where there is doubt about scope, a technical applicability review is more useful than relying only on the standard title. Structured Cabling Businesses TEC 52011:2026 is particularly relevant to businesses working around Structured LAN Cabling. Project teams should check whether older TEC references continue to appear in: project specifications,   tender schedules,   client requirements,   testing documents,   vendor submissions,   quality records.  The existence of a revised standard does not automatically change a private contract. Contractual requirements and regulatory requirements should be reviewed separately. Testing Laboratories Laboratories working in the relevant testing area need to ensure that planned testing refers to the appropriate version of the standard. Points worth checking include: the applicable Test Guide,   scope of testing,   report format,   reference standard,   pending test assignments,   any TEC implementation direction.  The Gazette itself does not state that laboratory recognition conditions have changed. Compliance and Certification Teams Internal compliance teams may have the widest documentation impact. They should search existing records for references to: TEC 49111,   TEC 52011,   earlier editions of the standards,   related certificates,   test reports,   pending applications,   renewal or modification files.  A simple internal search can reveal whether the update actually touches the business. Does S.O. 5177(E) Create a New Certification Process? No new standalone certification procedure is described in this Gazette notification. S.O. 5177(E) does one specific thing: it notifies two revised TEC standards.  It does not contain: a fresh application form,   a portal procedure,   an application fee,   a certificate validity period,   a new registration category,   a renewal process,   or a separate documentation checklist.  This does not mean certification requirements can be ignored. It means those requirements must be taken from the relevant telecom conformity-assessment framework rather than invented from this notification. Does the Update Mean Existing TEC Certificates Are Invalid? The Gazette does not say so. There is no clause in S.O. 5177(E) stating that every existing certificate based on an earlier standard automatically stands cancelled. It also does not state that every covered product must undergo fresh testing immediately. That makes an applicability review important for existing certificate holders. Existing certificate holders should check: Which standard version is mentioned in the file  Check certificates, test reports, and supporting technical documents.  Whether the product actually falls within the revised standard A similar product name is not enough. Technical scope matters.  Whether any application is currently pending Pending cases may need particular attention if the standard reference changes during processing.  Whether TEC has issued a separate implementation direction A Gazette notification may not contain every operational instruction.  Whether the next renewal or modification will use the revised standard This should be confirmed under the applicable process.  Businesses should avoid submitting a fresh application merely because a revised standard has been notified unless the applicable regulatory framework requires it. Is Any Transition Period Mentioned? No separate transition period is expressly stated in S.O. 5177(E). That is an important point. The notification tells readers when the revised standards take effect, but it does not itself say: that the old and new versions will run together for 30 days,   60 days,   90 days,   six months,   or any other period.  Any such period should only be used if TEC or another competent authority has separately prescribed it for these standards. For compliance teams, this means the safest approach is to check for a separate order or implementation instruction rather than borrowing a transition period from an unrelated TEC notification. What Should Manufacturers Check Before the Next Testing or Certification Activity? A manufacturer does not need to begin with a fresh application. Begin with the documents already available. 1. Check the product scope. Confirm whether the product, system, or equipment actually falls within the relevant standard. 2. Check existing test reports. Look at: standard number,   year/version,   model number,   product description,   testing basis.  An older standard reference should be flagged for further review. 3. Check the existing certificate. The certificate and supporting test report should be read together. A mismatch between the standard versions can create avoidable questions during future compliance work. 4. Check planned product changes. If a manufacturer is already modifying hardware, software, network functions, or model configurations, the revised standard should be considered during the compliance assessment. 5. Check upcoming applications Where testing or certification work has not yet started, using the correct current standard from the beginning can help avoid rework of documents. What Should Procurement and Tender Teams Check? Technical standards often remain inside tender documents for a long time. A tender prepared before September 2026 may still refer to an earlier TEC Test Guide. Procurement and tender teams should therefore check: the exact TEC standard number,   the edition or year mentioned,   whether the tender asks for the “latest” standard,   certificate requirements,   test-report requirements,   vendor declarations,   technical schedules,   acceptance conditions.  A revised standard should not be inserted into a contract without checking whether that change is legally and contractually appropriate. Should Technical Specifications Be Updated Immediately? Not in every case. A technical document should be changed after the business has established that the new standard is applicable. A practical sequence is: Step One: Identify the existing reference Identify technical specifications, test certificates, certification, and tenders using the old TEC Standard. Step Two: Verify applicability Verify whether the TEC 49111:2026 or TEC 52011:2026 is applicable. Step Three: Review regulatory guidance Identify any guidance from the TEC on implementation, pending cases, or transition. Step Four: Revise the real documents Do not change all internal documents without knowing which documents are regulatory, contractual, or internal. This keeps compliance work controlled and traceable. What the Gazette Does Not Tell Businesses One of the easiest ways to misread a short regulatory notification is to assume that information missing from it must appear somewhere in the text. Here, several operational details are not provided. Compliance Question Position in S.O. 5177(E) Are two revised TEC standards notified? Yes Are the standard numbers provided? Yes Is the statutory basis provided? Yes Is the commencement principle provided? Yes Is a separate transition period provided? No Is a new application procedure provided? No Are application documents listed? No Is a new certification fee stated? No Are testing charges stated? No Is a new certificate validity period stated? No Is an automatic retesting requirement stated? No Are existing certificates automatically cancelled? Not stated Are pending applications separately addressed? No Are technical test parameters reproduced? No Are new penalties specified in this notification? No “Not stated” should not be read as “not applicable.” It only means the answer has to be found, where relevant, in the applicable TEC Test Guide, conformity-assessment framework, or another official instruction. Can the Old and New TEC Standards Be Compared from This Gazette? Not properly. The Gazette labels the 2026 versions as revised standards but does not reproduce the earlier documents. Because of that, the notification alone cannot establish whether the revision has: added a test,   removed a test,   changed a measurement,   revised an acceptance value,   modified a reporting requirement,   or changed a test method.  A genuine old-versus-new technical comparison requires both versions of the relevant TEC document. Publication of such an analysis without these documents may entail attribution to the Gazette of technical modifications that are never claimed. Business Impact of TEC Revised Standards 2026 The effect will not be identical for every stakeholder. Stakeholder Likely Area of Review Immediate Focus Telecom manufacturers Product and compliance files Check standard version Importers Supplier and certification records Verify applicability NGN solution providers eMS-related technical records Review TEC 49111:2026 Structured cabling businesses Project specifications Review TEC 52011:2026 Testing laboratories Testing references Confirm applicable Test Guide Network integrators Technical and project documents Check old TEC references Compliance teams Certificates and pending cases Identify affected files Procurement teams Tenders and vendor documents Check standard edition The cost and workload will depend on what the review finds. A business that has no product or project connected with either standard may have little to do. A business with active testing, certification, or a large number of technical documents tied to an older version may need a deeper review. Practical Compliance Checklist for Businesses Businesses can use the following checklist before taking further action. Review Point Question to Ask Suggested Owner Applicability Does either revised standard cover our equipment or system? Regulatory/Technical Team Standard Version Which edition is currently used? Engineering Test Reports Are existing reports based on an earlier edition? Quality/Testing Certificate Which standard does the certificate rely on? Compliance Pending Application Is a TEC case currently under process? Regulatory Team Technical File Are old standard references still present? Engineering Supplier Documents Are third-party documents aligned? Procurement/Quality Tender Does the bid refer to the correct standard? Tender Team Transition Guidance Has a separate TEC direction been issued? Compliance Future Testing Which version should be used next? Testing/Regulatory This is a review checklist, not an official Government application process. What Businesses Should Do Next For most businesses, seven practical actions are enough to begin. 1. Identify Whether the Standard Is Relevant Start with the product or system. For NGN Element Management Systems, examine TEC 49111:2026. For Structured LAN Cabling, examine TEC 52011:2026. Do not go further until the technical scope is clear. 2. Find Every Existing Standard Reference Search: certificates,   test reports,   product files,   technical specifications,   vendor records,   tenders,   purchase documents.  This immediately shows where an older version may still be in use. 3. Separate Active and Historical Records A five-year-old closed project does not need the same attention as a certification application currently being processed. Prioritise live compliance work. 4. Check Pending Testing Businesses that are about to submit samples or commission testing should confirm the correct Test Guide before the work begins. 5. Review Existing Certification Check whether the revised standard has any consequences for the existing certificate under the applicable implementation framework. Do not assume cancellation. 6. Look for Separate TEC Instructions The two-page Gazette does not answer every implementation question. Any distinct TEC order, portal notice, or certification instruction pertaining to the standards should be considered along with this one. 7. Document the Decision Make an internal document that will show: what was verified, which standard applies,   which documents were reviewed,   whether any change was needed,   who approved the compliance decision.  This makes future audits and certification work easier to manage. Common Compliance Risks to Avoid The notification is straightforward, but several mistakes can still happen. Treating 17 September as the Effective Date Without Checking Publication The notification date and commencement wording should not be mixed up. Assuming Every Existing Certificate Must Be Replaced S.O. 5177(E) does not say that. Continuing to Use an Old Test Guide Without Checking The opposite mistake is equally risky. A business should not ignore the revised standard merely because its existing file uses the earlier one. Using a Draft Standard Instead of the Final Version Technical teams should work with the final notified standard and applicable official instructions. Updating Tender Documents Without Reviewing Contractual Requirements Technical, contractual, and regulatory requirements are not always identical. Creating a Transition Period from Assumption If the notification does not provide one, do not invent one. Where Telecom Product Compliance Services Become Useful For many businesses, the difficult part is not reading the Gazette. The harder part is deciding whether the change actually affects a product that is already manufactured, imported, tested, or certified. That is where professional telecom product compliance services can be useful. A compliance review can connect four things that businesses often keep in separate files: the product,   the applicable TEC standard,   the testing record,   the certification position.  If those four elements are not aligned, problems usually appear later, during testing, application scrutiny, procurement checks, or customer documentation review. How Corpseed Can Help with TEC and Telecom Product Compliance Corpseed can support manufacturers, importers, and telecom businesses that need to understand how the revised TEC standards affect their current compliance position. 1. TEC Standard Applicability Review Before starting a fresh filing or testing exercise, Corpseed can assist in checking whether the relevant product or system falls within the applicable TEC framework. This helps businesses avoid spending time on an unrelated standard. 2. Existing Certificate and Test Report Review Where a business already holds telecom compliance documents, Corpseed can help review: standard references,   product descriptions,   test reports,   certificate details,   model information,   pending compliance work.  The objective is to identify gaps that may need attention. 3. Telecom Product Certification Services Where certification applies, Corpseed's telecom product certification services can support businesses with the procedural and documentation side of the applicable compliance route. Support should be based on the actual product category and regulatory requirement rather than a generic certification checklist. 4. Technical Compliance Consulting Businesses dealing with a revised standard may need to coordinate engineering, testing, and regulatory teams. Through technical compliance consulting, Corpseed can assist in organising the compliance review and identifying where technical documentation needs further examination. 5. Telecom Testing Assistance Where testing is required, support can include coordination of documentation and the applicable testing process. The exact testing requirement should always be confirmed against the current TEC standard and applicable conformity-assessment instructions. 6. Product Compliance Document Review Technical files often contain documents prepared at different times. Corpseed can assist in checking whether: the standard version is consistent,   product descriptions match   test reports refer to the right model,   certificate references are aligned,   vendor documents support the compliance file.  7. Regulatory Compliance Support Businesses that deal with several regulated telecom products may also need ongoing regulatory compliance services to track relevant standards and identify when an existing product file needs review. This can be useful where multiple models, suppliers, certificates, and testing schedules are being handled at the same time. Key Takeaways The Government has formally notified TEC 49111:2026 and TEC 52011:2026 as revised standards for telecommunication equipment through S.O. 5177(E). A few points should remain clear: TEC 49111:2026 covers the Test Guide for Element Management System for Next Generation Network.  TEC 52011:2026 covers the Test Guide for Structured LAN Cabling.  The notification has been issued under Section 19 of the Telecommunications Act, 2023, read with Rule 5 of the 2025 framework rules.  The notification links its effectiveness with publication in the Official Gazette.  It does not expressly prescribe a separate transition period.  It does not say that every existing certificate automatically becomes invalid.  It does not introduce a new standalone application process or fee through this notification.  Manufacturers and other affected businesses should first check applicability, existing standard references, test reports, and current certification records.  For businesses that are unsure whether either revised standard applies to their equipment, a product-specific compliance review is more useful than making immediate changes based only on the notification title.

Subject

Summary: The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) has promulgated The Standards of Quality of Service (Duration of Advertisements in Television Channels) (Repealing) Regulations, 2026, which have been classified as Regulation No. 4 of 2026 and have come into effect from 10 September 2026. Under these regulations, TRAI has repealed its previous 2012 guidelines relating to the duration of advertisements broadcast on television channels. The said guidelines were based on a ceiling limit of 12 minutes of advertisements within an hour. This ceiling was related to Rule 7(11) of the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994. However, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) deleted Rule 7(11) through a Gazette notification of 21 August 2026. After deleting the concerned rule, TRAI decided that it would not be appropriate for it to continue its regulations concerning advertisement duration as per the new legal scenario. Therefore, TRAI repealed the previous 2012 guidelines along with the orders/directions issued thereunder. With respect to television broadcasters, this change eliminates the particular TRAI quality-of-service regime under which the cap on the 12-minute advertisements was imposed. Nevertheless, it should not be interpreted as an elimination of all requirements of law, content, advertisement, or contract applicable to the television industry. Notification at a Glance Particular Verified Details Issuing authority Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) Regulation title The Standards of Quality of Service (Duration of Advertisements in Television Channels) (Repealing) Regulations, 2026 Regulation number 4 of 2026 Regulation date 10 September 2026 Earlier regulation The Standards of Quality of Service (Duration of Advertisements in Television Channels) Regulations, 2012 Earlier regulation number 15 of 2012 Earlier regulation date 14 May 2012 Governing framework referred to Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994 Relevant provision Rule 7(11) MIB development Rule 7(11) omitted through Gazette notification dated 21 August 2026 Earlier advertisement ceiling 12 minutes of advertisements in a clock hour Main change TRAI's 2012 advertisement-duration regulations repealed Related instruments Orders and directions issued under the 2012 regulations also repealed Sector Television broadcasting Main stakeholders Television channels, broadcasters and relevant service providers Effective date The source links the repeal to the issue/notification of the repealing regulations in the Official Gazette Nature of change Repeal/removal of an existing regulatory framework The 2026 development is therefore a repeal, not a new registration, licensing or filing framework. The attached release does not prescribe a new application process, compliance fee, reporting form or separate business deadline. The Regulatory Framework Role of TRAI In relation to this subject, the 2012 TRAI Regulations functioned as a quality-of-service regulation in connection with TV advertisement durations. The previous regime also provided the Authority with the power to make orders or directions to service providers for safeguarding the interests of subscribers or ensuring compliance with those regulations. Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994 It would be impossible to comprehend the relevant legal context merely by referring to TRAI Regulations. Rule 7(11) of the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994 was the regulation providing the advertisement-duration cap referred to in the TRAI framework. The purpose of the TRAI 2012 regulations was mainly to ensure enforcement of that cap as a quality-of-service regulation. It is significant to note that the removal of Rule 7(11) by the Central Government affected the continued validity of the TRAI framework. The 2012 TRAI Regulations TRAI had issued the Standards of Quality of Service (Duration of Advertisements in Television Channels) Regulations, 2012, identified as Regulation No. 15 of 2012 and dated 14 May 2012. Under this framework, television programme broadcasting was subject to a ceiling of 12 minutes of advertisements in a clock hour. TRAI also had powers under those regulations to issue directions or orders for compliance. The 2026 repeal removes this specific framework. What Was the 12-Minute Advertisement Rule? Prior to the 2026 amendment, the regulatory regime had a restriction on the advertising time not exceeding 12 minutes in one clock hour of TV program broadcasting. The restriction is not just an independent regulation formulated by TRAI. According to the press release, this restriction on the advertising time was formulated in accordance with Rule 7(11) of the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994. This distinction becomes important in 2026. MIB first removed the underlying Rule 7(11), after which TRAI moved to repeal the corresponding regulatory mechanism. Why Was the 12-Minute Advertisement Cap Removed? The official release identifies several considerations behind the Central Government's decision to remove Rule 7(11). Changes in the Television Broadcasting Sector The government referred to the considerable changes that have taken place in the television broadcasting sector. The release does not give a detailed market study or numerical analysis of those changes. It simply records changes in the sector as part of the reasoning behind the removal of the earlier ceiling. Therefore, broader claims about audience behaviour, broadcaster revenues or market growth should not be presented as official findings. Increased Competition and Consumer Choice Competition and consumer choice were also mentioned as specifically important considerations. In terms of policy, this suggests that there is an effort to avoid keeping the fixed advertisement time limit in place as it was set out in Rule 7(11). The press release does not claim that this amendment will automatically lead to any consumer benefit. Fair Competition and Ease of Doing Business The government also linked the decision with fair competition and ease of doing business in the television broadcasting sector. For broadcasters, removal of the specific ceiling may provide greater room to decide how advertising inventory is managed. That is a likely business implication of the regulatory change, not a guarantee of increased revenue or profitability. Why Did TRAI Repeal the 2012 Advertisement-Duration Regulations? The decision by TRAI is part of a relatively straightforward legal process. There was an association between the TRAI regulations of 2012 and the rule regarding the cap of advertisements being 12 minutes as per Rule 7(11). MIB, thereafter, deleted the said Rule 7(11) by a Gazette notification dated 21 August 2026. As the rule itself was deleted, TRAI felt that there would be inconsistency with its retention of the said regulations, as they were dependent on the rule that had been deleted. Thus, TRAI decided to withdraw the TRAI regulations of 2012. How Did the MIB Notification Lead to TRAI's 2026 Repeal? The regulatory sequence can be understood like this: Rule 7(11) of the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994 ↓ 12-minute advertisement-duration ceiling ↓ TRAI's 2012 regulations monitored and enforced the ceiling as a quality of service measure ↓ MIB omitted Rule 7(11) on 21 August 2026 ↓ The underlying 12-minute ceiling was removed. ↓ TRAI repealed its corresponding 2012 regulations in September 2026 These two regulatory agencies discharged separate roles within this sequence. The notification issued by MIB altered the rules of the Cable Television Networks Rules by deleting Rule 7(11), whereas TRAI repealed its own corresponding quality-of-service rules in response. TRAI did not itself amend Rule 7(11). What Exactly Has TRAI Repealed? The 2012 Regulations The principal instrument being repealed is the Standards of Quality of Service (Duration of Advertisements in Television Channels) Regulations, 2012 (15 of 2012) dated 14 May 2012. Orders Issued Under the Regulations The repeal is wider than the principal 2012 regulations alone. TRAI's release states that all orders issued under those regulations are also being repealed. The release does not individually list those orders. Their titles or numbers should therefore not be assumed without checking the relevant official records. Directions Issued Under the Regulations The same position applies to directions issued under the 2012 framework. Businesses maintaining old regulatory manuals, compliance notes or internal policies may therefore find it useful to check whether such documents still refer to earlier TRAI directions connected specifically with the repealed regulations. That review is a sensible internal compliance step the press release does not create a fresh filing requirement for doing so. What Has Changed? The 2026 change can be reduced to five main points: Rule 7(11) has been omitted: MIB removed the provision that contained the 12-minute television advertisement ceiling. These relevant TRAI rules have been annulled: TRAI has withdrawn the 2012 quality of service rules pertaining to that cap. Other relevant orders/directions are also included in this: The TRAI notification specifically includes orders and directions made under the former rules. The 12-minute regulatory cap mentioned in the notification has been discontinued with respect to this scheme: TRAI's enforcement process has been harmonized with the new Central Government rules. Broadcasters may have to revise their internal policy documents: Any policies/SOPs formulated in connection with the old rule may be revisited so that the internal teams do not operate on the basis of an out-of-date regulatory stance. The last point is a practical recommendation rather than a new statutory duty. Old vs New Television Advertisement-Duration Framework Compliance Area Earlier Position Position After 2026 Change Business Meaning Rule 7(11) Contained the 12-minute advertisement-duration ceiling Omitted by MIB The underlying ceiling referred to in TRAI's framework has been removed Advertisement duration 12-minute ceiling applied under the framework discussed in the release Specific ceiling removed with omission of Rule 7(11) Broadcasters gain greater flexibility under this specific framework TRAI 2012 regulations Continued as the QoS framework for monitoring/enforcing the ceiling Repealed Corresponding TRAI regulatory layer no longer continues Orders under 2012 regulations Could operate under the earlier framework Repealed along with the regulations Legacy references may need review Directions under 2012 regulations Issued for compliance with the earlier framework Repealed along with the regulations Internal compliance documents should be checked where relevant Business approach Advertising schedules had to account for the specific ceiling More flexibility under the repealed framework Wider legal and contractual requirements should still be checked separately The central difference is therefore not the creation of a new advertising rule. It is the removal of the specific ceiling and the regulatory framework that supported its enforcement. Timeline of the Regulatory Changes Event Date Authority Regulatory Effect Earlier advertisement-duration regulations 14 May 2012 TRAI Established the TRAI QoS framework linked to the 12-minute ceiling Rule 7(11) omitted 21 August 2026 Ministry of Information and Broadcasting Removed the underlying advertisement-duration ceiling referred to in the release Repealing Regulations issued 10 September 2026 TRAI Repealed the 2012 regulations along with related orders and directions Official Gazette effect As linked to Gazette issue/notification in the source Government/TRAI Repeal takes effect according to the Gazette-linked wording stated in the release The attached release does not separately provide a different Gazette publication date for the 2026 repealing regulations. For this reason, it is safer not to automatically treat 10 September 2026 as the effective date without reference to the actual Gazette notification. TRAI's official website separately lists the relevant press release with a publication date of 10 September 2026. Who Is Affected by the TRAI Repealing Regulations, 2026? Television Broadcasters and Channels Television channels will be the main businesses affected by this change, since the revoked framework related to the length of advertisements on television broadcasting. It is also essential for the legal and business departments of these channels to know that this particular 12-minute framework has been revoked. Advertising and Commercial Teams Advertising-sales and programming teams may also see practical effects. Internal scheduling systems that were designed around the previous ceiling may need to be reassessed. The repeal may provide greater operational flexibility, although any commercial changes will depend on the broadcaster's own programming, audience and contractual strategy. Legal and Compliance Teams The compliance team must verify if there are any references to Rule 7(11), TRAI 2012 regulations, or directions issued under these regulations in the manuals or legal matrices or SOPs maintained within the company. This would be helpful in order not to confuse a repealed provision with any ongoing obligations under other frameworks. Advertisers and Media Agencies Advertisers and media agencies may experience an indirect commercial effect because broadcasters could reconsider the way television advertising inventory is planned or offered. However, the TRAI release does not directly create a new licence, approval or registration requirement for advertisers or media agencies. Viewers and Consumers The government specifically referred to consumer choice while explaining the reason for removing the cap. That does not establish how individual viewers will respond to the change. Viewer experience will depend on how broadcasters use the greater flexibility available under the revised framework. What Does the Repeal Mean for Television Broadcasters? Advertisement Scheduling The most visible operational implication is greater flexibility under the specific advertisement-duration framework that has now been repealed. Broadcasters may reconsider how advertisements are placed within programming schedules rather than continuing to organise them solely around the earlier 12-minute ceiling. Advertising Inventory Planning The changes may also influence the planning and distribution of advertising inventories by the channels. A TV station could reevaluate the number and positioning of the advertising slots based on their programs. This does not mean that all TV channels will extend their advertisements or generate additional income from them. Internal Policy Review Policies written around the earlier framework may now contain references that are no longer current. A practical review can cover: internal advertisement-duration policies standard operating procedures compliance checklists programming instructions internal legal notes, and contractual references that specifically rely on the old limit. Regulatory Monitoring Removing one regulation does not remove the need to track regulation altogether. Television businesses should continue following official MIB and TRAI developments and separately check other legal, advertising, content and contractual requirements that may apply to their operations. What Happens to Earlier TRAI Orders and Directions? TRAI has clearly specified that the repeal includes all orders and directions passed under the 2012 advertisement duration rules. This is significant because many companies may have established systems in light of the directives issued by TRAI previously. Even after repealing the legal regime under which the previous directive was issued, the same directive can continue to be cited in a policy. Thus, broadcasters can make out such citations and see if they require any changes to be made to their internal documentation. The press note does not mention each order or direction separately, so it is better to verify the status of a specific historical document from the official documentation of TRAI. Does the Repeal Create Any New Compliance Requirement? No new registration, licence, filing, testing or approval requirement is described in the attached TRAI release. The regulatory action works in the opposite direction: an existing framework is being repealed. There is an important difference between a new statutory compliance requirement and a practical internal review following a regulatory change. Broadcasters may choose to update policies, brief teams and review old compliance references. Those are sensible governance measures, but the press release itself does not turn them into a new application or filing procedure. The release also does not specify: a new application form a fee a registration portal a certificate a periodic return a new licence or a separate compliance deadline. Impact on Television Broadcasting Businesses Operational Impact Programming and advertising scheduling teams may have more room to design broadcasting schedules without working around the specific 12-minute cap that formed part of the earlier framework. How individual channels use this flexibility will depend on their audience, programming strategy and commercial model. Commercial Impact The repeal may allow broadcasters to rethink advertisement inventory planning. A channel may decide to alter the way commercial slots are structured, but it would be incorrect to assume that the regulatory change will automatically increase revenue or advertising rates. Commercial results will vary from one broadcaster to another. Compliance Effect As far as compliance is concerned, the important change has been the elimination of a certain regulatory layer. The compliance department needs to be able to determine which provisions were included in the repealed regulation and which other provisions still pertain to television advertising/broadcasting. Policy/Contractual Effect There could be some organizations whose contractual obligations or internal guidelines specifically mention the 12-minute limit. If that is the case, then there is a need for re-examination. The fact that the regulation is repealed cannot by itself alter these private agreements/policies. Industry Impact Matrix Stakeholder Immediate Effect Operational/Commercial Impact Priority Review Television broadcasters Specific TRAI advertisement-duration framework repealed More scheduling flexibility may become available Advertising and programming policies Advertising teams Earlier ceiling no longer operates through this framework Inventory planning may be reassessed Sales and scheduling procedures Legal/compliance teams Legacy regulation and related TRAI instruments repealed Internal references may need updating Compliance manuals and regulatory matrices Advertisers/media planners Legacy regulation and related TRAI instruments repealed Available television inventory may be reassessed by broadcasters Media planning arrangements Viewers/consumers No new individual compliance duty Actual viewer effect depends on broadcaster practices Consumer experience considerations Ease of Doing Business and Commercial Impact Ease of doing business is not merely an inferred benefit in this case. It is one of the considerations expressly referred to in the official release when explaining the removal of Rule 7(11). The government also referred to fair competition and changes in the television broadcasting market. For businesses, removing a fixed regulatory ceiling can provide greater freedom in deciding how advertising time is commercially managed. Possible business implications include: more flexibility in advertisement scheduling less dependence on the earlier fixed-duration rule ability to reassess commercial airtime planning scope to align advertising decisions more closely with programming strategy and removal of the specific TRAI compliance layer associated with the old ceiling. These are potential operational benefits. The official release does not state that broadcasters will earn more revenue, obtain higher advertising rates or reduce costs by a particular amount. What Should Television Broadcasters Review Now? 1. Check References to the Old 12-Minute Rule Broadcasters can identify internal documents that still refer to the former Rule 7(11) ceiling. This may include compliance manuals, programme scheduling instructions and internal legal notes. 2. Review Advertisement Scheduling Policies Policies formulated strictly in response to the previous TRAI ceiling on advertising durations need to be reviewed afresh. This is not meant to eliminate all internal controls, but to ensure that current business practices are in line with the current regulatory regime. 3. Review Legacy TRAI References Any internal reference to the 2012 regulations, or to orders and directions issued under them, should be checked for continuing relevance.  4. Examine the Wider Broadcasting Framework The repeal should not be treated as proof that every television advertising requirement has disappeared. Other applicable legal, advertising, contractual or content-related obligations should be considered separately. 5. Align Programming, Commercial and Compliance Teams Different teams may otherwise continue working with different assumptions. A short internal regulatory update can help programming, advertising-sales, legal and compliance teams work from the same position. 6. Continue Monitoring TRAI and MIB Updates Regulatory monitoring remains useful because the official release does not announce what future policy, if any, may develop around advertisement duration. What Should Businesses Not Assume from the TRAI Repeal? It is a significant step, but the extent of it must not exceed what is supported by the official papers. The companies must not make any such assumptions that: all regulations for television advertisements have been repealed all advertising is now unrestricted all content-related standards have been abolished all private contractual provisions have ended there has been an introduction of a TRAI license due to this repeal or advertisers require a fresh approval. every historical TRAI regulation has been withdrawn broadcasters can make any advertising claim without restriction or commercial gains are guaranteed. The safest approach is to treat the development for what it is: the removal of a specific advertisement-duration ceiling and its corresponding TRAI regulatory framework. Impact on Viewers and Consumer Choice Consumer choice was expressly mentioned in the government's explanation for removing the earlier ceiling. The actual impact on viewers, however, cannot be predicted from the notification alone. Some broadcasters may change their advertisement scheduling, while others may maintain similar programming patterns for commercial or audience-related reasons. The source provides no data showing whether television advertisement duration will rise, fall or remain broadly unchanged after the repeal. For that reason, claims about viewer satisfaction, complaints, or audience decline would go beyond the available evidence. Benefits for Television Broadcasters The change may offer several practical advantages under this specific regulatory framework: Greater scheduling flexibility: Channels may have more room to structure advertisement breaks according to programming and commercial considerations. Removal of a fixed regulatory constraint: The specific 12-minute ceiling referred to in the earlier rules has been removed. Simpler treatment under this TRAI framework: Broadcasters no longer have to work with the particular quality of service regulation that has now been repealed. Opportunity to review advertising strategy: Commercial teams can reconsider inventory planning based on the revised regulatory position. Better alignment between government rules and TRAI regulations: TRAI's action removes the inconsistency that would otherwise arise after MIB deletes Rule 7(11). Support for ease of doing business: This is one of the objectives expressly referred to by the government. These benefits should be understood as regulatory and operational possibilities rather than guaranteed financial gains. Possible Challenges and Practical Considerations Removing a regulation can still create some short-term housekeeping work. Broadcasters may need to: update compliance manuals containing the old rule remove outdated references from internal policies check historical directions used in existing compliance systems align legal and commercial teams on the scope of the repeal review contracts that specifically mention the old ceiling and avoid assuming that unrelated advertising requirements have also ended. The official release does not specify an implementation cost for these activities. Is Removing the 12-Minute Advertisement Cap the Right Decision? Arguments Supporting the Change The government has tied the removal of the ceiling to alterations to the broadcasting industry, competition, choice, fair competition, and ease of doing business. Regulatory-wise, having Rule 7(11) stripped out, maintaining a TRAI structure that was designed mainly for implementation of this rule would be a clear contradiction. Thus, the repeal will help align both parts of the structure again. As far as broadcasters are concerned, the amendment will give them more flexibility in making their decisions in terms of programming and advertising without any ceiling on advertisement duration imposed by this specific rule. Practical Concerns Increased flexibility also increases the need for individual broadcasters to make that decision. There can also be the consideration of the viewer experience when making any decisions. Although the broadcaster is now free according to this specific context, there are still other factors to consider, such as the viewer experience, program format, agreements and legal obligations. The danger here is over-interpretation of the amended clause. The omission of one specific limitation does not mean that all other rules concerning advertisements or broadcasting can be ignored. Assessment of Regulation In terms of consistency of regulation, it was a reasonable step since Rule 7(11), which is the basis of this limitation, was already omitted by MIB. It would have been inconsistent to maintain this enforcement framework set by TRAI. For businesses, this change eliminates a specific regulatory limit and gives more flexibility. Nevertheless, any responsible broadcaster needs to treat this amendment as a reason to improve internal compliance and not ignore it. Business and Regulatory Perspective Regulatory Perspective It appears that there is a desire to maintain consistency between all the various elements of the broadcasting regulatory regime. First, MIB repealed the substantive requirement imposing the 12-minute cap on advertising in programming. After that, TRAI repealed the regulations that sought to implement that rule. This is because keeping in place an enforcement tool for a restriction that does not exist anymore, according to the official statement, would be pointless. Business Perspective The key business importance of this move is flexibility. Broadcasters can reconsider: advertising schedules advertising inventory programming strategy compliance documentation and business plans. Such decisions should be made by considering the entirety of relevant regulations applicable to the business rather than just a statement of repeal. Future Outlook The attached release does not announce a replacement advertisement-duration ceiling. It would therefore be speculative to say that TRAI or MIB will necessarily introduce another fixed limit. Television broadcasters should rather monitor: future TRAI broadcasting rules. Notifications from the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. Gazette amendments also concerning television services. government clarification on advertising standards, and any other guidance that is pertinent to broadcasting compliance. Until any further official directives are provided, businesses should refrain from basing their compliance planning on assumptions of what the government will do. What Businesses Should Do Next There is no separate compliance deadline expressly specified in the attached press release for businesses to complete a new filing or application. The practical priorities are simpler: Make sure you know the impact of the repeal on the regulatory status of the business. Look for internal documents that still refer to Rule 7(11) or the 2012 TRAI Regulations. Review your schedule and compliance policy in advertisements, taking into account the old ceiling. Brief your programming, legal, compliance, and commercial departments on the change. Check all other relevant requirements in broadcast and advertising law independently. Keep following TRAI and MIB official announcements. The goal of the measures is to avoid the situations where businesses would continue using outdated requirements or, on the contrary, interpret the repeal as lifting more obligations than it actually does. How Can Corpseed Help? Regulatory compliance does not only involve responding when a new licence or filing requirement is introduced. A repeal can also require a business to check whether existing policies, regulatory references and internal controls are still based on the correct legal position. Corpseed's regulatory compliance services can support broadcasters and other relevant businesses in reviewing such changes without turning a regulatory update into an unnecessary filing exercise. 1. Regulatory Applicability Assessment Corpseed can help businesses assess whether a TRAI, MIB or broadcasting-related regulatory development applies directly to their activities. This can help separate requirements affecting a television broadcaster from indirect commercial implications for advertisers or other stakeholders. 2. Regulatory Interpretation Support Official notifications usually have to be interpreted jointly with previous regulations and other regulatory acts. Corpseed will be able to help companies figure out what has really been amended, what has been abolished and what needs to be checked separately. 3. Compliance Gap Assessment A compliance gap assessment can identify internal policies, SOPs or regulatory matrices that still refer to outdated or repealed provisions. The objective is to bring internal compliance documentation in line with the current regulatory position. 4. Regulatory Compliance Advisory Services If your company needs help understanding other regulations that apply to its broadcasting or business activity, Corpseed can assist with providing compliance advisory services. This is particularly useful where a repeal affects one part of the framework, but other obligations may continue separately. 5. Internal Compliance Documentation Review Compliance manuals, SOPs, internal checklists and regulatory references can become outdated after amendments or repeals. Corpseed can assist in reviewing such documents and identifying areas that may need revision. 6. Ongoing Regulatory Compliance Support Broadcasting regulation can involve developments from more than one government authority. Corpseed is able to offer continuous compliance assistance in helping those businesses keep track of any developments that come up, and also evaluating the effect of such developments on existing business operations. Businesses that require assistance in understanding the implications of a certain TRAI/MIB development on their business operations may opt to seek regulatory compliance assistance. Key Takeaways TRAI issued The Standards of Quality of Service (Duration of Advertisements in Television Channels) (Repealing) Regulations, 2026, identified as 4 of 2026, dated 10 September 2026. The repealed 2012 framework was connected with a ceiling of 12 minutes of advertisements in one clock hour. MIB omitted Rule 7(11) of the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994 through a Gazette notification dated 21 August 2026. The government linked the removal of the ceiling with changes in the broadcasting sector, competition, consumer choice, fair competition and ease of doing business. Since TRAI repealed these regulations in 2012 because they would no longer be compatible with the amended stance following the omission of Rule 7(11), all orders and directions under these repealed regulations also fall within the ambit of the TRAI decision. The TRAI 12-minute advertisement rule 2026 revision does not introduce any new procedure for registration, application, filing, or approval in the attached release. Broadcasters must continue to consider other broadcasting and advertising rules, apart from reviewing internal references as well.

Subject

Summary: The Department of Telecommunications (DoT), under the Ministry of Communications, has brought Section 3(7) of the Telecommunications Act, 2023 into force from 21 August 2026. The change has been made through Notification S.O. 4616(E). The Central Government issued the notification using its powers under Section 1(3) of the Telecommunications Act, 2023. The Gazette clearly appoints 21 August 2026 as the date on which Section 3(7) becomes operational. That sounds straightforward, but there is an important distinction. S.O. 4616(E) is mainly a commencement notification. It does not contain a complete telecom KYC process, prescribe a new application form, or create a separate biometric licence. What it does is activate the statutory provision dealing with identification of users through verifiable biometric-based identification. The detailed position has to be understood by reading Section 3(7) together with the applicable User Identification Rules and DoT directions. For telecom operators, the change deserves attention because user identification is now tied directly to the framework of the Telecommunications Act, 2023. Businesses holding corporate telecom connections also need to understand their role, particularly where individual employees or other persons are using connections issued in the name of an organisation. Notification at a Glance Particular Details Issuing Ministry Ministry of Communications Department Department of Telecommunications Notification Number S.O. 4616(E) Notification Date 21 August 2026 Effective Date 21 August 2026 Governing Law Telecommunications Act, 2023 Power Used Section 1(3) Provision Brought into Force Section 3(7) Main Subject User identification through prescribed verifiable biometric-based identification Direct Compliance Procedure in S.O. 4616(E) Not specified Separate Application Form Not specified Separate Government Fee Not specified Separate Registration Not created by this notification Nature of Notification Commencement notification There is no gap between the date of this notification and the commencement date mentioned in it. Section 3(7) became effective on 21 August 2026 itself. What Does Section 3(7) Actually Say? Section 3(7) is fairly short, but its wording matters. Under the provision, an authorised entity providing a telecommunication service notified by the Central Government must identify the person receiving that service through a prescribed form of verifiable biometric-based identification. There are three parts to understand here. First, the provision places the responsibility on an authorised entity providing the relevant telecommunication service. Second, the provision refers to telecommunication services notified by the Central Government. This means the existence of Section 3(7) alone should not be read as proof that every type of telecom service is covered in the same manner. Third, Section 3(7) says that the biometric-based identification will operate as may be prescribed. In legal terms, that means the Act creates the requirement, while more detailed rules are needed to explain how the system operates. Section 56 of the Telecommunications Act also specifically gives the Central Government rule-making power regarding the verifiable biometric-based identification to be used under Section 3(7). That is why the Gazette notification cannot be read on its own. Why Does 21 August 2026 Matter? The Telecommunications Act was enacted earlier, but individual provisions of a law do not always become operational on the same date. Section 1(3) allows the Central Government to appoint commencement dates for provisions of the Act. S.O. 4616(E) uses that power specifically for Section 3(7). In practical terms, the position is: Stage What It Means Telecommunications Act, 2023 enacted Parliament created the legal framework Section 3(7) included in the Act Parliament created the statutory basis for biometric user identification. S.O. 4616(E) issued Government formally commenced Section 3(7) 21 August 2026 Section 3(7) became legally operational User Identification Rules and DoT instructions Detailed implementation has to be understood from these instruments This distinction matters because describing S.O. 4616(E) itself as a fresh "biometric KYC rule" would not be legally precise. The notification activates the section. It does not reproduce the entire operating framework. How Does the Wider User Identification Framework Fit In? DoT's Telecom e-Service Portal now specifically refers to the Telecommunications (User Identification) Rules, 2026 and states that the Rules have been made live on the portal. DoT has also published separate instructions relating to the implementation of the User Identification Rules. The Department's official resources page lists both the User Identification instructions and a consolidated list of earlier identification/KYC notifications. This creates a layered framework. The Telecommunications Act, 2023 provides the statutory basis. Section 3(7) creates the requirement for prescribed verifiable biometric-based identification for notified services. S.O. 4616(E) brings that provision into force. The User Identification Rules, 2026 provide a more detailed regulatory structure. Finally, DoT instructions deal with practical matters such as e-KYC, D-KYC, reverification, and business connections. For a compliance team, the real job is therefore not simply to read the two-page Gazette. The documents have to be read together. Who Is Expected to Follow the User Identification Requirements? The DoT instructions explain the categories of authorised entities to which the Rules may apply. These include entities holding an authorisation under Section 3(1)(a) of the Telecommunications Act, 2023, as well as certain entities continuing under licences granted under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 or migrating to the new authorisation framework in accordance with Section 3(6). This distinction is useful because not every company connected with the telecom industry is automatically an "authorised entity" for this purpose. A software vendor working for a telecom operator, for instance, does not become the authorised entity simply because it supports a KYC system. The applicable authorisation or continuing licence position has to be checked. That is the first compliance question telecom businesses should answer: what is the regulatory status of the entity providing the service? What Does Verifiable Biometric-Based Identification Mean for Businesses? The expression is important because Section 3(7) does not simply refer to ordinary document verification. The provision specifically requires a form of identification that is both biometric-based and verifiable, with the detailed method governed through the prescribed framework. DoT's implementation instructions also make clear that the User Identification Rules work with processes such as e-KYC, D-KYC, and user reverification. Businesses should avoid oversimplifying this into a statement such as "all users must now complete Aadhaar KYC." That would go beyond what S.O. 4616(E) itself says. The correct method depends on the applicable Rules, the user's circumstances, and the relevant DoT instructions. For telecom operators, this means existing subscriber-verification systems should be checked against the current framework rather than assuming that an older KYC process continues unchanged. What Happens to Earlier Telecom KYC Instructions? Telecom KYC did not begin in 2026. DoT has issued subscriber-verification instructions for many years. Its current User Identification notification list refers to earlier directions covering matters such as: verification of new prepaid and postpaid mobile subscribers; Digital KYC; Self-KYC; Aadhaar-based e-KYC; reverification of existing mobile connections; additional KYC requirements for business connections; KYC requirements for Internet Telephony Services; and SIM replacement involving end users of business connections. For example, DoT's list records Digital KYC instructions from 2019, Self-KYC and Aadhaar-based e-KYC instructions from 2021, business-connection KYC instructions from 2024, and Internet Telephony KYC requirements from 2025. The 2026 framework therefore does not begin from an empty regulatory position. The better approach for operators is to identify which earlier instructions continue to apply, which have been absorbed into the new framework, and whether any newer direction changes the way an existing process must operate. Simply deleting every old KYC SOP would be as risky as assuming that nothing has changed. What Do the New Rules Mean for Existing Connections? One question businesses are likely to ask is whether every existing telecom user now needs immediate fresh biometric verification. S.O. 4616(E) itself does not say that. The commencement notification only brings Section 3(7) into force. It does not contain an instruction requiring every existing subscriber to report for fresh verification on 21 August 2026. DoT separately maintains instructions dealing with reverification of existing mobile connections. Its current consolidated list refers to reverification directions issued in December 2021 and February 2022. Any fresh verification requirement should therefore be linked to the applicable Rules or a specific DoT direction rather than assumed merely from the commencement notification. For operators, that means existing connections and new connections should not automatically be treated as the same compliance situation. Business Connections Need Special Attention Corporate connections deserve a closer look because there can be more than one person involved. The connection may be taken in the name of a company, LLP, partnership, government body, or another organisation. In contrast, the SIM or telecom connection is actually used by an employee or another individual. This creates three different roles that compliance teams may have to distinguish: The business user is the organisation in whose business context the connection is being used. The authorised representative is the person authorised to act for that organisation. The end user is the person actually using the relevant business connection. This becomes particularly important where connections are regularly reassigned between employees. DoT's implementation instructions specifically deal with changes in the end user of a business connection. What Happens When a Business SIM Is Given to a New End User? This is one of the areas where the DoT instructions provide a clear timeline. According to the instructions published on the Department's portal, the authorised representative of a business user must inform the authorised entity about a change in the end user of a business connection within three working days from the date of the change. The instructions also state that the authorised representative must ensure that the new end user undergoes biometric-based identification within seven working days from the date of the change. Business Connection Event Time Allowed Main Responsibility End user of the connection changes Within 3 working days Inform the authorised entity New person starts using the connection Within 7 working days from the change Ensure biometric-based identification of the new end user This has a very practical consequence for employers. A company that reallocates corporate SIMs between employees cannot treat the change as purely an internal administrative matter. HR, administration, IT and whoever manages the telecom account may need a process for notifying the telecom provider and completing the required identification. A simple employee-exit checklist may therefore need to connect with the company's telecom-connection records. What Should Telecom Operators Review? For telecom operators, the regulatory change is less about creating one new form and more about checking whether the existing user-identification system still matches the law. A sensible review would start with the services being provided and the company's authorisation position. After that, the compliance team can look at the actual customer journey. Subscriber Onboarding Check how a new user is identified before a connection is provided. Existing e-KYC or D-KYC processes should be mapped against the current Rules and portal instructions. Business Accounts Enterprise connections often remain active for long periods while the individual end user changes. These accounts deserve separate controls because the person using the connection can be different from the company that originally obtained it. Reverification Teams should know what event or direction triggers reverification rather than treating it as an automatic requirement for every subscriber. Internal Records Subscriber records, authorised-representative information and end-user changes should remain consistent across customer, billing, KYC and enterprise-account systems. Staff and Channel Instructions A regulatory process can fail even when the written policy is correct if retail staff, enterprise teams or customer-support personnel follow an outdated procedure. That makes training and SOP review a practical part of implementation. What Should Companies Using Corporate Connections Do? The burden on an ordinary corporate user is different from the burden on the telecom operator. A company does not become responsible for operating the telecom provider's KYC system. It does, however, need control over the information it provides to the telecom company. Businesses with a sizeable pool of corporate connections should be able to answer a few basic questions without searching through several departments. Who is the authorised representative for the telecom account? Which employee or person is using each connection? When was a SIM last reassigned? Was the provider informed after the end user changed? Was the new user's required identification completed? These sound like small administrative details, but the three-working-day and seven-working-day requirements make them much more important for business connections. A useful internal arrangement is to connect telecom allocation with employee onboarding, transfers and exits. That reduces the chance of a company-owned connection continuing in the name of an old end user. Operator and Business User Responsibilities Are Not the Same Telecom Operator / Authorised Entity Corporate or Business User Apply the prescribed identification framework Provide accurate business and user information Carry out the required identification process Maintain an appropriate authorised representative Follow applicable DoT instructions Inform the provider of relevant end-user changes Maintain subscriber information required under the framework Keep internal SIM/end-user records current Handle applicable reverification Ensure the new end user participates in required verification Maintain regulatory controls around the process Coordinate telecom records with employee changes This distinction matters because articles on telecom KYC often speak about "business compliance" without explaining whether the obligation belongs to the telecom provider or to its customer. The two may have connected responsibilities, but they are not interchangeable. What About Misrepresentation of User Information? DoT's 2026 implementation instruction also refers to Rule 8 of the User Identification Rules and provides a format through which an authorised entity can inform the Central Government about specified misrepresentation. The format records the telecommunication identifier, the nature of the misrepresentation, and the steps taken by the authorised entity. This shows that user identification is not being treated merely as a one-time onboarding exercise. Accuracy of subscriber information remains relevant after the connection has been issued. For telecom operators, this means suspected identity misuse should be connected with the appropriate internal escalation and regulatory process. For businesses, it reinforces a simpler point: information relating to the actual user of a business connection should remain accurate. What S.O. 4616(E) Does Not Do Because the Gazette is so short, there is a risk of reading much more into it than it actually contains. S.O. 4616(E) does not, by itself: create a new telecom licence; ask operators to file a fresh registration application; provide a new application form; prescribe a government filing fee; list KYC documents; explain an e-KYC procedure; explain a D-KYC procedure; specify a separate compliance portal; create a periodic return; set a new audit frequency; provide a new inspection schedule; or contain its own penalty table. Its legal function is much narrower: it brings Section 3(7) into force from 21 August 2026. Operational details should therefore be taken from the applicable Rules and DoT instructions, not inserted into the commencement notification. Does This Notification Require a Fresh Telecom Licence? No. S.O. 4616(E) does not create a separate licence or registration simply for biometric user identification. Section 3(7) operates within the larger authorisation framework of the Telecommunications Act, 2023. Section 3(1) separately deals with the requirement to obtain Central Government authorisation for specified telecom activities. Existing and new authorisation matters therefore need to be assessed under the relevant authorisation provisions and rules. They should not be mixed with the commencement of Section 3(7). This distinction is particularly relevant for businesses researching compliance online because phrases such as "biometric telecom registration" or "Section 3(7) licence" can easily create the impression that a separate application has been introduced. The attached Gazette does not support that conclusion. Where Could the Real Compliance Difficulty Arise? The biggest challenge is unlikely to be understanding the two-page notification. The harder part is translating the wider framework into day-to-day operations. For a large telecom operator, user identification can touch several teams at once: legal, regulatory affairs, customer onboarding, enterprise sales, KYC operations, IT, fraud control, and customer support. A change that looks minor from a legal perspective may therefore require several systems to communicate correctly. Business accounts present another practical issue. A company may own hundreds or thousands of active connections spread across offices and employees. The telecom provider may have one record, while HR has another and IT asset management has a third. If those records are not aligned, identifying the actual end user can become difficult. The new framework makes that gap worth examining. What Should Telecom Businesses Do Now? Rather than redesigning every process immediately, businesses can start with a focused compliance review. Priority Practical Review 1 Confirm whether the entity falls within the relevant authorised-entity framework 2 Identify which of its telecommunication services are covered by the applicable notification 3 Review current e-KYC, D-KYC and reverification procedures 4 Check the process followed for business connections 5 Review how changes in corporate end users are recorded 6 Check whether the 3-working-day and 7-working-day business-user timelines have been built into internal processes 7 Review existing SOPs and staff instructions 8 Monitor the DoT portal for updated directions and clarifications The purpose of this exercise is not to create paperwork for its own sake. It is to find out whether what the business actually does matches the rules it is now expected to follow. Will the New Framework Increase Compliance Costs? Possibly, but the impact will not be the same for every operator. S.O. 4616(E) itself does not prescribe an implementation fee. The practical cost is more likely to arise from internal changes: updating technology, adjusting onboarding systems, training customer-facing teams, managing corporate-user records, and reviewing existing processes. Large operators may already have much of this infrastructure because DoT had KYC, Digital KYC, Aadhaar-based e-KYC, business-connection and reverification instructions before 2026. For such businesses, the work may be more about aligning existing systems with the new statutory framework. Smaller organisations may find the process heavier if user-identification controls have historically been spread across different systems or teams. No single implementation-cost figure should therefore be treated as applicable to the whole industry. What Are the Possible Benefits? There is a clear policy logic behind stronger identification of telecom users. A connection linked more reliably with its actual user can make subscriber records more dependable. It may also make it harder to maintain connections using false or outdated identities. For business connections, accurate end-user records can help answer a basic question that can otherwise become surprisingly difficult: who was actually using this connection at a particular time? Other possible benefits include: better traceability of telecom connections; more reliable subscriber information; clearer accountability for corporate SIMs; stronger controls when a business connection changes hands; better handling of suspected identity misuse; and greater consistency between user-identification systems and the new Telecommunications Act framework. These should be viewed as expected regulatory benefits, not guarantees that identity fraud will disappear. Is Biometric User Identification a Right Decision or an Additional Burden? It is both a stronger control and an additional operational responsibility. Positive Side Compliance Concern Better assurance about user identity More work in onboarding and account management Improved traceability Technology and system changes may be required Better corporate end-user records Companies need tighter SIM allocation controls More structured response to identity misuse Staff and channel teams need updated training Stronger statutory basis for user identification Operators must align old KYC processes with the new framework From the regulator's side, there is a reasonable case for improving the quality of subscriber identification. Telecom connections can be misused when identity information is false, outdated, or disconnected from the person actually using the service. From the business side, stronger controls do not come without effort. The biggest burden is likely to fall on organisations handling very large numbers of users or corporate connections. Updating a single connection is straightforward. Keeping thousands of employee connections correctly mapped while people join, leave or move roles is a different exercise. The policy therefore looks less like a completely new KYC system and more like an attempt to place a firmer statutory structure around user identification. Its success will depend on how workable the prescribed processes remain for both operators and genuine users. A Small but Important Issue in the DoT Implementation Circular There is also an unusual drafting point business should be aware of. The DoT PDF currently available on the official portal for instructions under the User Identification Rules contains blank placeholders in parts of its header. The displayed document shows an incomplete date and circular number, and the reference to the notified services is also left incomplete in the text. At the same time, the same document contains substantive directions, including the three-working-day and seven-working-day requirements for changes in business-connection end users. This does not justify ignoring the document, but it does mean compliance teams should keep watching the DoT portal for a corrected, replaced, or clarified version. Where a document itself contains a visible drafting gap, businesses should not fill it with assumptions. How Corpseed Can Help Telecom user identification is no longer something that can be checked by looking at one KYC circular. Depending on the business, the answer may involve the Telecommunications Act, the User Identification Rules, earlier DoT instructions, the company's existing licence or authorisation position, business-connection controls and the way end-user changes are handled internally. This is where a telecom compliance consultant can help a business turn the legal framework into a practical review of its existing processes. Corpseed can support relevant telecom operators and businesses with: Section 3(7) applicability assessment:  reviewing whether the provision and related user-identification requirements apply to the entity and service concerned; Telecom regulatory compliance services:  examining the wider DoT framework connected with the business activity; Telecom KYC compliance assessment:  comparing existing e-KYC, D-KYC and reverification processes with applicable requirements; Business-connection compliance review:  checking authorised-representative and end-user management processes; Compliance gap assessment:  identifying differences between written procedures and the actual operating process; SOP and regulatory-document review:  helping teams organise internal user-identification and escalation procedures; Telecom authorisation compliance support:  where separate authorisation requirements under the Telecommunications Act are relevant; and Ongoing regulatory monitoring:  tracking relevant DoT notifications, instructions and clarifications. The purpose of professional support is not to replace the Department of Telecommunications or to guarantee a regulatory outcome. It is to help businesses identify the correct rules, understand what applies to their operations and reduce avoidable gaps between regulatory requirements and day-to-day practice. Businesses that need help reviewing their user-identification, corporate connection or DoT compliance processes can work with a telecom compliance consultant for a focused assessment instead of treating every telecom notification as a separate filing requirement. Key Takeaways Section 3(7) of the Telecommunications Act, 2023 became operational on 21 August 2026 through S.O. 4616(E). The provision requires an authorised entity providing a notified telecommunication service to identify the user through prescribed verifiable biometric-based identification. The Gazette itself does not explain the complete KYC process. Detailed implementation has to be read with the Telecommunications (User Identification) Rules, 2026 and applicable DoT directions. DoT's current implementation instructions expressly refer to e-KYC, D-KYC, and user reverification. For business connections, an end-user change is particularly important. DoT's portal instructions require intimation within three working days and biometric-based identification of the new end user within seven working days from the change. Businesses should therefore focus less on creating unnecessary new filings and more on checking whether existing telecom KYC, corporate connection and user-management processes match the current framework.