CASBAA_A Tilted Playing Field_Asia Pacific Pay TV & OTT

A Tilted Playing FieldAsia-Pacific Pay TV and OTT

Executive Summary 2

New Ways, Old Regs 3

The Dark Side 5

Conclusions 8

Brief Snapshots 11

Country Matrixes

Australia 16

China 18

Hong Kong 22

India 24

Indonesia 26

Japan 28

Malaysia 30

New Zealand 32

Philippines 34

Singapore 36

South Korea 38

Taiwan 42

Thailand 44

Vietnam 46

Acknowledgements 48

Table of Contents

2

Executive Summary

The business of delivering video to consumers

is undergoing a revolution; driven by new media

devices (such as tablets and smartphones),

growing broadband penetration, the rise of

platform competitors in most markets, and the

emergence of a new generation learning to

consume media via multiple devices in multiple

settings.

Many of the “new media” services arrive in the

consumer’s home over broadband data lines

which access the entire range of services and

media available over the global internet. Unlike

traditional pay-TV offerings or even the relatively

newer IPTV services marketed by telcos, the vast

majority of internet video is obtained from third

parties disaggregated from the networks over

which the data is transmitted.

This has given rise to “OTT” video for television

delivered “over the top” of broadband data. OTT

video uses internet infrastructure to reach the

consumer with an ever-growing array of offerings

from major media companies as well as new

entrants.

Off-shore/On-shoreA few governments in Asia distinguish between

different types of services and have implemented

differentiated regulatory approaches. However in

most Asian markets OTT video remains subject

only to the relatively loose regulations applied to

internet services.

CASBAA has examined the regulatory frameworks

in 14 Asian markets, seeking to understand how

the rules applied to OTT television differ from those

applied to pay-TV systems. (A similar analysis could

be done for free-to-air terrestrial TV regulations,

as free-to-air broadcasters usually face even more

substantial regulatory constraints, but the scope of

our interest is the pay-TV ecosystem). We consulted

with industry players, legal experts and government

agencies in an effort to understand how market

players and regulators view OTT television, as well

as the rules governing it.

Because in most places, most OTT offerings

take place within the framework of internet

regulation, we have summarized our findings in

two categories: pay-TV and OTT. This corresponds

to the regulatory reality, but it blurs many of the

key distinctions among OTT platforms – most

prominently between those located within a given

market and those located offshore.

And it also ignores the crucial difference between

legitimate platforms and those using unauthorized

and stolen programming for their content base.

TV’s Tilted Playing Field 3

For that reason, we have noted in our data

matrixes where a few governments have put

differentiated rules in place (for example,

regulating subscription OTT platforms in one

way, while treating ad-based services differently)

or licensing OTT services originating within the

government’s jurisdiction, but allowing platforms

offshore to enter as “internet services.” Where

those distinctions were clear, we have reported

them in our data matrixes.

New Ways, Old RegsDetailed examination of the regulatory frameworks

revealed a major dichotomy: a video stream,

delivered over a traditional, regulated pay-TV

network, is subject to numerous constraints,

burdens and requirements – many of which

are holdovers from legacy “broadcasting”

regulatory approaches – while the identical

video stream, delivered “over the top”, is much

more lightly regulated. Lower taxation, lighter

content regulation, fewer constraints on business

models (e.g. advertising), and of course weak or

nonexistent intellectual property protection are

all features of the OTT video environment in most

Asian markets.

Indeed, the very lightest regulatory hand is

reserved for video products supplied through the

global internet. Even governments which profess

to exercise some level of control over OTT services

originating within their own jurisdictions shrug

their shoulders and admit that a service provider

based offshore is almost impossible to govern

under existing rules and policies.

The result, not surprisingly, has been the rise of a

major industry housed offshore and largely out of

regulatory reach, using the internet to deliver video

without regard to national rules and regulations

– and the rules requiring respect for intellectual

property are the most flouted. The pirate video

transmission business is the most international,

least law-abiding, and lowest tax-paying of

any segment of the global media business. It

is growing by leaps and bounds, sapping the

energy of indigenous creative industries and

TV business operators around the region and

Internet-Based Television (authorised & unauthorised)

DescRIpTION examples

legal sites “Catch-up” television BBC iPlayer; Hulu; TVB.com; iwanttv.com.ph

Live streaming Willow.tv

VOD offered by pay-TV providers Comcast XFINITY; J:COM Xvie

“TV Everywhere” Offerings by content/platform partnerships

HBOGo; Fox Movies Play; ESPNPlayer

VOD (and subscription VOD) streaming offered by providers other than pay-TV providers

Netflix, Hulu, Quickflix

User-generated uploads (amateur and professional)

YouTube, Dailymotion

Illegal sites Cyberlockers Megaupload, etc.

Live streaming 3pTV.cn

Peer-to-Peer BitTorrent networks The Pirate Bay

Closed peer-to-peer networks (numerous sites accessed by Android-based TV boxes)

4

capturing very large advertising revenues for the

benefit of essentially global organized criminal

conspiracies1.

This CASBAA study points up the need for urgent

attention to the issues of the tilted playing field.

Legitimate video supply industries cannot sustain

investment and continue to improve networks

and services in the face of unequal competition

from lightly-regulated internet-based services

– or worse – totally unregulated pirate video

transmission networks. Governments which allow

a tilted playing field and unhealthy competitive

environment to persist will see their own creative

industries damaged, local broadcasters weakened,

and investment in networks and content impaired.

In the end consumers will be worse off.

Action by regulators, officials, and political

leaders is necessary. CASBAA believes that

two important fields of action must be pursued:

governments must review their existing regulatory

constraints on pay-TV systems, in light of the

competitive challenge from legitimate OTT video.

Action should be taken to reduce or eliminate

regulatory codes, taxation policies, content

controls, etc. that burden the pay-TV industry and

leave it handicapped in the face of content from

OTT providers. And steps must be taken to block

growth of the illegitimate OTT sector – to prevent

offshore pirate video operators from growing

business models based on misuse and theft of the

legitimate industries’ content.

Unfortunately, there is ample evidence that

governments are not inclined to look the future in

the face and take decisions that make maximum

economic sense, but carry some political risk –

no matter how small. Bureaucracies created to

regulate broadcasting, shape revenue flows, and

control what the general public may watch do not

easily yield, even in the face of ample evidence

that the general public is turning away from the

regulated media and using online sources subject

to fewer strictures. One recent example has been

Australia’s Convergence Review, which posed

many excellent questions challenging the logic

of differential regulation, but which ended with

proposals that aimed to extend broadcast regulatory

schemes to OTT providers, including government

controls on use of sporting events, and local content

quotas. Australia’s decision to launch a review was

clear-sighted – they went first. But CASBAA hopes

other administrations will not follow Australia in

moving backwards rather than forwards.

Throughout Asia, similar issues lie in wait; they

will come to the fore in response to technological,

political and commercial developments in each

market. Indeed, generalizations are very risky in

this region, where political systems are dissimilar,

broadband penetration rates vary so hugely, and

where there is every prospect that great “digital

divides” between urban and rural areas will persist

for decades to come. A detailed examination by each

government of its own rules, and the development

of its own broadband economy is essential.

CASBAA firmly believes that the orientation of those

examinations should be to reduce the regulatory

load on tax-paying, job-generating Asian pay-TV

industry players, and not to try to find ways to extend

burdens to legitimate online content delivery.

The pirate video transmission business is the most international, least law-abiding, and lowest tax-paying of any segment of the global media business

___________________________________________________________________________________________1 The Megaupload website reported that it had 180 million registered users, received an average of 50 million daily visits,

and accounted for 4 percent of global internet traffic before it was closed pursuant to court indictments in the USA. It used these visits to generate large revenues from advertising, estimated in court documents at US$25 million.


The Dark SideThe transmission of video content over the internet

is growing at a phenomenal rate. Cisco’s “Visual

Networking Index” study noted that while global

fixed-line internet traffic is growing at roughly

a 28% CAGR, carriage of video traffic on the

internet is rising even more rapidly – at a 34%

CAGR. Asia is already the largest consumer of

internet services among global regions; rising

consumption of video content on the Asian

internet is expected to drive a near-tripling of Asian

internet use (measured in petabytes1) over the next

four years.

Consumer Internet Traffic Forecast in Asia-

Pacific

Unfortunately, a significant portion of this

consumption is videos transmitted unlawfully by

companies and syndicates ignoring copyright and

seeking to profit from the work of others. A 2011

study of Internet traffic by the research firm Mark

Monitor found that the top 43 sites for digital piracy

generated 53 billion unique visits annually, with the

then-top-three sites alone – which featured large

amounts of streaming video – accounting for 21

billion annual visits. A different web intelligence

firm, NetResult, reported that every major premium

sporting event gives rise to hundreds of unique

live OTT video streams. NetResult observed that

the number of sites promoting user feeds of live

sporting event streams doubled from 10 in 2009 to

20 in 2010, and then soared to 64 in 2011. Most of

these provide no “take down tool” that would allow

rights holders to stop the streams.

These are just a few indications of the size of the

piracy problem.

Websites Promoting User-Originated Pirate

Streams

Asia, regrettably, is a fertile ground for growth of

unauthorized OTT services, and a uniquely difficult

ground for establishment of competing legitimate

services.

• Asianmarketsarefragmented.Thereisno

common language (as in most of North

America) nor any set of common regulatory

approaches (as in the EU) that permit unifying

markets. Many legitimate OTT services must

make a business case based on relatively small

potential audiences.

Source: Cisco VNI, 2012 (Note: Cisco defines peer-to-peer traffic as “file sharing” even if it originates on a

commercially-oriented site. Most of this “file sharing” traffic is made up of video content.)

40

20

0

VOIP Online Gaming Web/Email/Data

Internet Video File Sharing

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Exab

ytes

Per

Mon

th

Source: NetResult

80

70

60

50

30

20

10

40

0

Tool No Tool

2012201120102009200820072006

Exab

ytes

Per

Mon

th

UGc live streaming sites: no tool vs. takedown tool(current status in august 2012 : 75 sites active)

___________________________________________________________________________________________1 A petabyte (PB) is a unit of information equal to one million gigabytes (GB), The unit symbol for the petabyte is PB.

6

• SomeAsiangovernmentsplaceregulatory

limits on legitimate content availability that

cripple authorized providers, in comparison

to pirate services where limits go unenforced.

These markets provide impetus for development

of pirate OTT “solutions” that then spread to

neighboring markets.

• Respectforintellectualpropertyisnotawell-

established concept in many parts of Asia.

Large and successful syndicates have supplied

many Asian markets with pirated cassettes,

CDs and DVDs for decades, with relative

impunity. Most Asian legal regimes for IP

protection are weak, especially in the digital

environment.

• Asianindigenouscontentproducersareinmost

countries weak and not well organized to defend

their rights. As broadband penetration increases

and more consumers go online who are not

English speakers, pirate OTT platforms seek

to tap the growing market by targeting locally-

produced films, dramas, and music for theft and

rebroadcast. Few Asian content producers have

the knowledge and stamina needed to fight back2.

Increasingly, the wide availability of video content

online leads to consumer confusion. Some people

actively seek out infringing content, knowing

it is pirated and not caring. But many others –

the silent majority who make up the largest TV

audience – are not necessarily eager to consume

pirated content but are increasingly surrounded

online and in their social contacts with invitations

and encouragements to watch video whose

origins they cannot perceive. Even well-intentioned

consumers have difficulty knowing, in the online

environment, what is authorized content and what

is not.

In this situation, the messages conveyed by

government, and industry, become increasingly

important.

If the vicious cycle is to be interrupted, pressure

must be put on all the elements of the circle:

• Revenuesflowingtopiracysyndicatesmust

be stemmed, through restricting payments by

credit card processors and advertising servers

to pirate websites.

• Piracymustbemadelessavailableandless

attractive, by removing pirate programming and

pirate sites from popular web search engines.

• Consumersneedtobeeducatedthrough

“repeat offender” programs that deter serial

downloading.

• Governmentsmustbeencouragedtodeal

responsibly and responsively with massive

copyright violations taking place in servers

housed in their territories. Access to the most

egregious offshore pirate sites should be

blocked.

Pirate websites make available

More pirate websites

Illegal content

More, better quality pirated content attracts

Consumers View

Greater numbers of consumers

Ad and/or subscription dollars attract

More Ad and/or subscription dollars

___________________________________________________________________________________________2 Some Asian industry organizations have found their voice, when publicly challenged. After Malaysian government

actions to block notorious piracy websites led to hacking attacks on government and legitimate websites, the local and film and video industry called a press conference to support the site blocking action. The president of the local artists association was quoted on the extent of the problem: “Illegal free downloads via the Internet have wrecked the industry, to the extent that even pirated CD or VCD sellers find it hard to sell their products.“


Asian indigenous creative industries are already

suffering huge damage from competition from

OTT-based pirate websites. These directly and

unfairly compete with efforts by Asian artists,

producers and creators to earn a living from their

work. And of course, these websites are a very

significant part of the “tilted playing field” for the

pay-TV industry. In most countries there are no

local vested interests behind the piracy websites;

Asian governments should have a direct and

immediate interest in leveling this part of the

playing field, at least.

OTT Television – a Regulator’s View

In the marketplace, many services are dubbed “OTT.” For purposes of this study, we examine

regulations governing audiovisual programming provided by internet websites, which may be

accessed by a computer, tablet or smartphone without the need for additional hardware. Hardware

attachments may (or may not) be necessary to view the programming on a TV set.

Such services are usually separated from the party actually providing the broadband connection

over which they travel. (They are therefore easily distinguishable from telco-operated “walled

garden” IPTV systems. Such services are usually provided by the same party providing the network

connection).

OTT can be fully ad-supported, offered on a subscription basis, or use a hybrid model. It includes

professionally-generated video by broadcasting organizations, video aggregated by third parties

such as Netflix, and user-generated videos on ad-supported sites like YouTube and Youku.

In most places, the same “internet-oriented” light regulations cover both legally authorized sites

– where content is disseminated with the permission of copyright owners – and those which flout

intellectual property laws and misuse pirated content to build viewership and generate revenues,

usually through advertising.

However, a few governments have taken the highly worrisome approach of tightening approaches

for existing media players, while leaving more difficult-to-reach offshore sites, and pirate sites,

untouched.

8

ConclusionsSome general themes emerged from CASBAA’s

examination of the regulatory frameworks in Asia:

There is no regulation-free zone: There is

already some form of regulation of OTT TV/

internet content in every jurisdiction – the myth

of the wholly unregulated internet is indeed a

myth. (Even as liberal a market as Hong Kong

does not permit its citizens to access videos

promoting illegal gambling, or child pornography)

Moreover, as broadband penetration increases in

the developing world and online consumption of

media becomes more mainstream, regulation in

many jurisdictions looks set to increase. It is less

clear what regulation will be introduced, when it

will come into effect, and how it will affect offshore

service providers – this last issue is particularly

pressing for OTT TV suppliers given the global

reach of the internet.

Burdens are heaviest on home players: In many

markets, regulations bind domestically-based OTT

providers, but not those in other jurisdictions. This

is a recognition of the more free-wheeling aspect of

internet information flows, but also an unfortunate

reflection of (conscious or unconscious)

willingness on the part of political and regulatory

actors to impose disproportionate burdens on

the domestic TV platforms which are most likely

to create local content, pay local taxes, employ

local people, etc. Continuing expansion of the OTT

economic space will make it ever-more difficult to

ensure a “level playing field”, as between domestic

and offshore content providers, and as between

the various television platforms, such as cable,

satellite, terrestrial, IPTV and OTT TV.

Multiple revenue streams create multiple

challenges: When pay TV arrived in Asia,

whether financed through subscriptions or on-

demand payments, it presented a discrete set

of challenges; many governments established

specific regulatory frameworks for pay TV,

demarcating it from “free” TV depending on

whether payments were requested. In the OTT

space, however, lines are increasingly blurred.

Most online advertising in Asia is generated and

displayed internationally, and many OTT sites are

ad-based. Some “pay” content is provided without

access controls online based on a combination

of advertising and efforts to build brand loyalty.

“TV Everywhere” solutions use access controls

to provide “pay” content but involve no payment

at all (and in some cases no advertising either);

they are designed to reinforce consumer loyalty to

in-country pay-TV platforms. Finally, it is notable

that a huge pirate OTT industry is financed by

internationally-supplied advertising, generating

hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue that

competes with legitimate content suppliers on the

basis of their own stolen programming!

Focuses of concernIn our examination of Asian regulatory practices,

we discerned three sets of issues confronting

governments and the television industry, each

of which represents a large area of unequal

regulation, and each of which represents a

substantial handicap to the competitive position

of traditional television suppliers. We advocate

that regulators – charged with overseeing growth

and development of this industry – devote their

efforts to reducing burdens on pay-TV players.

Even as industry players scramble to cope with

changes in their competitive environment,

politicians and special interests who favor keeping

burdens on pay-TV must be faced, and told that

the changing environment requires changes in

traditional regulatory approaches. Denial will not

be an option for long in this rapidly-evolving online

content marketplace.

Content Regulation

Traditionally, the heavy regulation of television

content has been justified by governments on the

basis that television is a mass media platform

and accordingly content regulation is essential


to protect the vulnerable, such as children.

But this justification is significantly weakened

when censorship is applied indiscriminately to

television supply (regardless of the existence or

not of access controls) and when the consumers

of television services also consume online

video content, not subject to the same content

controls. In addition, strict content rules can

have a detrimental social effect, driving demand

underground to access content by illegal means.

Illegal content is not only censorship-free, it is

ethics-free and this is a supremely valid social

reason to lighten content controls on legitimate

content suppliers.

Better approaches for the modern world

are available, and they should be promoted

by regulators. One example may be seen in

jurisdictions such as Australia, where service

providers are required to provide their customers

with filtering options so that they may personally

control the content they and their dependents

access. A public consultation has just closed in

the United Kingdom to determine whether and

how ISPs should implement similar controls in the

U.K.

Copyright

For legitimate OTT TV service providers and their

content providers, copyright protection and

enforcement online present the most significant

legal and commercial issues. National copyright

regimes remain ill-equipped to deal with online

copyright infringement. Although various national

governments have conducted enforcement

campaigns targeting illegal uploaders of copyright

material, piracy remains widespread, and it is

growing as a result of the maturation of the online

advertising market, which has frequently been

hijacked to support illegal pirate websites. As a

result, legitimate services have to compete with

a vast number of infringing services online, some

of which are increasingly well-funded and highly

professional in outward appearance, quality of

delivery and customer service.

Copyright infringement is a very large barrier

to entry into the market, given the challenges

pirate services present to all legitimate OTT TV

content and service providers, especially weaker

new entrants. At a time when many governments

are attempting to encourage the development of

innovative content services for the high-speed

broadband networks they are building, the failure

to address systemic copyright infringement

discourages the very entrepreneurial investment

governments are seeking to promote.

Business models

Various governments impose numerous

restrictions on the business operations of

“traditional” pay-TV platforms such as cable,

satellite and even IPTV. Many of these are rooted in

licensing regimes (applicable to domestic players

only) that draw heavily from outdated concepts of

“broadcasting” regulation originating in the black-

and-white TV era.

Our study has found a consistent, large disparity

between regulatory regimes applicable to the

business models of pay TV, and those applied to

OTT television. It is clear that traditional pay-TV

platforms operate at a considerable disadvantage

as a result of the extensive regulatory interference

by many governments in commercial matters.

Examples include:

• Rateregulation:Businessmodelsare

hamstrung by strict control of retail and

wholesale rates in some markets, such as

India and Taiwan. In other jurisdictions such as

China, Japan, Malaysia, South Korea, Thailand

and Vietnam, varying degrees of regulatory

oversight are exercised on pay TV, but not on

OTT television.

• Taxation:Localmediaoperatorsincountries

including India, Thailand and Malaysia are

subject to taxation over and above standard

company tax. Some of these taxation levels

(for example, on satellite DTH pay TV in India),

10

reach breathtaking levels. Domestically-

supplied OTT television almost everywhere

is taxed at normal corporate rates, and

internationally-supplied OTT operates in a large

grey zone.

• Regulationofprogramsupply/exclusivity:Pay-

TV content and service providers are subject to

rules restricting or prohibiting exclusive content

arrangements in countries such as India

and Singapore as well as specific mandated

sharing regimes for major sporting events.

Other jurisdictions dictate business models by

stipulating the channel bouquets to be offered

to consumers or, as in India, mandating a la

carte program supply. OTT television faces no

such constraints, and as market share for OTT

platforms grows, it is already apparent that

major players (ex. Youtube, Youku) are seeking

to leverage this regulatory differential by

developing their own exclusive programming.

We see development of new content options as

a competitive gain for consumers – as long as

the shackles are removed from the traditional

pay-TV industry.

• Localcontentquotas:Thesetypicallyapplyonly

to pay-TV platforms, although a recent review

in Australia has recommended extending local

content quotas onto online platforms for large,

professional content providers. This would

apply in theory to professional sites outside

the country as well as inside -- but there is no

indication about how offshore sites might be

required to conform.

• Advertisingrestrictions:Minutagerestrictions

are pervasive for traditional pay-TV platforms

and “Made in …” rules apply in Indonesia,

Vietnam and Malaysia. Countries such as

China require advertising to be approved and

Australian and Singapore pay-TV operators

are subject to advertising revenue caps.

Services that may not be advertised on TV

include fortune tellers (Korea), dance halls

(Hong Kong), chatlines and dating services

(Singapore), and job recruitment agencies

(Taiwan). There are no parallel restrictions

anywhere on internet advertising.

• Ownershiprestrictions:Foreigninvestmentin

pay-TV distribution platforms and pay-TV content

is subject to very widespread restrictions.

The level of permitted foreign investment

varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction: China

prohibits foreign investment outright as does

the Philippines (cable and DTH), Indonesia

limits foreign investment to 20% in pay-TV

platforms, Thailand to 25%, Malaysia to 30%

and Singapore to 49%. Licensing conditions in

Malaysia and Vietnam require pay-TV licensees

to be locally incorporated. Such rules may be

applicable in some markets to OTT suppliers

based domestically, but offshore suppliers –

especially of illegal content – are wholly foreign-

owned.


Brief Snapshots

australiaAustralia’s online television environment is already the subject of some content regulation, with an

access control/removal system applying to online content which is sexually explicit, violent or otherwise

classified for mature audiences. The use of access control mechanisms is the internet industry’s

approach to balancing child protection with consumers’ freedom of choice.

The level of OTT content regulation is expected to increase following the recommendations of the

federal government-commissioned Convergence Review. That review provided an excellent opportunity

to re-adjust the regulatory balance between pay-TV and OTT television by reducing burdens on pay-

TV suppliers; unfortunately it has gone in the other direction, advocating new constraints for online

television.

Amongst other things, the May 2012 report recommended the establishment of an industry-funded,

cross-platform news regulator and the extension of the content quota system to professional online

content providers exceeding certain size and market thresholds.

In a separate development, the federal government has proposed that its already extensive “anti-

siphoning” regime (the world’s most comprehensive series of sports rights restrictions) be broadened to

apply to the acquisition of exclusive rights in sporting events by online providers.

The federal government has also commenced roll-out of a National Broadband Network (NBN) with the aim

of providing high-speed broadband access to every Australian household within 10 years. It remains to be

seen whether the proposed reforms, if enacted, will have a dampening effect on the development of online

content services for delivery over the NBN.

Other regulatory differentials will remain, and pay-TV platforms will continue to operate at a commercial

disadvantage given the continued application of advertising revenue restrictions, content quota rules,

captioning requirements, etc.

chinaAs with other media platforms, OTT-TV services and their content are tightly controlled in China.

A two-tiered system of regulation distinguishes between services for internet-connected television

devices, generally treated in the same way as traditional television services, and online audio-visual

content services. However, in both cases, the transmission of foreign, or otherwise objectionable,

content, and the involvement of foreign enterprises are strictly curtailed.

The degree and nature of regulation of OTT services in China are unlikely to change in the immediate

future, considerably restricting foreign content providers’ access to Chinese markets.

The combination of restrictions on consumer access to legitimately-available content, weak intellectual

property enforcement, and a highly-developed electronics industry has made China a global centre for

12

construction and distribution of equipment (e.g. set-top-boxes) designed to facilitate piracy. China also

is a base for criminal syndicates supplying massive quantities of infringing content over the internet to

an international online audience – aggressively targeting overseas markets from behind China’s wall of

sovereignty.

Hong KongHong Kong has few regulations that apply to OTT services; specific language in the Broadcasting

Ordinance exempts television provided over “the service commonly known as the internet” from

regulatory licensing or oversight.

However, there are a few controls in existence, relating to specific types of content. Videos that engage

in solicitation of betting by any unauthorized website, domestic or foreign, are illegal. Proprietors

of offending foreign websites could be arrested if they set foot in Hong Kong. Also prohibited is the

distribution of obscene content through a local website. (The latter law does not extend to foreign

websites) Although Hong Kong ISPs are responsible for ensuring their services do not host obscene

material, it remains available on foreign websites accessible in Hong Kong.

IndiaIndia represents perhaps the clearest example in Asia of regulatory imbalance between pay TV and

OTT TV. Regulation of the Indian pay-TV industry is among the tightest in the world, with a burdensome

licensing regime, tight control of retail and wholesale rates, additional taxation, advertising minutage

caps, restraints on exclusivity, mandatory distribution and limits imposed on foreign investment. At the

same time, there is minimal regulation of OTT TV.

With such an enormous differential between pay-TV regulation and OTT-TV regulation, a correspondingly

large incentive exists for the development and operation of OTT-TV services. India’s first commercial

subscription OTT-TV service launched in early 2012, with another prominent media business announcing

its launch plans soon afterwards. Such businesses operate under severe regulatory risk, however, as past

experience indicates that regulations can be imposed ex post facto, or even retroactively.

IndonesiaThere is little regulation of OTT-TV services in Indonesia. Indonesian ISPs are required to block

pornographic content, but there are otherwise few restraints on OTT-TV operators.

Regulation of OTT-TV is not a priority for Indonesian regulators given that internet access is still relatively

limited.

Japan Unlike pay-TV services in Japan, OTT-TV services are not the subject of specific regulation. Online

advertising would be subject to general advertising rules, although it is not clear whether those rules

would apply to advertising on foreign websites.


The major regulatory disadvantage for pay-TV services in Japan is the licensing regime, particularly in

respect of foreign channels. As in India, OTT TV represents an opportunity to provide content direct to

consumers without the restrictions applicable to the more traditional pay-TV platforms.

malaysiaOTT-TV services are subject to very little regulation in Malaysia. Whilst Malaysian legislation contemplates

cross-platform regulation, online content services are currently exempt from the general licensing

regime. The advertising rules applicable to Malaysian pay-TV services, including minutage restrictions

and “Made in Malaysia” requirements, do not apply online. The online content code is voluntary.

The only significant government intervention in the online environment is the regulator’s disabling of

access to the most notorious of websites supplying pirated content. This move has demonstrated that the

government is willing to intervene to impose some rules on egregious offenders external to the country.

New ZealandThe New Zealand regulatory regime for pay TV is “light touch”, and the same may be said for regulation

of OTT-TV services. The self-regulatory schemes for managing advertising and content apply in the online

environment, albeit with some modulation; for example, complaints may relate to content streamed

online, but not necessarily content made available online on an “on demand” basis.

Any effect of New Zealand’s self-regulatory schemes on television content coming from overseas

websites is unclear.

philippinesIn theory, only free OTT-TV services may be offered in the Philippines until the National

Telecommunications Commission establishes a regulatory framework for the OTT-TV platform. Officials

state they expect any such framework would follow existing pay-TV principles in respect of licensing,

advertising and content regulation. However, for the time being there is considerable uncertainty.

In respect of content regulation, there is already legislation prohibiting online child pornography, which

would in theory apply to any OTT-TV content available in the Philippines, whether domestic or foreign.

There are no other clear rules applying to online television.

singapore Domestic OTT-TV service providers in Singapore must be licensed, although foreign OTT-TV service

providers are not. The licensing regime is more relaxed than that applying to the traditional pay-TV

platforms, although it is expected that content controls for pay-OTT services would be similar to those

applied to pay TV. The government does occasionally block access to foreign websites that it judges to be

egregious offenders.

In general, regulation of online content originating outside Singapore is much lighter than that applying

to pay TV, however the authorities moved swiftly to impose content regulation on Apple’s i-Tunes

14

immediately after it was launched from outside Singapore. There was no immediate explanation of what

factors – other than a well-known brand name – distinguished Apple’s offering from those of many lesser-

known external sites that deliver far more offensive content on demand.

The Singapore government is rolling out its Next Generation Nationwide Broadband Network (NBN),

intended to connect all physical addresses in Singapore by 2015. The government intends that the

NBN will encourage the development of new digital media services. However, in order to do so, online

copyright piracy will need to be adequately addressed.

south KoreaThe regulation of OTT-TV services in South Korea is in a state of flux. It appears that the Korea

Communications Commission (KCC) is moving towards stricter regulation with the introduction of an

approval system for special types of telecommunication services, which may include OTT-TV services. It is

likely that the KCC would require an OTT-TV service provider to obtain approval if there are any copyright

infringement issues arising from the service. As the KCC could not compel compliance by foreign OTT-

TV service providers, this system, if applicable, might create a regulatory imbalance in favour of foreign

providers.

In respect of content regulation, general online regulations would apply to an OTT-TV service. In

particular, content harmful to children cannot be transmitted without access restrictions. The KCC may

block non-compliant foreign websites as a means of enforcing local content regulations against offshore

content providers.

TaiwanIn Taiwan, OTT-TV services are subject to government-mandated guidelines, which particularly

restrict depictions of pornography or criminal acts. The theoretical effect of the guidelines on content

originating offshore is not clear, however in practice they have no extraterritorial effect. (Recognizing

that the previous approach had not been effective, the government has recently repealed internet rating

regulations and has proposed establishment of a new agency with responsibility for developing an

internet classification system and access control mechanisms).

As of now, there are no other regulations on OTT-TV, however, the Taiwan government has proposed

numerous legislative amendments which could extend several aspects of pay-TV regulation to the OTT-TV

platform. In particular, the government has proposed an approval process for both domestic and foreign

content providers, which process would include a review of rates and content mix. Foreign investment

restrictions and an advertising minutage cap would also apply.

Many details of the legislative proposals remain unclear, including which online content services would

be subject to the new rules and how, if at all, the provisions might be enforced against offshore service

providers.


ThailandThe regulation of OTT-TV services in Thailand is effectively limited to some local content control. By law,

some online television content is illegal (obscenity, gambling, lèse majesté), but implementing rules are

lacking. Any enforcement (such as it might be) would likely focus on local services rather than foreign

services.

There is only one other evident regulatory restriction on OTT-TV: foreign investment in a local OTT-TV

service provider would be restricted to 25% under comprehensive licensing rules proposed by the

National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission, which assert the Commission’s licensing

authority over all content streams “by means of radio frequency, wire, optical, electromagnetic, or any

other system.”

VietnamThe Vietnamese government is drafting new internet regulations which are expected to address OTT-TV

services.

Presently, online content is subject to a censorship regime administered by internet content providers

and internet service providers under government direction. Site blocking is used against sites hosting

objectionable content, particularly when the relevant site is hosted offshore.

In other respects, foreign OTT-TV operators without a domestic presence fall outside the current

regulatory regime: unlike their domestic counterparts, they do not need to obtain several licenses in order

to operate their services.

Other than as noted above, the level of regulation for OTT-TV services is much lower than for pay-TV

services in Vietnam, particularly in respect of rates, advertising and foreign investment.

16

Regulatory Regime Review

Pay TV OTT TV

How Regulated?

• AustralianCommunicationsandMediaAuthority

(ACMA)isanimpartialandindependentregulator.

• ACMAisresponsibleforregulating

telecommunications,broadcasting,radio-

communicationsandonlinecontent.However,

whileithasoneconvergedadministrativestructure,

itcontinuestoimplementdifferentlegislative

frameworksforbroadcastingandtelecoms.

• ACMAregulatescontentmattersinrespect

ofonlinecontentgenerally;otherwisethereis

currentlynoregulationofOTT-TVservices.

• Twogovernment-commissionedreviewshave

recentlyrecommendedreplacingACMAwithanew

communicationsregulator,aswellasestablishing

anindustry-fundedbodyregulatingnewsreporting

(acrossallplatforms,includingonline).

Copyright protection?

• Unauthorizeduseofpay-TVbroadcastsfor

commercialpurposesisacriminaloffence.

• Unauthorizeduseathomeisalsoacriminal

offence,since2007.

• Effectivenessofenforcementvaries,because

ofdifferencesinstatelegislationandshared

responsibilitiesbetweendifferentfederal/stateagencies.

• Unclearwhether,underAustralianlaw,the

transmissionofaliveeventonanOTT-TV

servicewouldbeprotectedasa“broadcast”

undercopyrightlegislation.Otherwise,legislative

protectionisstrong.

Licensing of foreign

channels: allowed,

prohibited or

unregulated?

• Licensesreadilygranted. • Nolicensingrequirementfordomesticnorforeign

OTT-TVservices.

License fees and taxation? • Minimal. • None.

Rate regulation? • None,otherthanundergeneralantitrustlaw. • None,otherthanundergeneralantitrustlaw.

Restrictions on program

distribution/tiering/

packaging?

• Norestrictions. • Norestrictions.

Restrictions on ads

(allowed or prohibited,

minutage)

• Allowed

• Subscriptionfeesmustbepay-TVoperator’s

predominantsourceofrevenue.Nomorethan50%

oftotalrevenuescancomefromadvertising,but

minutageisunlimited.

• Allowed,norestrictions.

Local content quotas?

• 10%oftotalprogramexpenditureondrama

channelsmustbespentonnewAustralian/New

Zealanddramas.Agovernment-commissioned

ConvergenceReviewhasproposedintroducing

contentquotasinrespectofdocumentariesand

children’sprogrammingaswell.

• Pass-throughchannelsnotaffected.

• Currentlynoquotas.

• Agovernment-commissionedConvergenceReview

hasrecommendedthatonlinecontentproviders,

whichprovideprofessional(asopposedtouser-

generated)TVdramas,documentariesorchildrens’

programmingandwhichexceedmarketandrevenue

thresholds,berequiredtoinvestacertainproportion

ofrevenueinAustraliancontent.Noindicationof

howthismightbeenforcedonoverseassites.

Australia



Pay TV OTT TV

Content control?

• Standardrequirementsonallbroadcastingservices

relatingtotobaccoandpharmaceuticaladvertising

andthebroadcastofpoliticalmatters.SubscriptionTV

licenseesaresubjecttocontentobligationsinrespect

ofchannelsdeliveredontheirplatforms.X-rated

materialprohibited.R-ratedmaterialpermittedon

narrowcastingsubscriptionservicesonly.

• Co-regulationaccordingtoCodesofPractice

devisedandpublishedbytheindustryassociation

andregisteredbyACMA.

• Variousreviewshaveproposedacomplaints

andaccessrestriction/contentremovalscheme

acrossallplatforms(asappliescurrentlytoonline

content).

• InrespectofOTT-TVcontenthostedoutside

Australia,ifACMAreceivesacomplaintthatthe

contentisX-rated,orR-orMA15+ratedwithout

accessrestrictions,ACMAmaynotifyISPstodeal

withthecontentpursuanttotheprevailingindustry

codeorstandard(eg.byfilteringthecontent).

• InrespectofOTT-TVcontenthostedwithinAustralia,if

ACMAreceivesacomplaintthatthecontentisX-rated,

orR-orMA15+ratedwithoutaccessrestrictions,

ACMAmayrequirethecontenttoberemoved.

• Variousreviewshaveproposedasimilarcomplaints

andaccessrestriction/contentremovalscheme

acrossallplatforms.

• Inrespectofnewsandcommentary,ithasbeen

proposedthatanewbodybeestablishedtooversee

newsreportingacrossallplatforms.

Regulations on languages

or dubbing/subtitling?

• Generalanti-discriminationlegislationin

principlerequiresclosed-captioningoftelevision

programming.Subscriptiontelevisioncurrently

subjecttocaptioninglevelsasdeterminedinthe

contextofthislegislation.

• Thegovernmenthasdraftedamendmentsto

broadcastinglegislationsettingoutimplementation

targetsforpay-TVservices.

• Generalanti-discriminationlegislationinprinciple

requiresclosed-captioningofaudio-visualmaterial.

• Atthisstagethegovernmenthasnotputforward

anyimplementingproposalsinrespectofOTTTV.

Restrictions on

exclusivity?

• Nogeneralrestraintsonexclusivityotherthan

undergeneralanti-trustlaw.Thegovernment-

commissionedConvergenceReviewhas

recommendeditsproposedcommunications

regulatorhavethepowertoinvestigatecontent-

relatedcompetitionissues.

• Restrictive“anti-siphoning”provisionsrequiremany

sportingeventstobeofferedfirsttofree-to-airTV.

• Norestraintsonexclusivityotherthanunder

generalanti-trustlaw.Thegovernment-

commissionedConvergenceReviewhas

recommendeditsproposedcommunications

regulatorhavethepowertoinvestigatecontent-

relatedcompetitionissues.

• Althoughcurrentanti-siphoningprovisionsdonot

applytoonlineplatforms,thegovernmenthas

proposedamendmentstobroadcastinglegislation,

prohibitingonlineserviceprovidersfromacquiring

exclusiverightstolistedsportingevents.

Restrictions on FDI?

• Allforeignownershiprestrictionshavebeenlifted.

• Specificforeignacquisitionsofmediaassetscould

bereviewedunderAustralia’sgeneralforeign

investmentpolicy.

• Specificforeignacquisitionsofonlinetelevision

assetscouldbereviewedunderAustralia’sgeneral

foreigninvestmentpolicy.

18

China


Pay TV OTT TV

How Regulated?

• Overlappingregulatoryagenciesincludethe

MinistryofIndustryandInformationTechnology

(MIIT,fortelecommunicationsandbroadcast

satelliteandinternetinfrastructure),theState

AdministrationforRadio,FilmandTelevision

(SARFT,fortelevisionandradiocontentand

coaxialcableinfrastructure)andtheMinistryof

Culture(MOC,onlinecontent).

• Judicialreviewofregulatorydecisionstechnically

availablebutrarelysought.

• Regulatoryregimedistinguishesbetween

programmingavailableoninternetwebsites

andusuallyviewedoncomputers,(“OTTTV”)

andprogrammingdeliveredviatheinternetto

televisionsetswithorwithoutset-topboxes

(“InternetTV”).

• Severalregulatoryagenciesinvolvedin

regulationofOTTTVandInternetTV.The

constitutinglegislationisvague,leadingtosome

overlapintherespectiveagencies’authority,but

theprincipalregulatorsareMIITandSARFT.

• SARFTintroducedanewpermitsystemfor

contentandaggregationservicesrelatingto

InternetTVin2010buthasissuedonlyafew

licensestoitsaffiliatedentitiesandtraditional

domesticTVstations.OTT-TVservicesrequire

anInternetAudio/VisualProgramTransmission

License,whichlicensingregimeisalso

administeredbySARFT.

• MIITregulatesvalue-addedtelecomservices

suchasICPservices(internetcontentproviders

oronlineinformationserviceproviders),

includingOTTTVandInternetTV.Theoperators

ofsuchbusinessesmustfirstobtainavalue-

addedtelecomservicepermitfromtheMIITor

itsprovinciallevelcounterparts.

• TheGeneralAdministrationofPressand

Publication(GAPP)regulatesinternetpublication

(uploadordownload)ofaudio-visualprograms.

• TheStateInternetInformationOffice(SIIO)

regulatesinternetnewsandalsomonitorsonline

content.

• TheMinistryofCultureisresponsiblefor

theonlinetransmissionof“internetculture

products”includingmusicandgaming.



Pay TV OTT TV


• Onlinecontentpiracywidespreaddespiterecent

improvementsinenforcement.

• NolegalpenaltiestodeterChina-based

internationalcircumventionnetworks.

• Unauthorizedoverseascontentreceivedby

millionsofconsumersusingillegalsatellite

dishes.

• Onlinecontentpiracywidespread.TheChinese

governmenthasconductedanumberof

campaignsagainstonlinecopyrightinfringement

since2005,mostrecentlythe2011JianWang

Campaign,requiringvideowebsitestoaudittheir

onlinecontent.Copyrightinfringementofonline

videocontenthasresultedintheimpositionof

administrativepenalties.

• Pre-2010,InternetTVmanufacturersworkedwith

onlinevideocompaniestobuilduptheirown

platformsforOTT-TVoperation,causingonline

piracytospreadtoInternetTV.However,most

partnershipsbetweenInternetTVmanufacturers

andonlinestreamingwebsitesterminatedwith

theintroductionoftheSARFTpermitsystem,

givenitsstrictrequirementsforcontent(asfor

traditionalTVplatforms),indirectlybolstering

copyrightprotectioninthatmarketsegment.

• Despitethesegovernmentcontrolsoninternal

content,Chinahasbecomeahubforstreaming

ofinterceptedinternationalprogramming

ontotheglobalinternet,pushedbycriminal

syndicatesprofitingfromsalesofinternet-linked

set-topboxes,andfromadvertising.


channels: allowed,

prohibited or

unregulated?

• Re-transmissionofforeignchannelsgenerally

prohibited.However,withregulatoryapproval,

foreignTVchannelsmaybetransmittedin

hotelsrated3-starsoraboveandindesignated

areaswhereforeignerspredominantlyreside.

• Theimportationorre-broadcastingofforeign

contentrequirespriorapprovalfromSARFT,

whichisnoteasilygranted.

• Establishmentofdomesticpay-TVchannelsis

subjecttoapprovalbytheSARFToritslocal

counterparts.

• Theoretically,InternetTVissubjecttosame

restrictionsastraditionalTVandradio.Re-

transmissionofforeignchannelsisprohibited;

anyimportandre-broadcastingofforeign

contentonInternetTVrequirespriorapproval

ofSARFT.(Beforethe2010SARFTregulations,

foreigncontentwasavailableonplatformsbuilt

byTVmanufacturers.)

• ThisruleisignoredbytheinternationalInternet

TVstreamingpiracysyndicates,whosecontentis

availablebothinsideandoutsideChina.

• Foreign-investedenterprisesareprohibited

fromprovidingOTTTV(includingovermobile

internet).Domesticprovidersmaybecome

subjecttotheSARFTimportreviewsystem

inrespectofcertainforeigncontent,suchas

foreigntelevisiondramasandfilms.

20

China


Pay TV OTT TV

License fees and taxation? • Noindustry-specificlicencefees. • Noindustry-specificlicencefees.

Rate regulation?• Retail:basiccablepricesdeterminedbylocal

NDRCbureausinconsultationwithSARFT.

• Nogovernment-determinedratesinthisarea.



packaging?


Restrictions on ads


minutage)

• Generallyprohibitedondomesticchannels

unlessSARFTapprovalisobtained.

• Adsmustcomplywithadvertisingregulations,

requiringintegrityofprogramtobemaintained

andcontinualvisibilityofchannelmarkand

restrictinguseofon-screeninsertionsand

certainprogramsponsorships.

• Minutageisrestrictedto12minutesperhour

(nineminutesperhourinpeakviewingperiod),

withadditionalrestrictionsonnumberand

lengthofin-programcommercialbreaks.

• Norestrictions.


• Foreigncontentmustnotexceed30%ofdaily

programmingonapay-TVchannel.Aforeign

channelmaynotberetransmittedinitsentirety.

• Norestrictions.

Content control?

• Domesticpay-TVchannelsmustself-censor

toensureprogramscomplywithstringent

censorshiprequirements.

• Allimportedprogrammingalsosubjectto

censorship.

• ScriptapprovalrequiredforproductionofTV

dramasandmovies.

• InternetTVcontentaggregatorshavesame

obligationsasTVchannels.Allimported

programssubjecttocensorshipandapproval.

• OTT-TVcontentmustalsocomplywithstrict

contentrules,althoughimportedprogramsare

notyetsubjecttopriorapproval.SARFTrecently

issuedacircularrequiringonlinecontent

providerstocloselyself-regulatecontentof

onlinevideocontent.Industryassociationsare

expectedtodevelopcontentguidelinesfor

onlinevideocontent.



• AllforeignlanguagechannelsrequireSARFT

approval.

• InternetTV:Allforeignlanguagecontenton

InternetTVrequirespriorSARFTapproval.

• OTTTV:PriorSARFTapprovalisnotyetrequired

forimportedonlineprograms.



Pay TV OTT TV

Restrictions on

exclusivity?


Restrictions on FDI? • Foreigninvestmentgenerallyprohibited,though

someinvestorshavefoundwork-arounds.

• InternetTV:Foreigninvestmentprohibited.

However,someinvestorsinvolvedatvarious

pointsinvaluechain.

• OTTTV:Foreigninvestmenttheoretically

prohibited.

• Foreigninvestmentalsoprohibitedinonline

newsbusinesses,onlineaudioprogramservices

andallonlineculturebusinessesotherthan

music.

• Providingtechnicalservicesratherthancontent

integrationorsupplyforInternetTVandOTTTV

ispermittedtoforeigninvestors.

• Aboverulesareignoredbypiracysyndicate,

someofwhomappeartohavesignificantforeign

involvement.

22


Pay TV OTT TV

How Regulated?

• Mergerofbroadcastingandtelecomsregulators

isunderwayandwillrequireseveralyearsto

complete.

• Bothpreviousregulatorswereefficient,

transparent,statutorybodiesindependentof

operatorsandpoliticalparties,thoughstaffedby

civilservants.

• Telecomsfacilitiesandfrequencieslicensed

underaunifiedcarrierlicenseregime.

• Appealofregulators’decisionsispossibleto

ChiefExecutive;judicialreviewisavailable.

• Noeconomicregulationofinternet-based

services.

• TheTelecommunicationsOrdinancefocuses

onthemeansofprovisionofservices,while

theBroadcastingOrdinanceexcludes“services

providedontheservicecommonlyknownas

theinternet“frombeingclassifiedastelevision

programmeservices.


• Infringementofcopyrightinbroadcastingis

usuallyacivil,notacriminal,offence.

• Commercialtransactionsinvolvingunauthorized

decodersareacriminaloffense,butenforcement

islaxfordecodersforinternationalpay-TV

services.

• Copyrightlawintheoryappliestointernet

broadcasts,butinfringementiswidespread.

• Governmenthasprosecuteduploadersof

infringingcontent.


channels: allowed,

prohibited or

unregulated?

• Norestrictionsonretransmissionofforeign

channels.

• Channelsnotsubjecttodownlinklicensing,

thoughoperators’bouquetsmustbenotified.

• Specialfacilitationfor“non-domestic”broadcast

uplinks.

• Governmenthasnolegalauthoritytoregulate

channelsbroadcastovertheinternet,whether

domesticorforeigninorigin.

License fees and taxation?

• DomesticpayTVannually:HK$1.533million

plusHK$4persubs.

• Non-domesticTVannually:aslowas

HK$56,400.

• Intentionisthatfeeonlycoversall

administrativecosts.

• Governmenthasnolegalauthoritytoimpose

licensesorfeesonchannelsbroadcastoverthe

internet,whetherdomesticorforeigninorigin.

Rate regulation? • None. • None.



packaging?

• None. • None.

Hong Kong



Pay TV OTT TV

Restrictions on ads


minutage)

• NolimitonadminutageforpayTV.

• Arangeofproscribedproductsandservices

maynotbeadvertised,includinggambling,

firearms,realestate,undertakers,fortune-tellers,

nightclubs,dancehalls,saunas,etc.

• Nolimitsonadvertising.

• HongKonglawoutlawssolicitationofbets

(“bookmaking”)byunauthorizedwebsites,

includingTVsites,whethertheyarelocatedinside

oroutsideHongKong.(However,asapractical

matter,policeareonlyabletotakeactionagainst

siteslocatedwithinHongKong.)

• Norestrictionsonadvertisingfirearms,real

estate,undertakers,fortune-tellers,dancehalls

orsaunasonline.However,theinformationin

adsforfirearmswouldlikelyleadtodifferent

offencesundertheFirearmsandAmmunition

Ordinanceorotherlaws.

Local content quotas? • None. • None.

Content control?

• Platformoperators(andchannels)requiredto

adheretobroadguidelines.

• Nodirectcontrolonchannelproviders.

• BasiccontrolsintheControlofObsceneand

IndecentArticlesOrdinanceapplyintheory

toInternetTV.Distributingobscenematerials

throughawebsitebasedinHongKongwouldbe

anoffense.

• ACodeofPracticecommitsinternetservice

providersinHongKongnottoallowtheir

servicestohostmaterial“likelytobeclassifiable

asobscene.”

• Noextraterritorialreachtowebsitesoutside

HongKong.Noattemptsaremadetorepress

receptionofobscenevideofromforeignsites.



• None. • None.

Restrictions on

exclusivity?

• None. • None.


• Nolimitsfordistributionplatforms,though

amajorityofdirectorsmustbeHKresidents.

(Someminorrestrictionsoncross-media

ownership).

• Nolimitsonwholesaleprovisionofpay-TV

programming.

• Nolimitsofanykindoninternetbroadcasters,

includingcross-mediaownership.

24

India


Pay TV OTT TV

How Regulated?

• Nosingleregulator,butmultipleagencieswithoverlappingresponsibility:

- TheMinistryofInformationandBroadcasting(MIB)ispartofthegovernment;

-TheTelecommunicationsandRadioAuthorityofIndia(TRAI)isindependentoftheMinistry,thoughstaffedbycivilservants.

• Regulatorsareindependentofalloperators.

• Judicialreviewavailable.

• UndertheInformationTechnologyAct,theIndianComputerEmergencyResponseTeam(CERT)monitorsonlinecontent,buttheagencyhasamandatelimitedtocomputersecurity.Atpresent,nootherregulatoryagencyinvolved.


• Domesticcopyrightlawsonsignalpiracyaregood,butenforcementislax,aslocalagenciesarenotwelleducatedoncopyrightmatters.

• PiracyofDTHsignalsseemstobegrowing.

• Commercialfraud/underdeclarationisrife.

• Onlinepiracyisverydifficulttocontrol.CERTisthetheoreticaldefactoauthorityforaddressingonlineissuesincludingpiracy,inabsenceofanyotherenforcementagency.

Licensing of foreign channels: allowed, prohibited or unregulated?

• Since2005,governmentpermissionrequired;somechannelsexcludedfromthemarket.Heavierrestrictionsonnewschannels.

• Downlinkingapprovalhasburdensomeapplicationrequirementsforchannelsandtheapprovalprocesshasbeenslow.However,morethan150foreignchannelshavebeenlicensed.

• Nolicensingregime.


• NominalforCable–500Rps.

• DTH–100millionRpsplusannualfeeequivalentto10%ofgrossrevenues.

• HITS–100millionRps

• IPTV–annualfeerangesfrom6-10%ofadjustedgrossrevenuedependingoncategoryoflicense.

• Channeldownlinking–1millionRpsplus100,000Rpsannually.

• Nolicensefees.

Rate regulation?

• Retailrates,otherthanforcertaincommercialsubscribers,controlledsince2004inmost(non-CAS)areas.(Smallrateincrementshavebeenallowed.)Since2006,inCASareas(3mhomes),asingleretailprice(5.35rpsperpaychannelpermo.)hasbeensetforeachchannel,withnomarketlogic.Notapplicabletocertaincommercialsubscribers.

• Wholesalerateshavebeenfrozen.Smallrateincrementshavebeenallowedbuttherehasbeennoindicationastowhenfreezemaybelifted.Since2006inCASareas,wholesaleratessetbygovernment.GovernmenthasfixedpricesforDTHandIPTVsystemsat42%oftheratechargedtonon-CAScableoperators.

• Norateregulation.



Pay TV OTT TV

Restrictions on program distribution/tiering/packaging?

• Abasicservicetierofatleast30free-to-airchannelsisprescribedforanaloguecableoperators.

• InCASdistricts,alacartechannelofferingsmandatoryatwholesaleandretaillevels.

• Newregulationsfordigitaladdressablesystemsspecifyconsumersshouldbeofferedbasicpackageofnon-premium100channels.

• Norestrictions.

Restrictions on ads (allowed or prohibited, minutage)

• Adsoncable,DTHandIPTVlimitedtotenminutesperhourplustwopromominutes.

• NospecificregulationsapplyingtoOTTTV,althoughtheself-regulatorybody,theAdvertisingStandardsCouncilofIndia,seekstoregulateadvertisementsinanymedia,includingonlinemedia.


Content control?

• Notrestrictive-largelyaself-regulatoryapproach.

• BasedonapublishedProgramCode,withseparatecodesadoptedbyindustryorganizations.

• NoregulationsspecificallyapplyingtoOTT.

Regulations on languages or dubbing/subtitling?

• None. • None.

Restrictions on exclusivity?

• Exclusivitynotallowedforlinearchannels.Allowedforspecificpiecesofcontentonchannels,andforVODofferings.

• Therearealsohighlyrestrictive“mustprovide”regulationsinforce,applicabletoallplatforms,cable,DTHandIPTV.Inaddition,restrictive“sportssharing”provisionsrequiremanysportingeventstobegiventothepublicbroadcaster.

• Noregulations.


• Inrespectofpay-TVdistributionplatforms,FDIlimitsare49%inDTH(20%directand29%“institutional.”),49%inCable,74%inTelecom,whocouldoperateIPTVandmobile.(Governmenthasannouncedintentiontoequalizemostlimitsat74%.)

• Inrespectofwholesaleprovisionofpay-TVprogramming,FDIlimitof26%appliestoIndiannewschannelsonly.

• Noregulations.

26


Pay TV OTT TV

How Regulated?

• Regulatoryjurisdictionissharedbetweenthe

MinistryofCommunicationsandInformation

(Kominfo)andtheBroadcastingCommission(KPI).

• Ministryhastakentheleadonlicensingand

marketstructurewhileBroadcastingCommission

hastakentheleadoncontentregulation.

• Someencouragingsignsoftransparency,but

alsosomesuddenandunpredictablemoves.

• Broadcastingregulatorshavebeenprofessional

andeven-handed.Otherbodieswithsome

regulatoryrolehavebeensubjecttoinfluence

(e.g.CompetitionCommission).

• PureOTTtelevisionisnotregulated.Unlike

IPTVserviceproviders,OTToperatorsarenot

requiredtobelicensednortogiveaservicelevel

guaranteetocustomers.

• Indonesianregulatorsareawareofthedisparity

betweentraditionalpayTVandOTTTV

andintendtodealwithitwhenaddressing

convergenceintherevisedTelecommunication

Law,scheduledfordiscussionin2013.However,

OTTisnotyetregardedasapressingissuedue

tothelimitedavailabilityandcostofbandwidth.


• Strongregulationsonpaperhavebeenlittle

enforced,until2009.

• Weakpublicunderstandingleadstomuch

infringement,especiallyoutsideJava.

• Copyrightprotectionforonlinecontent,or

onlineinfringementofcopyrightinaudiovisual

materials,remainsuntestedinIndonesia.


channels: allowed,

prohibited or

unregulated?

• Norestrictionsonchannelprogramming.

• Retransmissionofforeign-madeadsforpre-

approved“internationalbrands”isallowedunder

“MadeinIndonesia”adregulations(notyetin

force).

• Nolicensingregimenorrestrictionsonchannel

programming.


• Licensefeesfornewpay-TVlicensesareasfollows:

- Applicantsforatemporaryinitiallicensepay

IDR15-50mndependingonthezone.This

isaone-timefeepayableforeachlicensed

coveragearea.

- RecipientsofpermanentlicensespayIDR5.3

- 17.7mnannually,dependingonthezone.Fees

areleviedforeachlicensedcoveragearea.

• IPTVoperatorsmustalsopay2%ofgross

revenuesfromtheirISPactivitiesfortheirISP

license.

• NoneinrespectofanOTT-TVservice.




packaging?

• Tieringisallowedandwidelypracticed.Noala

carterequirement.

• None.

Indonesia



Pay TV OTT TV

Restrictions on ads


minutage)

• Allowed;nolimitationonminutage.

• Regulationsrequiringdomesticadsbesubjectto

new“MadeinIndonesia”requirementhaveyet

tobeenforced.

• Adsfor“internationalbrands”areexempted.

• The“MadeInIndonesia”requirementmight,

intheory,applybutthereisatpresentno

mechanismfortherequirementtobeenforced

againstOTT-TVserviceproviders.


• Pay-TVoperatorsareintheoryrequiredto

broadcast20%localchannels(10%FTAand

10%localcontent).

• None.

Content control?

• TheBroadcastingCommissionhasdeveloped

detailedcontentcodes.

• Sensitivitiesoncontentissuesarehigh.

• IndonesianPornographyRegulationrequiresISPs

toblockallaccesstopornographiccontent.

• TheElectronicInformationandTransactionsAct

containssomecontentrestrictions,includingin

respectofcontentagainstpropriety,defamatory

contentandcontentincitingracialorethnic

hatred,althoughtherehasnotyetbeenany

enforcementactionagainstcontentproviders

underthislegislation.



• Foreignfilmsmustbesubtitledordubbed. • None.

Restrictions on

exclusivity?

• TheBroadcastingLawissilentonexclusive

content.However,theMinistryhastaken

astancethat“essential”contentmustbe

distributedthroughatransparenttenderprocess.

• Anti-monopolylawhasalsobeeninterpretedto

restrictsome“essential”contentfromexclusive

contracts.

• “Non-essential”programming(determinedon

case-by-casebasis)maybeexclusive;thereare

no“must-provide”restrictions.

• None.


• 20%inpay-TVplatforms.

• 49%intelecoms.

• Inreality,none,asOTT-TVoperatorsdonotneed

toberegisteredinIndonesia.

• Ifthecompanyisalsoa“multimediaservice

provider”(ifsodescribedinitsarticlesof

association,oriftheInvestmentCoordination

Boardregardsitassuch)orISPthenthereisa

49%foreignownershipcap.

28


Pay TV OTT TV

How Regulated?

• Regulatorisindependentfrombroadcast/cable/

satelliteoperators,butnotindependentofthe

government.

• Judicialreviewtraditionallynotanoptionin

practice.

• Regulatoryframeworkfavoursestablished

players.

• BroadcastActcreatesseparatecategoriesfor

“basicbroadcast”and“generalbroadcast,”which

areassignedtodifferentsatellites.

• Onlinetelevisionnotspecificallyregulated.


• Domesticcopyrightlawsprovidestrong

protectionwithsignificantpenalties.

• Anti-circumventionlawsineffect.

• Onlinepiracyisamajorproblem.

• Illegaltodownloadanduploadcopyrighted

musicandvideounlessauthorizedby

rightsholders.

• Anti-circumventionlawsineffect.

• Onlinepiracyisamajorproblem.

• Governmentissupportingprivate-sectorefforts

todevelopself-regulationsystemsincluding

byISPs.A”ProviderLiabilityLimitationAct

GuidelinesReviewCommittee”hassetout

modelproceduresfornoticeandtakedown,etc.


channels: allowed,

prohibited or

unregulated?

• Foreignchannelspreviouslyrestrictedtothe

“generalbroadcast”satelliteplatform.

• Now,firmswithsomeforeignparticipationhave

beenlicensedas“basicbroadcasters.”Some

restrictionsonforeigninvestmentinthese

channelsremain.

• Governmenthasn’tlegislatedforlicensingof

channels.

License fees and taxation?• Nominaladministrativefilingfeeforcableand

satelliteoperators.

• Nolicensefeespayable.Nospecifictaxation

treatment.

Rate regulation?• Filingandpublicdisclosureofretailrates

required.• Notregulated.



packaging?


Japan



Pay TV OTT TV

Restrictions on ads


minutage)

• Advertisingallowed.

• Generaladvertisingruleswouldapply(e.g.in

relationtoaccuracy).

• Noregulatoryrestrictionsonadminutage,

however,filingwithMICisrequiredofthe

amountoftimeallottedforads.

• Generaladvertisingruleswouldapply(e.g.

inrelationtoaccuracy).Noissueyetraised

regardingextraterritorialapplicationtoforeign

channels.

• JIAA(JapanInternetAdvertisingAssociation)

issuedaguidelinetomembers(onlineadmedia

companies)asmeansofself-regulation.


Content control?

• Nogovernmentregulationsforcontent;aself-

regulationsystemfunctionswell.

• GuidelinescoordinatedbyJapanCommercial

BroadcastersAssociation.

• BPO(“BroadcastingEthics&Program

ImprovementOrganization”),aprivate

independentthirdparty,aimstodeal,ona

voluntarybasis,withcomplaintsandethical

issuessurroundingbroadcasting.

• Self-regulatorysystemdoesnotyetextendto

OTTTV,butwouldapplyindirectlywheresame

contentalsobroadcastontraditionalpayTV/FTA

platforms.

• Governmentissupportingprivate-sectorefforts

todevelopself-regulationschemestocontrol

objectionablecontent.



• Subtitlesforthehearing-impaired,andaudio

descriptionsforthevisually-impaired,areto

beprovidedwhereverpossible.(Thereareno

associatedpenalties.)

• None.

Restrictions on

exclusivity?



• 100%legalizedincableTV(1999).

• 20%inDTH(BSand110˚CS)andterrestrialTV.

• 100%permittedintelecom(IPTVandmobile).

• Norestrictions(undergeneralJapanese

companiesregistrationlaw,aJapanesecompany

wouldneedatleastonelocalrespresentative

director).

30


Pay TV OTT TV

How Regulated?

• MalaysianCommunicationsandMultimedia

Commission(MCMC)isindependentofall

operators.

• Politicalindependencenotassured.

• Judicialreviewavailableintheorybutnevertested

inpractice.

• MCMCistherelevantregulator.


• Enforcementdividedbetweengovernment

agencies.

• Regulatorlacksenforcementresources,buttheDTH

operatorsupportsinvestigationsincooperation

withGovernment.

• Onbalance,thispublic-privatepartnershiphas

madeforgoodenforcement.

• Malaysianlawprotectsonlinecommunication/

broadcasts.Anoticeandtakedownprocedure

appliestoinfringingonlinecontentonMalaysian

websites.

• MCMChasdisabledaccesstonotoriousoverseas

piracywebsites,leadingtoincreasedISP

cooperationinMalaysia.


channels: allowed,

prohibited or

unregulated?

• Televisioncontentsubjecttointensivecontent

controllaws.

• Onlinecontentservicesarecurrentlyexemptfrom

thelicensingregime.


• Licensefeeis0.5%ofgrossturnoverlessapplicable

rebates,subjecttoaminimumlicensefeeof0.15%

ofgrossturnoverorRM50,000whicheverishigher.

• Pay-TVcustomersalsopaya6%servicetaxon

theirsubscriptions.

• Currentlynolicensingfeesasonlinecontent

servicesexemptfromlicensingregime.

• ServicetaxisnotcollectedonpaymentstoOTT

contentproviders.

Rate regulation?

• Filingofretailratesonly(afterwhichan

“investigation”couldbeopenedbyMCMC).

• Nofilingsrequired.

• Technically,Ministermayintervenetosetratesfor

goodcauseorinthepublicinterest,butthereis

currentlynosuchinterventioninrespectofOTTTV

(orotherTVdeliverymodes).



packaging?


Malaysia



Pay TV OTT TV

Restrictions on ads


minutage)

• Allowed,subjectto“MadeinMalaysia”

requirement.Minutagelimitedto10minutes/

broadcasthour/channelaverageover24hours.

• Foreignadvertisements(withMade-in-Malaysia

“exemptioncertificates”)permittedonlyupto30%

oftotaladvertisingtime;allotheradseveninpass-

throughchannelstreamsmustbereplacedbyads

meetingthe“MadeinMalaysia”requirements.

• Nominutagerestrictions,nor“MadeinMalaysia”

requirements.

• TheMalaysianCommunicationsandMultimedia

ContentCode(the“ContentCode”)applieson

avoluntarybasis,unlesstherelevantMinister

directsotherwise.TheContentCoderequires

producersandtransmittersofadvertisingtoensure

advertisementscomplywithgeneralcontentrules,

arehonestanddonotconcerntobacco,gambling,

pornographyorotherprohibitedcontent.


• Noneforprogramming,onlyforadvertising(see

“MadeinMalaysia”advertisingrequirements

above).

• None.

Content control?

• Intensivecontentcontrolguidelines.

• Pay-TVservicescanbe“exempted,”allowedto

performselfcensorshipbasedondetailed,published

guidelinesfromGovernment.

• Carriageofchannelsthensubjecttopriorfilingwith

theauthority.

• UnderthevoluntaryContentCode,providersshould

ensurecontenttransmittedcomplieswithgeneral

contentcontrolguidelines.

• UnderthevoluntaryContentCode,ISPs,content

hostsandcontentaggregatorsmustcomplywith

anoticeandtake-downmechanisminrespectof

prohibitedcontent.



• None. • None.

Restrictions on

exclusivity?



• LicenseesmustbeincorporatedinMalaysia.

• FDIlimitedto30%.

• Norestrictions.

32


Pay TV OTT TV

How Regulated?

• Nosector-specificregulation.

• Authoritydividedbetweenseveralagencies.

• Thesegenerallyregardedastransparent,open

andautonomousofbothgovernmentandlarge

corporateplayers.

• Judicialreviewavailable.

• AswithpayTV.

• DepartmentofInternalAffairsenforces

censorshiplegislationbyprosecutingNew

Zealanderswhotradeobjectionablematerial

viatheinternet.Publicationscategorisedas

‘objectionable’areautomaticallybannedbythe

Films,Videos,andPublicationsClassificationAct

1993.

• Noenforcementagainstforeignwebsites.


• Strongcopyrightlawswithgoodenforcement.

Improvementsintroducedin2008,butthereare

significantloopholesoncircumventiondevices,

includingomissionofcoverageforaccess

controls

• “Graduatedresponse”mechanismintroducedin

2011toaddressonlinecopyrightinfringement.

• AswithpayTV:CopyrightAct1994applies.

• 2011amendmentallowscopyrightowner

totaketheinternetaccountholdertothe

CopyrightTribunalforonlinefilesharingthat

infringescopyright,providedthataftertwo

infringementnoticesareissued,thethirdnotice

isissuedwithinninemonths.(Thisappliesonly

topeer-to-peerfilesharing,andnottoonline

streamingofcontent).


channels: allowed,

prohibited or

unregulated?



• Notburdensome. • NolicencefeesnorOTTTV-specifictaxes.




packaging?


New Zealand



Pay TV OTT TV

Restrictions on ads


minutage)

• Allowed,nominutagerestrictions.

• Self-regulatedbyassociationofindustrybodies.

• AswithpayTV.

• IfanOTT-TVproviderisnotamemberofthe

AdvertisingStandardsAuthority,thennoavenue

ofcomplaintviatheAdvertisingStandards

ComplaintsBoard(ASCB).TheBroadcasting

StandardsAuthorityhasjurisdictionoveran

advertisingprogrammeifneitherthebroadcaster

northeadvertiserrecognise,inrelationtoa

complaint,theASCB’sjurisdiction.


Content control?

• Self-regulated.CodesofpracticeforpayTVless

restrictivethanforfree-to-airTV.

• BackedupbyappealtoBroadcastingStandards

Authority.

• Self-regulated,subjecttotheBroadcastingAct

1989.Thislegislationcontainsbroaddefinitions

of“broadcasting”and“programme”,causingitto

applytoprogramesbroadcastonline,otherthan

on-demandcontent.

• NoCodesofBroadcastingPracticespecificto

OTTTV.

• AppealtotheBroadcastingStandardsAuthority

availableforlinearbroadcasts(including

anonlinestream),butnotavailablefor“on

demand”contentavailableonlineonlyora

complaintwhichfallsoutsidethe20working

dayperiodaftertheofflinebroadcast.

• LawCommissionproposalDec2011tobring

streamedonlinecontentinlinewithactual

broadcastmaterial.




Restrictions on

exclusivity?



• Nolimit.

• Governmentreview/consentbasedon

transparent,non-restrictivecriteria.

• AswithpayTV.

34


Pay TV OTT TV

How Regulated?

• TheNationalTelecommunications

Commission(NTC),thebroadcastingand

telecommunicationsregulator,issubjectto

politicalinterferenceandsubjecttoarbitrary

dismissalbythegovernment.Onsomeissues,its

powersandauthorityareunclear.

• JudicialreviewofNTCdecisionsisavailable.

However,thejudicialprocessisslowinthe

Philippines,andcourtshaveattimesbeenused

tostymieeffectiveaction.

• TheMTRCB(MovieandTelevisionReviewand

ClassificationBoard),isresponsibleforcontent

standardsandcensorship.

• NTCwouldalsoberegulatorforOTTtelevision,

buttherearenoregulationsdealingwith

domesticorforeignOTTTVsincethereisno

definitivepronouncementyet(fromPhilippine

CongressandNTC)whetherOTTTVshouldfall

underbroadcastortelecoms.

• Intheabsenceofaregulatoryframework,some

officialstakethepositionthatonlyfreeOTT

servicescanbeofferedinthePhilippines.This

hasyettobetested.

• InthePhilippinelegalcontext,anyfuture

NTCregulationislikelytoapplytoall

servicesavailableinthePhilippines,including

internationalservices,despitethechallengesof

enforcementagainstoffshoreserviceproviders.


• Severelylacking.Piracyisrampantdespite

effortsbypartsofthegovernmenttoaddressit.

• Burdensomeproceduralrules;judicialcomplaints

subjecttoarbitrarydismissalsandunreasonable

delays.

• Inpractice,enforcementhasbeenimpossibleto

achieve.

• Thesamerules,asregardscopyright,wouldmost

probablyapply.

• Inaddition,theElectronicCommerceActof

2000providesadditionaltheoreticalpenalties

foronlinepiracyandcopyrightinfringement.


channels: allowed,

prohibited or

unregulated?

• Norestrictions. • Noregulations.However,likelytobeallowed

underthesamesetofconditionsasinpay-TV.


• NominalforCable(aboutUS$100annually).

• OnlyslightlymoreforDTH(about$400

annually).

• Noregulationsyet.




packaging?

• NominalforCable(aboutUS$100annually).

• OnlyslightlymoreforDTH(about$400

annually).

Norestrictions.

Philippines



Pay TV OTT TV

Restrictions on ads


minutage)

• Allowed;nominutagerestrictions. • Noregulations


• None.

• CableTVoperatorsarerequiredtoprovidea

freeaccesschannelforgovernment,health,

educational,culturalandcivicpurposes.

• Noregulations.

Content control?

• Aself-regulationsystemadministeredbythe

AssociationofBroadcastersofthePhilippines

(KBP)incoordinationwithMTRCBgovernsmost

broadcasters,withNTCregulatingnon-KBP

members.

• UnderPhilippinelaw(P.D.1986),MTRCB

prescribesrulesregardingclassification,review

andcensorshipforfilmandTV.MTRCBrecently

tookanactiveroleinrespectoftobaccorules.

• Nogeneralregulationyet.

• Specificprovisionsofa2009lawbanchild

pornography.Thislegislationappliestoany

contentavailableinthePhilippines.



• None. • None.

Restrictions on

exclusivity?

• Inprinciple,exclusivityisnotallowed,butin

practice,norequirementsareenforced.

• Philippinebroadcastersjealouslyguardtheir

exclusivecontent.

• Noregulations.


• NoFDIallowedincableoperators,DTHor

terrestrialbroadcasters.

• 40%FDIallowedintelecomoperators.

• AsitisnotyetclearwhetherOTTTVwould

beclassifiedasbroadcastingortelecoms,

investmentrulesareuncertain.(Ifbroadcasting,

noFDIallowed;iftelecoms,amaximumof40%

FDIwouldbeallowed.)

36


Pay TV OTT TV

How Regulated?

• Mediaregulatorisaseparatelegalentity,

independentofalloperators,activeandneutral

acrossalltechnologies.

• UnlikeotherSingaporebodies,thereisno

statutory“reconsideration”process.Onlyappeal

fromdecisionsistotheMinister.Underlaw,the

Ministercanalsogivedirectiontotheregulator.

• Judicialreviewavailable,butSingaporecourts

seldomchallengegovernmentactions.

• Spectrumregulatornot“converged.”

• TheMediaDevelopmentAuthority(MDA)

regulatesOTTTVviaitsBroadcastingClass

Licenceiftheproviderisregisteredasacompany

inSingapore.

• OTTproviderswithasubscription-based

businesscouldalsoberequiredtoobtaina

“”niche””pay-TVlicense.

• OTTofferingsofcompaniesthatarealready

subscriptionTVlicenseesinSingaporeareregulated

undertheirexistinglicenses,withthepossibilityof

stricterconditionsthanclasslicensees.

• Acontentproviderregisteredasacompany

inSingaporeandprovidingcontentoutsideof

Singaporeissubjecttoalighterlicensingregime,

alsotheresponsibilityoftheMDA.

• OTT-TVprovidersoperatingfromoutsideof

Singaporearenotregulated.


• Generallygoodstronglawsthatareeffectively

enforced,exceptinrespectofonlinepiracy.

• Criminaloffencetoknowinglyreceivepirated

pay-TVbroadcastsovertraditionalpay-TV

platforms(ie.notInternet).

• Thecriminalprovisionsregardingreceptionof

piratedpayTVdonotapplytoreceptionover

theinternet.


channels: allowed,

prohibited or

unregulated?

• Channelsrequiregovernmentapproval.

• Approvalnotgrantedformostchannel

transmissionsindialects,butVODoperators

areallowtobroadcastdialectcontentuptoa

maximumof50%oftheprogrammesoffered.

• FordomesticOTTserviceproviders,license

requiredpre-launchofservicebutnoprior

approvalthenrequiredtolaunchnewcontentor

newchannels.Nodialectprogrammingallowed.

• Nolicensingregimeforforeignproviders.


• 2.5%ofrevenues.

• Aconcessionaryrateof0.5%oftotalrevenuein

thefirstthreeyearsoflicenceduration.

• FordomesticproviderssubjecttoaBroadcasting

ClassLicence:annualfeeofSGD$1,000.

Rate regulation?• Notregulated.

• Retailratesarefiled,butnoratecontrolatpresent.

• None.Retailratesarenotrequiredtobefiled.



packaging?

• Cross-carriagesystemimposesregulationof

bundlingandpressureforalacarte.

• Regulatorrequiresnotificationofchannelsin(i)

channelline-ups,(ii)subscriptionrates.

• Norestrictions.

Singapore



Pay TV OTT TV

Restrictions on ads


minutage)

• Adsareallowedbutcomprehensivelyregulated

throughtheTVAdvertising&Sponsorship

Codes.Aminutagelimitof14minsperhourper

channelapplies.

• Nomorethan25%ofoperator’stotalrevenues

cancomefromadvertising.

• Degreeofapplicationofadvertisingcodesto

InternetTVisunclear,exceptonfullsubscription

TVlicensees,whoarefullybound.


• Allnationwideoperatorsmustprovideone

publicservicebroadcastingchannelforevery

ten.

• None.

Content control?

• Comprehensivecontentregulationsthrough

ContentCodes.

• Authorityfordirectregulationofdomesticand

foreignbroadcasters.

• TheInternetCodeofPracticeapplies,whichis

morerelaxedthantheContentCodesapplicable

tootherpay-TVplatforms.TheInternetCode

proscribescontentwhichisracist,inciteshatred,

anti-national,containsexplicitnudityand

explicitsexualactivity,

• TheInternetCodeisnotusuallyenforcedagainst

foreignprovidersbutthegovernmentreserves

therighttoblockforeignsitesandhasdoneso.

• WhilsttheInternetCodedoesn’texpresslyapply

todomesticproviderscommunicatingcontent

outsideofSingapore,theGovernmentislikelyto

expectandrequirecompliancewiththeInternet

Code.



• Transmissionofprogramsonchannelsindialects

tightlycontrolled.

• DomesticBroadcastingClassLicenseesarenot

allowedtoprogrammecontentindialects.

• Otherwise,norestrictions.

Restrictions on

exclusivity?

• Newregulatorymandatethatpay-TVoperators

mustcrosscarryeachother’sexclusivecontent

(bothbroadcastandVOD)effectivelybans

exclusivity.

• Norestrictions.


• Investmentinlocalbroadcastersrestricted--

49%cap.

• Subjecttogovernmentapprovalofsubstantial

shareholders,directorsandCEOs.

• Norestrictions,exceptonfullsubscriptionTV

licensees.

38


Pay TV OTT TV

How Regulated?

• Anindependentconvergedregulator,theKorea

CommunicationsCommission(KCC),was

establishedinFebruary2008bymergerofthe

formerKBCandtheMinistryofInformation&

Communication.

• ContentstandardsadministeredbytheKorean

CommunicationStandardsCommission(KCSC).

• DecisionsbytheKCCmaybesubjecttojudicial

review.

• KCCalsoregulatesOTT-TVservices.KCSCalso

involvedinadministeringcontentstandards.

• Untilrecently,undertheKoreanlaw,services

likeOTTTVwerecategorizedasa‘value

addedtelecommunicationservice’andonly

afilingofasimplereportwiththeKCCwas

required.However,recentamendmentsto

theTelecommunicationsBusinessAct(“TBA”)

introducedaKCC-approvalsystemfora‘special

typeofvalue-addedtelecommunicationservice’

(“VAS”),withstricterrequirementsthanthe

former“reportsystem”(eg.acertaintypeofVAS

providermusthaveparticularequipmentand

humanresourcesavailablefortheprotectionof

copyrightpursuanttotheTBA).

• Duetovagueterminologyintheamendments,

itremainsunclearwhetherOTTTVwill

beconsideredaservicerequiringapproval.

However,asthefundamentalpurposeofthese

amendmentsistoprotectcopyright,intheevent

ofacopyrightinfringementissuearisingfroman

OTTserviceinKorea,theKCCmaywellrequire

theOTToperatortoobtainapprovalunderthe

TBA.

• Asamatteroflaw,nodistinctionismade

betweendomesticandoffshoreOTT-TV

operators,although,asapracticalmatter

theKCCcouldnotcompeloffshoreOTT-TV

operatorstocomplywiththerespectivereport

andapprovalsystems.

South Korea



Pay TV OTT TV


• Domesticcopyrightlawsprovidestrong

protectionwithsignificantpenalties.

• Onlinepiracyisamajorproblem;competeswith

payTV.

• Domesticcopyrightlawsprovidesamestrong

protectionforonlinecontent,althoughunclear

whetheronlinelivetransmissionsofevents

wouldbeprotected.

• Onlinepiracyremainsamajorproblem,although

thegovernmenthasrecentlyimplementeda

numberofpoliciestoaddressthisproblem.

• Inparticular,thegovernmenthasrequired

internetserviceprovidersandonlinecontent

portalstoensureonlylegitimatecontentis

accessiblebyusers.


channels: allowed,

prohibited or

unregulated?

• Priorindividualauthorizationforeachchannel

required.

• Retransmittedprogrammingcappedat20%of

eachoperator’sbouquet.

• Nolocaladsordubbingisallowed,onforeign

retransmittedchannels.

• Inprinciple,transmissionfacilitiesforjoint-

venturechannelsshouldbeinKorea,but

exceptionscanbegranted.(Norestrictionon

locationoffacilitiesforforeignchannels.)

• None.

License fees and

taxation?

• NominalfeeischargedforCableTVlicenses;no

feespecifiedforDTHlicense.

• Cable&DTHsystemoperatorsmustcontribute

toaBroadcastPromotionFund;IPTVoperators

exemptforthreeyears,asaresatellitemobile

operators.

• None.

Rate regulation?

• Retailratesareregulated,withKCC’sapproval

requiredforanychanges.

• Noregulation.



packaging?

• Tieringandbundlingareallowedandare

common.

• Koreanoperatorsoffersomepremiumchannels

alacartebutthereisnoregulatoryrequirement

foralacartesales.

• Norestrictions.

40

South Korea


Pay TV OTT TV

Restrictions on ads


minutage)

• Foreignretransmittedchannelsmaynotinclude

adsfortheKoreanmarket

• Advertisingondomesticchannelsisallowed.

• Cappedatanaverageoftenminsperhour/12

minutesinanyonehour.

• Frequencyofinterruptionsforcommercialsis

alsolimited,e.g.twoina60-minuteprogram.

• NospecificregulationsforadsonOTTTV,but

generalregulationsgoverningonlineservices

apply.Accordingly,OTT-TVserviceproviders

mustnottransmitadvertisementstoajuvenile

containingcontentharmfultoajuvenile,without

anyrestrictionofaccess.

• Thelawdoesnotdistinguishbetweenlocaland

offshoreOTT-TVservicesandtheKCCmayblock

thewebsiteofanoffshoreOTT-TVservicewhich

doesnotcomplywiththerelevantadvertising

rules.

• Aself-regulatorysystemofadvertisementreview

isadministeredbytheKoreaAdvertisingReview

Board(“KARB”).


• Mandatorylocalcontentquotasapplyto

domestic(notforeign)channels.

• Differentquotasfordifferentgenres;currently

rangefrom25to60%.

• None.

Content control?

• Self-regulatoryapproachispractisedbypay-TV

operators.

• Supervisionandstandards-settingbytheKorea

CommunicationsStandardsCommission.

• KCSCalsoseekingin-programdisplayofcontent

classificationsymbolsonbothdomesticand

foreignchannels.

• NospecificregulationsforOTTTV,butgeneral

regulationsgoverningonlineservicesapply.In

law,OTT-TVserviceprovidersmust(i)advise

viewersiftheprogrammingdisplaysany

contentharmfultojuveniles(ii)notdistribute

informationthatcouldinfringeonotherpeople’s

rights,suchasinvasionofprivacyorlibel,(iii)

deleteortaketemporaryactiontoprohibitthe

distributionofinformationthatfallswithinthe

scopeof(ii)above,and(iv)prohibitdistribution

ofanyotherillegalinformation.

• Thelawdoesnotdistinguishbetweenlocaland

offshoreOTT-TVservicesandtheKCCmayblock

thewebsiteofanoffshoreOTT-TVservicewhich

doesnotcomplywiththerelevantcontentrules.

• In-programdisplayofcontentclassification

symbolsonbothdomesticandforeignchannels

notrequiredonOTT-TVservices.



Pay TV OTT TV



• Dubbingisprohibitedonforeignretransmitted

channelsbutsubtitlingisallowed.

• Fordomesticchannelsonly,restrictionsrelated

totimingandsizeofsubtitlingexist.

• Norestrictions.

Restrictions on

exclusivity?

• Noregulationofexclusivecarriagecontractsfor

channels.

• Somespecificeventsarerequiredtobeshared.

• Requirementtosharebroadcastpublicevents

ofwidespreadpopularity.Thelistisnarrow,e.g.

OlympicsandWorldCupgames.

• Noregulation.


• Fordstributionplatforms:

- 0%infreeterrestrialTV.

- 9%incableoperatorsandDTHoperators.

• Forprogramming:

- 20%forgeneralchannels,whichhaveno

restrictionsonthebroadcastgenres.

- 10%fornewschannels.

- 49%forothercontent-specificchannels.

- 20%forIPTVcontentsproviders(general

andnews),49%forothercontent-specific.

• NorestrictionsoninvestmentinOTTplatforms.

42


Pay TV OTT TV

How Regulated?

• Regulatorysystemhasheavystate-control

orientation,insufficientbusinesssectorinput.

• Overlappingjurisdictions(centralandlocal).

• Cumbersomelegislativeprocessdelaysandinhibits

neededregulatoryupdates.

• Politicizationandvestedinterestsparticularlyatthe

locallevelalsoblockreformeffortsaffectingcableTV.

• Notyetregulated,althoughNCChasproposed

draftamendmentstobroadcastinglegislation

whichcontemplateextensionofregulationtothis

area.


• Weakbutimprovingenforcementofdomesticlaws.

• Legalframeworkdoesnotfavorprotectionofpay-

TVsignals.Copyrightownersbearheavyburdento

stimulateenforcement.Finesforviolationsaretoolow.

• Taiwancopyrightlawwouldprotectonline

televisionbroadcastsandprogrammesbroadcast

online.


channels: allowed,

prohibited or

unregulated?

• Channelretransmissionpermitted,butadson

premiumcablechannelscannotberetransmitted.

(NotapplicabletosatelliteorIPTV.)

• Downlinkingrequiresgovernment“landingrights”,

withapplicationthroughalocaloffice.Most

licensesreadilygranted,butsomepolitically-

sensitiveapplicantshavebeendelayed.

• Notyetregulated.

• NCC’sproposedamendmentstoSatellite

BroadcastingActwouldrequirepre-approvalof

anyOTTserviceavailableinTaiwan,whetherbased

locallyor(intheory)offshore.(Thedraftrefers

to“otherchannelorprogramserviceprovider,”

definedas“anybusinesswhich,byanymeans

otherthansatellite,transmitsprogramsoradswith

specificchanneltoanybroadcastplatformavailable

foraudioorvisualreceptionbythepublic”,and

submitssuchservicestoarequirementforapproval,

whetherbasedinTaiwanoroffshore).

• However,itisnotyetcleartowhichonlinecontent

servicestheprovisionsareintendedtoapply,nor

howtheprovisionscouldbeenforcedagainst

offshoreoperators.


• Variousnominalandtransparentfeeschargedfor

licenseapplicationandrenewal.

• Inaddition,1%ofgrossrevenueischargedtoa

developmentfund,whoseproceedsareusedbythe

governmenttobenefitpayTV,free-to-airTV,and

localculturalfacilities.

• Notregulated.

Rate regulation?

• Retail:Nomarketorientation.Extensive,rigidand

overlappingcablerateregulationfromcentraland

localgovernmentbodies.Ratesfornewdigital

packagesareunregulated,asaresatelliteDTHrates.

• Wholesale:noregulationbutstronggovernment

interference,particularlywithrespecttothebasic

cabletier.

• Notyetregulated.

• IfNCC’sproposedamendmentsgothrough,the

pre-approvalprocesswouldincludereviewofrates.

• Asnotedabove,itisnotyetcleartowhichonline

contentservicestheprovisionsareintendedto

apply,norhowtheprovisionscouldbeenforced

againstoffshoreoperators.

Taiwan



Pay TV OTT TV



packaging?

• Mandatorycarriageoflarge,prescribedbasicpackage.(90-100channels)

• Tieringisnotallowedwithinbasicrange.

• Abovebasiclevel,regulationscurrentlyunclear:alacartepricesmustbesetbutinpracticesomebundlinghasbeenpermitted,withpriceslowerthanthesumofalacarterates.Morerecently,NCCpermissionforcarriageofeachnewchannelisrequired,butpackaging/bundlingnotsubjecttoapproval.

• Notregulated.

Restrictions on ads


minutage)

• Intheory,noadvertisingpermittedon“pay”premiumchannels.Advertisingonbasictierchannelslimitedtotenminsperhour.

• Burdensomerestrictionsongraphicadvertisinginsertssometimesenforced.

• Notyetregulated

• IfNCC’sproposedamendmentsgothrough,the“maximum1/6thofaprogram”advertisingrulewouldapplytoregularprogramming(asopposedtoshoppingchannels)onOTTplatforms.NCCwouldadministertherules.

• Unclearhowthelimitscouldbeenforcedagainstoffshoreoperators.


• Cablemustprovideatleast20%localprogramminginitsmix.(Thisrequirementisnotburdensome;thereismuchlocalprogramminginthemarket.)

• DTH,IPTVandmobilehavenosimilarrequirement.

• Notregulated.

• IfNCC’sproposedamendmentsgothrough,thepre-approvalprocesswouldincludereviewofproposedcontentmix.

Content control?

• Generalguidelinesoncontentcontrol.

• Overallcontrolsnotburdensomebuttherearesubstantialpoliticalissues.Systemoffinesforcontentviolationsbackedupbylicensesuspensions.

• Generalguidelinesapply.

• Theguidelinesmakenodistinctionbetweenlocally-basedandforeigncontent,butitisnotclearhowtheycouldbeenforcedagainstcontentoriginatingoffshore.

• NCCisalsostudyingcreationofafoundationtodevelopnewrulestoprotectminorsfromharmfulinternetcontent.Classificationsystems,mandatoryfilteringandaccesscontrolstoexcludeminorsfromsomeinternetcontentmaybeconsidered.



• None. • None.

Restrictions on

exclusivity?



• Theoreticallimitof20%onforeignownershipondomesticoperators.(Doesnotapplyto“offshore”DTHbroadcasters.)

• Inpractice,foreignholdingsarestructuredtoallowhigherlevels.

• Notyetregulated

• IfNCC’sproposedamendmentsgothrough,alimitof50%wouldapplytoanyOTTlicensee(butnottoanyparentorholdingcompany).

44


Pay TV OTT TV

How Regulated?

• Allpay-TVandfree-to-airTVbroadcasts

arenowregulatedbythenewly-formed

NationalBroadcasting&Telecommunications

Commission(NBTC).

• TheCommissionhasapprovedaDraft

BroadcastingMasterPlan,whichcallsfora

higherlevelofregulatoryactivitythanunder

pastregulatoryarrangements.Licensesaretobe

issuedforalloperators,andoversightincreased.

• Internet-transmittedcontentisunder

supervisionoftheMinisterofInformationand

CommunicationsTechnology(MICT).

• Thereisnoeconomicregulationofinternet-

basedservices;theprincipallawgoverning

providersistheComputerCrimeAct2007,which

alsoinvolvesthePoliceDepartment.


• Laxenforcementandminimalpenaltiesfor

violators.

• AlargepirateindustryexiststhatfloutsIPlaws.

• Copyrightlawintheoryappliestointernet

broadcasts,butinfringementsarewidespread.

• Governmenthasprosecutedsomeuploaders

ofcontent,butforthemostpart,civilsuitsby

copyrightownersthemselvesarerequired.


channels: allowed,

prohibited or

unregulated?

• Norestrictions,pendingNBTClicensing.

• Inpracticetherearebothforeignandlocal

uplinks/downlinks.

• Nolicensingrequirements.


• Nationallicenses:6.5%ofrevenue.

• (Changesinamountsandprocedurespossible,as

NBTCincreasesitsrole).

• Governmenthasnolegalauthoritytoimpose

licensesorfeesonchannelsbroadcastoverthe

internet,whetherdomesticorforeigninorigin.

Rate regulation?

• Inprinciple,ratesmustbeinlinewithcriteria

specifiedbytheregulator.

• Inpractice,thisrequirementhasnottodate

beenburdensome.

• None.



packaging?

• Tieringisallowed/noalacarterequirements.

• Packagesneedtobeapprovedbyregulator.

• Thisrequirementisnotburdensomeinpractice.

• None.

Thailand



Pay TV OTT TV

Restrictions on ads


minutage)

• AdvertisingonpayTVsubjecttorestrictivetime

limits(adailyaverageoffiveminsperhour,with

nomorethansixminsinanyonehour).

• Specialrestrictionsonadsfortobacco&alcohol.

• Nominutagerestrictions.

• Domesticgamblingwebsitesareproscribedbut

thereisnocontroloverforeignones.

• Somerestrictionsonadvertisingfirearms,

medicineandfoods,fortune-tellers,etc.online.


• Domesticcontentratiosmaybespecifiedbythe

NBTC.

• None.

Content control?

• Pay-TVservicesintheoryperformself

censorshipbasedonpublishedguidelinesfroma

governmentregulator.

• Regulatorhastheoreticalauthoritytoapprove

programplan,butinpracticethishasnotbeen

exercised.

• Littleregulationofinternetcontent,andno

publishedguidelines.Asamatteroflaw,some

categories(obscenity,offendingthemonarchy)

areillegalevenontheinternet.

• AnyenforcementwouldbemorestrictonTV

streamsoriginatinginThailandthanoninternet

broadcastsfromoverseas.



• ThepreviousNTCregulationsencourage,

butdonotmandate,dubbingorsubtitlingof

internationalchannelsintoThai.

• None.

Restrictions on

exclusivity?

• Nocurrentrestrictions. • None.


• FDIinpayTVislimitedtolessthan25%ofthe

votingstock.(Limitfortelecomsis49%.)

• A49%FDIlimitappliestowholesaleproviders

basedinThailand.

• Nospecificlimitsofanykindoninternet

broadcasters,includingcross-mediaownership.

• However,anyinternetbroadcasterlocated

withinThailandwouldbelimitedto25%FDIby

newbroadcastlicensingrules.

46


Pay TV OTT TV

How Regulated?

• TheMinistryofInformationandCommunication

(MIC)istheprimarygovernmentregulator.The

AdministrationforBroadcastingandElectronic

Information(ABEI)ofMICoverseespayTV.

• ThepartyCommitteeonPopularizationand

Education(CPE)hasultimatedecision-making

power.

• Nascentcompetitivesystemseesmultipleplayers

jostlingwithformerbroadcastmonopoly.

• TheMinistryofInformationandCommunication

(MIC)istheprimarygovernmentregulator.The

AdministrationforBroadcastingandElectronic

Information(ABEI)ofMICoverseesTVonthe

internet.

• ThepartyCommitteeonPopularizationand

Education(CPE)hasultimatedecision-making

power.

• Effectivelyunregulated,althoughintheory

regulatedbymuchoutdatedregulationsoninternet

contentwhichhavenospecificprovisionscovering

OTTTV;newinternetregulationsbeingdraftedare

expectedtocoverthis.


• Governmentpressurehasledtostoppageof

broadcastofunauthorizedchannelstreamsby

nationalbroadcasters.

• Complianceintheprovincesnotguaranteed..

• RespectforIntellectualPropertyisnotwell

established;unauthorizeduseofpiecesof

programmingremainscommon.

• Legalframeworkofcopyrightsisfairlystrongbut

complianceisweakduetolimitedenforcement

• NewregsinJune2012mandatedahighlevelof

ISPresponsibilityforonlinecopyrightinfringement,

includingobligationstopreventinfringement,

expeditiouslytakedownpiratedcontentandpay

compensation,whereinfringementoccurs.

• Notyetclearwhateffecttheseregulationswill

have.

Licensing of foreign channels: allowed, prohibited or unregulated?

• NewregulationsissuedinMarch2011requiredall

channelstogetnewlandinglicenses.

• Foreignchannelsmusthavealocalagentaswellas

alocal“editing”agencytocensorcontent.

• LocalfreeOTT-TVserviceproviderswouldrequire

pressandinternetcontentproviderlicenses.Local

payOTT-TVserviceproviderswouldalsorequirea

pay-TVlicense.

• Ifaforeignfree-orpayOTT-TVserviceprovider

hadanofficeinVietnam(ie.alocaloperation),it

wouldrequireanediting/localizationlicense.No

suchlicenseshaveyetbeenissued.

• OffshoreOTT-TVserviceprovidersdonotrequire

anylicensesasVietnameseregulationdoesnot

applytothem.


• Newregulationsrequirepaymentoflicensefees,as

yetunspecifiedbytheMinistryofFinance.

• Thecurrenttaxrateis10%ofcarriagepayments

(netofagent’scommission).

• UnregulatedforlocalfreeOTTTV.

• ForlocalpayOTT-TV,newpayTVregulationswould

requirepaymentoflicensefees,asyetunspecified

bytheMinistryofFinance.

• Pendingnewinternetregulations,notaxation

applies.

Vietnam



Pay TV OTT TV

Rate regulation?

• Noofficialregulation.

• However,cableoperatorshavetoexplaintocentral

andprovincialauthoritiesaboutanyplansto

increaseretailrates,andaresubjecttopressureto

maintainreasonablerates.

• None.

Restrictions on program distribution/tiering/packaging?

• Norestrictions. • None.

Restrictions on ads (allowed or prohibited, minutage)

• Allowed.

• TheoreticallyLimitedto5%ofairtimeovera24-

hourperiod.

• Nomorethantwoadbreaks(maxfiveminutes

each)perfilm,andfourbreaksinother

entertainmentprograms.

• Enforcementisnotstringent.

• Newregulationsalsorequiresomein-country

paymentsforregionaladvertising;structureand

enforcementofthismandateremainunclear.

• None.


• Nomandatoryregulation.

• TheCinemaLawprovidesofficial“encouragement”

forlocalmoviestomakeupatleast30%ofmovies

broadcast,buttherearenobindingrestrictions.

• None.

Content control?

• Operatorsexerciseday-to-daycontrol,under

directionfromseveralgovernmentagencies,which

havethepowertofine/punishoffendingoperators.

• Somepoliticallysensitiveprograms(e.g.newsor

films)are“blankedout”orreplacedinforeign

channelstreams.

• Newregulationsrequireforeignchannelsto

haveanauthorizedlocal“editing”firmtoensure

compliancewithcontent/censorshiprules.

• ICP(internetcontentproviders)andISPsexercise

day-to-daycontrolunderdirectionfromseveral

governmentagencies,whichhavethepowertofine/

punishoffendingoperators(bothICPsandISPs).

• Censorshipenforcedagainstanti-State,anti-

communistparty,religiously/raciallycharged

content,explicitcontent,amongothers.IPaddress/

siteblockingisthepreferredmethodofpunishment,

especiallyforforeignICPsusingoffshoreservers.

Regulations on languages or dubbing/subtitling?

• Thenewregulationsrequiresubtitlingordubbing

bymostchannels.

• Proportionofcontentaffecteddiffersbygenre.

• Movieandnewschannelsarethemostaffected.

• None.

Restrictions on exclusivity?

• None. • None.


• Nostipulatedlimit.Howeverinpractice,the

governmenthassofarapplieda49%FDIlimit.

• LicenseesmustbeincorporatedinVietnam.The

samerulesapplyfordistributionplatforms.

• None.

48

contact mel a. macaraig

address 2nd, 3rd, 4th & 5th Floors, The Valero Tower 122 Valero Street, Salcedo Village Makati City 1227, Philippines

Tel +632 817.6791 to 95

Fax +632 819.2724 to 25 +632 817.5938

email [email protected]

Web www.cltpsj.com.ph

casTIllO lamaN TaN paNTaleON & saN JOse was

established on January 2, 1981 as a full-service law firm

by the late Gregorio R. Castillo and 16 other partners and

associates. The firm has grown into an organization of

more than 50 lawyers and paralegals, providing expert

legal advice and assistance in all areas of Philippine

legal practice, including foreign investments, intellectual

property, mass media and telecommunications.

contact Joyce c. Fan/James chen

address 9th Floor 201 Tun Huan Road Taipei 10508 Taiwan

Tel +886 2 2715 3300

Fax +886 2 2713 3966

E-mail [email protected] [email protected]

lee & li is the largest and longest-established law firm

in Taiwan and favored by its clients in various fields of

practice.

The firm offers a full range of legal services to local

and international clientele, including cross-border

investments, mergers and acquisitions, communications

& media, tax, labor, antitrust, governmental procurement

and dispute resolution. In addition to being a leader

in Taiwan for cutting-edge and new legal service, the

firm has maintained for decades its time honoured

expertise in intellectual property fields. During the past

decade, the firm has been actively participating in the

liberalization of the Taiwan telecom and media market

and M&As in the industry.

The main office is in Taipei, with branch offices in

Hsinchu Science-Based Industrial Park, Taichung and

Southern Taiwan.

contact Timothy siaw

address 7th Floor, Wisma Hamzah-Kwong Hing No.1, Leboh Ampang 50100 Kuala Lumpur Malaysia

Tel +603 2027 2660

Fax +603 2072 2758/2034 1889 (Intellectual Property)

E-mail [email protected]

Established in 1905, shearn Delamore & co. is

one of the oldest full service law firms in Malaysia,

dedicated to meeting its clients’ needs by providing

the best, comprehensive range of services to a wide

clientele ranging from private individuals to the largest

multinationals. Over 100 lawyers and 250 support staff

form the resources the Firm needs to run and manage

the most complex projects, transactions and matters,

while constantly coordinating and collaborating across

borders with other foreign and international law firms.

By combining its lawyers’ diverse experience, and

interdisciplinary collaborations, Shearn Delamore & Co. is

able to provide a complimentary range of skills.

CASBAA gratefully acknowledges the participation of Janine Lapworth, BA (Hons), LLB (Hons), whose

regulatory and industry expertise provided vital contributions to this report.

A report of this scope is only possible because of the assistance of our knowledge partners, which provided

regulatory information, industry data and market insights to support this study.

contact michael chang

address 6th Floor, Ace Tower 1-170 Soonhwa-dong, Jung-gu Seoul, 100-712 South Korea

Tel +82 2 316 4653

Fax +82 2 756 6226

E-mail [email protected]

With over 300 professionals, shin & Kim is a leading full-

service Korean commercial law firm. More importantly,

it is the first major law firm in Korea to form a “Media

Contents Practice Group” made up of experts with insight

into all aspects of the regulations and policy relevant to

the media industry. Combined with its award winning

finance and corporate/M&A practices, Shin & Kim

remains at the forefront of legal advisers to the Korean

media industry.

contact Jesse chang / philip Qu

address Suite 2218 China World Office 1, 1 Jianguomenwai Avenue Beijing 100004, China

Tel +86 10 6505 8188

E-mail [email protected] [email protected]

Transasia lawyers is one of the leading law firms

licensed in the People’s Republic of China. The Firm has

extensive knowledge of Chinese law and commercial

practice, and has written authoritative publications in the

areas of IT, media, e-commerce, employment and real

estate law. It also enjoys a close working relationship

with key governmental regulatory authorities and is

regularly invited to provide advice on new laws and

regulations.

contact malcolm Webb

address Level 3, 110 Customs Street West PO Box 105-426 Auckland City 1143 New Zealand

Tel +64 9 970 4100

Fax +64 9 970 4102

E-mail Malcolm.Webb@ webbhenderson.com

Webb Henderson is a premium international law firm

with offices in Sydney, Auckland, and Singapore. The

Firm provides specialist legal advice in the media and

telecommunications sectors throughout the Asia Pacific.

In its media commercial practice, Webb Henderson

advises broadcasters on strategic transactions with other

media industry participants, the acquisition of significant

content rights, and provision of broadcasting services

over different platforms and licensing requirements. The

Firm’s media regulatory practice deals with market power

issues arising from concentration and convergence in the

media sector, as well as other service and content-related

competition law and regulatory advice.

About CASBAA

Established in 1991, CASBAA is the Association for digital multichannel TV,

content, platforms, advertising and video delivery across Asia. Spanning

18 geographic markets, CASBAA and its Members reach over 420 million

connections through a footprint ranging from China to Australasia, Japan to

Pakistan. The CASBAA mission is to promote the growth of multichannel TV

and video content through industry information, networking exchanges and

events while promoting global best practices.

casbaa.com

CASBAA Executive Office

802 Wilson House

19-27 Wyndham Street

Central, Hong Kong

Tel: 852 2854 9913

Enquiry: [email protected]

© 2012 CASBAA holds all copyrights to this report unless otherwise stated, and no part

thereof may be reproduced or replicated without prior explicit and written permission.9 789881 570529

ISBN 978-988-15705-2-9

CASBAA_A Tilted Playing Field_Asia Pacific Pay TV & OTT

Documents

Transcript of CASBAA_A Tilted Playing Field_Asia Pacific Pay TV & OTT