Should device makers and operating-system providers carry regulatory obligations for content distribution? Discuss with reference to recent recommendations on connected-TV services.

On connected TVs, the device maker (OEM) and the operating-system (OS) provider decide which apps come pre-installed and where they sit on the home screen. TRAI's October 2026 recommendations on Application-based Linear Television Distribution (ALTD) services, which include FAST channels, recognise this by placing obligations on OEMs and OS providers. The authorisation itself is held only by the Application Provider [1]. A limited, clearly defined set of obligations is justified.

Case for obligations

• Control over access: TRAI notes that linear TV now reaches viewers through pre-installed apps on TV sets, as well as mobile and web apps [1]. Whoever controls the device largely decides what viewers find.
• Regulatory parity: MIB's reference asked TRAI for parity, content accountability and consumer protection [1]. Without device-level duties, an app carrying unapproved channels could be pre-loaded on the same screen that serves regulated cable and DTH.
• Closing loopholes: The Parliamentary Standing Committee found "differential content standards" between cable and OTT [2]. Obligations on gatekeepers make it harder to get around ALTD's rule that only government-approved channels may be carried [1].

Case against / concerns

• Who enforces them? OEMs and OS providers hold no authorisation [1], so it is unclear how their duties would be enforced. The Committee has already warned that cable TV has too many regulators (TRAI, DoT, MIB) [2].
• Overlap with the IT Act: Platforms that only host content get safe-harbour protection under the IT Act, 2000 [3]. Treating device makers as distributors blurs this line and adds cost for global manufacturers.
• Free speech and due process: PRS noted that the draft Broadcasting Bill, 2023 has no appeal against central government orders [3]. Gatekeeper duties without an appeal route could cause over-blocking.
• Legal home not yet ready: ALTD sits inside the 2025 broadcasting authorisation framework, which is still waiting for its Rules to be notified [4].

Way forward

• Set narrow duties in the Section 56 Rules: don't pre-load unauthorised ALTD apps, and show channels fairly and without discrimination.
• List refusal grounds tied to Article 19(2) and provide an appeal mechanism.
• MIB and MeitY should agree in writing which ministry governs what.

OEMs and OS providers should therefore carry obligations in proportion to their gatekeeping power, not the full liability of a distributor. With clear rules and appeals, ALTD can deliver regulatory parity while still supporting ease of doing business and Article 19(1)(a) freedoms.