Smart TV companies, FAST platforms seek light-touch rules for digital TV ecosystem

India’s rapidly expanding Free Ad-Supported Streaming Television (FAST) ecosystem is staring at a potential regulatory flashpoint, with smart television makers, streaming platforms and digital industry bodies cautioning the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) against imposing legacy broadcasting rules on internet-delivered television services.

As TRAI evaluates a possible regulatory framework for Application-based Linear Television Distribution (ALTD) and FAST channels, industry stakeholders including LG Electronics India, CloudTV, RunnTV and the Manufacturers’ Association for Information Technology (MAIT) have argued that excessive regulation could derail innovation, increase compliance costs and weaken India’s ambitions of becoming a major digital content and creator economy hub.

Industry estimates shared by Swift TV suggest that the number of connected TV households is expected to rise from around 20 million currently to over 40 million by 2028, while FAST advertising revenues could touch nearly $600 million during the same period.

The emerging segment has attracted global technology companies, television manufacturers, operating system providers and homegrown startups looking to build ad-supported television ecosystems for India’s internet-first audiences.

TV manufacturers reject broadcaster tag

A key fault line in the consultation process revolves around whether smart television manufacturers and operating system providers should be treated as broadcasters or distribution platform operators merely because FAST applications come pre-installed on television sets.

LG Electronics India strongly opposed such classification, arguing that television manufacturers function only as neutral technology enablers and do not exercise editorial or distribution control over content carried through third-party applications.

“The mere fact that an application offering FAST channels is pre-installed on a Smart TV does not legally transfer the status of a content distributor to the manufacturer,” the company said in its submission, comparing its role to that of internet service providers that facilitate access without controlling content.

MAIT, which represents leading technology and electronics companies, echoed the argument, saying television manufacturers are already governed by multiple regulatory requirements ranging from Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) certification to energy efficiency norms and environmental compliance obligations.

The industry body warned that introducing additional broadcasting-related obligations for hardware manufacturers would increase operational complexity and disrupt product development and launch cycles.

According to MAIT, imposing fresh licensing or certification layers would run contrary to the government’s broader ease-of-doing-business agenda and discourage innovation in the consumer electronics sector.

FAST platforms seeks lighter regulatory approach

Domestic FAST platform operators and connected TV startups are also advocating a significantly lighter regulatory regime than the one currently applicable to cable television and DTH operators.

Companies such as CloudTV and RunnTV have argued that internet-based television delivery systems are structurally different from traditional broadcasting platforms because they do not rely on scarce public resources such as satellite spectrum.

“Applying legacy broadcast regulation to ALTD would be structurally inappropriate and risk stifling innovation,” RunnTV said in its comments to the regulator.

The companies have proposed a simple registration-based system with the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting instead of a full-fledged licensing regime involving extensive compliance obligations.

Industry stakeholders said FAST platforms lower content access barriers by making premium entertainment, news and niche programming available free of cost to consumers through advertising-supported models.

MAIT further argued that attempting to force digital streaming platforms into the same regulatory framework as legacy cable operators would amount to “penalising innovation” and could slow India’s transition toward a digital-first media ecosystem.

Demand for level playing field

Another major concern raised by stakeholders relates to regulatory parity across platforms.

CloudTV said that if internet-based linear television distribution is brought under a licensing framework, then the same obligations should uniformly apply to all streaming and video platforms carrying linear feeds, including large global technology and social media companies.

Industry participants warned against selective regulation that could disproportionately burden Indian startups and domestic television ecosystems while leaving international platforms outside the ambit of similar rules.

MAIT pointed to international practices in markets such as the United States and the European Union, where FAST platforms are generally treated as neutral distributors rather than broadcasters.

The association also opposed proposals such as mandatory carriage obligations, arguing that such rules are redundant in internet-based ecosystems where consumers can independently access channels and services online.

Data privacy and content liability concerns

Stakeholders also raised concerns over proposals involving user data sharing and content accountability.

While most players expressed willingness to support aggregated audience measurement systems for advertising and analytics purposes, they cautioned against mandatory sharing of individual-level user data.

MAIT argued that such requirements could conflict with provisions under India’s Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act and create privacy risks for consumers.

On content regulation, industry players maintained that primary responsibility should remain with broadcasters and channel owners rather than platform aggregators or device manufacturers.

According to the submissions, FAST and ALTD platforms should only be required to comply with lawful takedown notices and intermediary obligations rather than bear direct editorial liability for third-party content.

The industry also urged TRAI to avoid intervention in commercial aspects such as home screen placement, electronic programme guide positioning and revenue-sharing arrangements, describing them as market-driven editorial and business decisions.

As consultations continue, stakeholders are pressing TRAI to adopt a future-ready framework that encourages innovation while avoiding what they describe as outdated regulatory thinking designed for legacy broadcasting infrastructure.

Executives and industry bodies warned that overregulation at an early stage of market evolution could weaken India’s competitiveness in the global streaming and connected television economy just as adoption begins accelerating.