GST makes smart TVs cheaper, but FAST channels get away smarter

New Delhi: When the new GST reforms kicked in on September 22, 2025, the price tags on Smart TVs and Connected TVs tumbled. For millions of Indian households, suddenly that sleek connected screen no longer feels like a luxury but a weekend upgrade waiting to happen.

Cheaper devices, of course, mean more eyeballs chasing content over the internet.

And right in the sweet spot of this boom sit FAST (Free Ad-Supported Television) channels. They hand out free programming paid for by advertising. Unlike cable or satellite channels, they don’t bother with pricey licences, uplinking and downlinking rituals, or a pile of security clearances. All they need is a stable internet line and an app window to sneak into homes.

Sounds neat, but here is the catch.

While traditional broadcasters continue to operate under the strict oversight of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, FAST channels remain largely outside its purview.

Broadcasters are required to apply for licences, pay hefty annual fees, and submit their content to monitoring frameworks. They operate under rules that govern everything from the percentage of foreign direct investment to what can be shown in news bulletins. FAST channels, on the other hand, are not bound by these restrictions.

An unregulated disruption

Manoj Chhangani, Secretary General of All India Digital Cable Federation (AIDCF) puts things in perspective. 

“FAST channels are not just competition; they are an unregulated disruption that threatens the very survival of licensed cable operators. While cable shoulders heavy levies and compliance, FAST channels bypass licensing and capture the same audiences and ad revenues, creating a deeply uneven playing field. Unless the principle of ‘same service, same rules’ is applied, cable operators risk being pushed out faster in metros,” he said, responding to the queries by BestMediaInfo.com. 

Even the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) spotted the elephant in the room. It noted that “FAST channel services, to the extent they are streaming TV channels, are quite similar to traditional broadcasting.” 

In view of the above, the authority, in its Recommendations on Regulatory framework for Ground-based Broadcasters, noted that “MIB may examine whether FAST channels are compliant with the extant guidelines/policy framework. If necessary, MIB may issue necessary policy guidelines for such channels in consultation with TRAI.” 

Nine months later, MIB has yet to break its silence.

The legal lens

Linear TV broadcasters must obtain uplinking/downlinking permission under the Policy Guidelines of MIB, comply with the Cable TV Act, 1995, Programming/Advertising Codes, and pay license fees. 

FAST channels, on the other hand, operate purely over the internet. They are not covered by the Cable TV Act (which regulates cable operators and television channels transmitted through cable/satellite). Nor do they need spectrum allocation or uplinking permissions. This allows FAST to distribute content to Indian households without equivalent obligations. 

This, according to Advocate Sushant Chaturvedi, is a “textbook example of regulatory arbitrage under Indian law.” 

Chaturvedi pointed out that there is a strong constitutional argument under Article 14, which guarantees equality before law, to ensure a level playing field between licensed broadcasters and FAST platforms. 

Courts have in the past expressed concerns over such discriminatory burdens between similarly placed businesses, said Advocate Chaturvedi, citing the pending cases involving telecom and OTT communication services as an example. 

“Unlike satellite channels, there are no mandatory clearances from the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, or TRAI. FAST platforms are only required to notify the MIB and follow its Programming Code. This absence of gatekeeping makes them closer to OTT platforms in terms of regulation, even though they have the look and feel of traditional broadcast TV, which leaves them far less regulated,” he told BestMediaInfo.com.

Wide doors for unregulated content and foreign fiascos

What worries many is how easily unregulated content slips into the FAST ecosystem. Since these channels do not need prior approval or clearance, there is little scrutiny of what gets streamed. 

That opens the door for everything from lightly fact-checked news streams to sensationalist entertainment and even channels recycling pirated or poor-quality material. 

Sharing his perspective on the matter, Chhangani said, “The unchecked proliferation of FAST channels raises serious regulatory and security concerns. Under the existing Uplinking and Downlinking Guidelines, only permitted TV channels are to be distributed in India, and only through licensed service providers such as MSOs, DTH, HITS, and IPTV. 

Despite this, several unlicensed FAST platforms are transmitting both permitted channels and entirely unauthorised channels that have never been registered with the MIB. This is a direct violation of the regulatory framework and undermines the integrity of India’s broadcasting ecosystem.” 

Adding to the unease is the fact that many FAST channels streaming in India are foreign-origin. Unlike traditional broadcasters, which must have local entities, secure licences and comply with caps on foreign ownership, these overseas players face no such hurdles.

They can beam content into Indian living rooms without registering with the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, paying licence fees, or even maintaining a local compliance officer.

For domestic broadcasters who carry the weight of regulation and cost, this “free pass” for foreign channels feels like salt in the wound, while cementing worries that it could open the floodgates for unchecked content and influence.

Chiming in on the matter, Varun Ramdas, Senior Manager, Koan Advisory Group, said, “Legally, yes, foreign FAST channels operate in a grey area.” 

Ramdas stated that this is a very fertile premise for “the government, sooner rather than later, to issue guidelines for FAST channel registration and an advisory mandating that only registered channels can be distributed, effectively bringing them under a formal regulatory framework.”

A pandora’s box waiting to open

According to Advocate Chaturvedi, if FAST continues to operate without checks, traditional broadcasters could eventually demand deregulation, arguing for competitive neutrality. 

“The fact that digital platforms can run without any licensing requirement threatens to undermine the popularity of linear television and could cause a significant setback for the industry as audiences increasingly migrate to FAST channels,” he said.

He also added that it sets a dangerous precedent that internet delivery means freedom from licensing, which risks unraveling the Cable TV Act’s licensing model. In the long run, this not only erodes content standards but also deprives the government of crucial revenue from license fees.

Adding more depth, Chhangani highlighted that the absence of oversight means no enforcement of programme and advertising codes, no redressal for consumers, and no control over inappropriate, harmful, or misleading content. 

“From a security standpoint, by bypassing regulatory safeguards, FAST channels open vulnerabilities around unvetted foreign feeds, misinformation, and potentially hostile propaganda being streamed directly into Indian homes without any accountability,” he said. 

Are there any solutions?

Koan Advisory Group’s Ramdas suggested that India should look to adopt proportionate, activity-based rules rather than blanket parity.

“Start by defining what FAST channels do and which functions need oversight. Options like light-touch registration and targeted obligations on addressability and transparency of ownership can be required,” he said. 

He further noted, “While graded compliance or sandbox models are often suggested to encourage innovation, FAST doesn’t really merit that exceptional treatment. It is a new distribution mode, not an entirely new service with unknown risks. The benefits and challenges are foreseeable.” 

He explained that Pre-legistative consultation and market studies before interventions are strong tools in the government’s hands if used correctly, and essential for long-term regulatory stability. 

Providing a legal framework, Advocate Chaturvedi highlighted the existing statute that could apply to FAST. According to him, if the government were to act today, three existing statutes offer potential regulatory hooks for FAST channels: 

• Cable Television Networks Act, 1995: Currently limited to governing content through the Programming Code and Advertising Code.
  

• Information Technology Act, 2000: Along with the 2021 IT Rules for digital media, this law regulates intermediaries and online publishers. FAST services can be classified as OTT platforms under these rules.
  

• Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA): For foreign FAST channels earning Indian advertising revenue, FEMA provisions on cross-border advertising payments could be triggered.
  

The ground ‘realitea’

This one is probably the most glaring part of the whole story. Apparently, the problem is far deeper and has a prolific history to it.

A senior media veteran, requesting anonymity, pointed out that this FAST frenzy is not new at all. 

“Even in the old cable days, local operators routinely ran their own ad-supported channels without licences, and FAST is essentially a more visible, normalised version of that. That’s why, despite loud statements, enforcement on the ground remains weak,” the veteran pointed out. 

According to the media veteran, Advertising-supported channels, even local MSO channels, have always existed, though now FAST normalises it. This isn’t new. It’s as old as India’s cable plant. Regulatory delays on light-touch rules reflect vested interests intertwined with politics. Enforcement is challenging. 

Governments have shifted focus from broadcast mechanisms to content regulation, addressing violence, indecency, enmity, religious blasphemy, because delivery mechanisms are now too diverse to regulate. 

Content regulation addresses societal pressures around religion, caste, and community and has become the core of regulatory efforts. Content regulation, hence, is the realistic path. 

An anecdote from the past for our readers, as narrated by an industry veteran

Back in the first term of the UPA government under Dr Manmohan Singh (2004–2009), the then Minister of Information and Broadcasting Priyaranjan Das Munshi attempted to introduce a broadcast bill. 

At a consultation held at the India International Centre in Delhi around 2005 or 2006, broadcasters revolted.

Those who were present still recall the resistance vividly. Senior editors Ravish Kumar, then with NDTV, and Aroon Purie, Chairman of the India Today Group, stood up to denounce the very idea of state intervention in programming. 

“We will not even discuss this bill,” Purie is remembered as saying, while Kumar made the same point in Hindi. The meeting ended abruptly, and the draft was buried, remembered only as a misadventure in content regulation.

Nearly two decades later, the question of regulating what Indians watch has returned, but in a different avatar. This time it is not satellite broadcasters but a new breed that dominates the debate.