CASBAA - A Tilted Playing Field - Asia Pacific Pay TV & OTT

A Tilted Playing Field
Asia-Pacific Pay TV and OTT
Table of Contents
Executive Summary New Ways, Old Regs The Dark Side Conclusions Brief Snapshots Country Matrixes Australia China Hong Kong India Indonesia Japan Malaysia New Zealand Philippines Singapore South Korea Taiwan Thailand Vietnam 16 18 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 42 44 46 2 3 5 8 11
Acknowledgements 48
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. CASBAA has examined the regulatory frameworks Many of the new media services arrive in the consumers 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. Because in most places, most OTT offerings take place within the framework of internet regulation, we have summarized our ndings 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. 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.
Off-shore/On-shore
A 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.
Internet-Based Television (authorised & unauthorised)

DESCriPtion
Legal sites Catch-up television Live streaming VOD offered by pay-TV providers TV Everywhere Offerings by content/ platform partnerships VOD (and subscription VOD) streaming offered by providers other than pay-TV providers User-generated uploads (amateur and professional) Illegal sites Cyberlockers Live streaming Peer-to-Peer BitTorrent networks Closed peer-to-peer networks Willow.tv Comcast XFINITY; J:COM Xvie HBOGo; Fox Movies Play; ESPNPlayer Netix, Hulu, Quickix
EXAMPLES
BBC iPlayer; Hulu; TVB.com; iwanttv.com.ph
YouTube, Dailymotion Megaupload, etc. 3pTV.cn The Pirate Bay (numerous sites accessed by Android-based TV boxes)
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 governments jurisdiction, but allowing platforms offshore to enter as internet services. Where those distinctions were clear, we have reported them in our data matrixes.
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 outed. 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
TVs Tilted Playing Field 3
New Ways, Old Regs

Detailed 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
The pirate video transmission business is the most international, least law-abiding, and lowest taxpaying of any segment of the global media business
capturing very large advertising revenues for the benet of essentially global organized criminal conspiracies .
1
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 ows, 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 Australias 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. Australias decision to launch a review was clear-sighted they went rst. 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 rmly 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 nd ways to extend burdens to legitimate online content delivery.
This CASBAA study points up the need for urgent attention to the issues of the tilted playing eld. 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 eld 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, ofcials, and political leaders is necessary. CASBAA believes that two important elds 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
___________________________________________________________________________________________
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 trafc 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. 4
The Dark Side

The transmission of video content over the internet is growing at a phenomenal rate. Ciscos Visual Networking Index study noted that while global xed-line internet trafc is growing at roughly a 28% CAGR, carriage of video trafc 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 Trafc Forecast in AsiaPacic
40
amounts of streaming video accounting for 21 billion annual visits. A different web intelligence rm, 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
UGC Live Streaming Sites: no tool vs. takedown tool (current status in August 2012 : 75 sites active) Tool 80 70 No Tool
Exabytes Per Month
Exabytes Per Month 2012 2013 2014 Online Gaming File Sharing 2015 2016
60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Source: NetResult
20
0 VOIP Internet Video Web/Email/Data
Source: Cisco VNI, 2012 (Note: Cisco denes peer-topeer trafc as le sharing even if it originates on a commercially-oriented site. Most of this le sharing trafc is made up of video content.)
Asia, regrettably, is a fertile ground for growth of unauthorized OTT services, and a uniquely difcult ground for establishment of competing legitimate services. Asian markets are fragmented. There is no 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.
Unfortunately, a signicant portion of this consumption is videos transmitted unlawfully by companies and syndicates ignoring copyright and seeking to prot from the work of others. A 2011 study of Internet trafc by the research rm 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
___________________________________________________________________________________________
1 A petabyte (PB) is a unit of information equal to one million gigabytes (GB), The unit symbol for the petabyte is PB. TVs Tilted Playing Field 5
Some Asian governments place regulatory 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. Respect for intellectual property is not a wellestablished 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. Asian indigenous content producers are in most 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 locallyproduced lms, dramas, and music for theft and rebroadcast. Few Asian content producers have the knowledge and stamina needed to ght back .
2
Pirate websites make available Greater numbers of consumers
Illegal content
More Ad and/or subscription dollars
Consumers View
More, better quality pirated content attracts
Ad and/or subscription dollars attract
More pirate websites
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: Revenues flowing to piracy syndicates must be stemmed, through restricting payments by credit card processors and advertising servers to pirate websites. Piracy must be made less available and less attractive, by removing pirate programming and pirate sites from popular web search engines. Consumers need to be educated through repeat offender programs that deter serial downloading. Governments must be encouraged to deal 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.
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 difculty knowing, in the online environment, what is authorized content and what is not.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
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 lm 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 nd it hard to sell their products. 6
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
signicant part of the tilted playing eld 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 eld, at least.
OTT Television a Regulators 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 Netix, 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 out 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 difcult-to-reach offshore sites, and pirate sites, untouched.
TVs Tilted Playing Field
Conclusions
Some general themes emerged from CASBAAs 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 ows, but also an unfortunate reection 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 difcult to ensure a level playing eld, 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 nanced through subscriptions or ondemand payments, it presented a discrete set of challenges; many governments established
8
specic 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 nanced 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 Concern
In 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 justied 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 justication is signicantly 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 ltering 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 signicant 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 blackand-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: Rate regulation: Business models are 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: Local media operators in countries 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),
reach breathtaking levels. Domesticallysupplied OTT television almost everywhere is taxed at normal corporate rates, and internationally-supplied OTT operates in a large grey zone.
(Hong Kong), chatlines and dating services (Singapore), and job recruitment agencies (Taiwan). There are no parallel restrictions anywhere on internet advertising. Ownership restrictions: Foreign investment in
Regulation of program supply/exclusivity: PayTV content and service providers are subject to rules restricting or prohibiting exclusive content arrangements in countries such as India and Singapore as well as specic 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. Local content quotas: These typically apply only 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. Advertising restrictions: Minutage restrictions 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
10
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 foreignowned.
Brief Snapshots
Australia
Australias 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 classied for mature audiences. The use of access control mechanisms is the internet industrys 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 payTV 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 antisiphoning regime (the worlds 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.
China
As 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
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 Chinas wall of sovereignty.
Hong Kong
Hong Kong has few regulations that apply to OTT services; specic 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 specic 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.
India
India 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. Indias rst 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.
Indonesia
There 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 specic 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.
12
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.
Malaysia
OTT-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 signicant government intervention in the online environment is the regulators 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 Zealand
The 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 Zealands self-regulatory schemes on television content coming from overseas websites is unclear.
Philippines
In 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. Ofcials 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 Apples i-Tunes
13
immediately after it was launched from outside Singapore. There was no immediate explanation of what factors other than a well-known brand name distinguished Apples offering from those of many lesserknown 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 Korea
The regulation of OTT-TV services in South Korea is in a state of ux. 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 OTTTV 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.
Taiwan
In 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 classication 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.
14
Thailand
The 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, lse majest), 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 Commissions licensing authority over all content streams by means of radio frequency, wire, optical, electromagnetic, or any other system.
Vietnam
The 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.
15
Australia
Regulatory Regime Review

Pay TV
Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) is an impartial and independent regulator. ACMA is responsible for regulating telecommunications, broadcasting, radiocommunications and online content. However, while it has one converged administrative structure, it continues to implement different legislative frameworks for broadcasting and telecoms. Unauthorized use of pay-TV broadcasts for commercial purposes is a criminal offence. Unauthorized use at home is also a criminal offence, since 2007. Effectiveness of enforcement varies, because of differences in state legislation and shared responsibilities between different federal/state agencies. Licenses readily granted.
OTT TV
ACMA regulates content matters in respect of online content generally; otherwise there is currently no regulation of OTT-TV services. Two government-commissioned reviews have recently recommended replacing ACMA with a new communications regulator, as well as establishing an industry-funded body regulating news reporting (across all platforms, including online). Unclear whether, under Australian law, the transmission of a live event on an OTT-TV service would be protected as a broadcast under copyright legislation. Otherwise, legislative protection is strong.
How Regulated?
Copyright protection?

Licensing of foreign channels: allowed, prohibited or unregulated? License fees and taxation? Rate regulation? Restrictions on program distribution/tiering/ packaging?
No licensing requirement for domestic nor foreign OTT-TV services.
Minimal. None, other than under general antitrust law.
None. None, other than under general antitrust law.
No restrictions.
No restrictions.
Allowed Subscription fees must be pay-TV operators predominant source of revenue. No more than 50% of total revenues can come from advertising, but minutage is unlimited. 10% of total program expenditure on drama channels must be spent on new Australian/New Zealand dramas. A government-commissioned Convergence Review has proposed introducing content quotas in respect of documentaries and childrens programming as well. Pass-through channels not affected.
Allowed, no restrictions.
Restrictions on ads (allowed or prohibited, minutage)
Currently no quotas. A government-commissioned Convergence Review has recommended that online content providers, which provide professional (as opposed to usergenerated) TV dramas, documentaries or childrens programming and which exceed market and revenue thresholds, be required to invest a certain proportion of revenue in Australian content. No indication of how this might be enforced on overseas sites.
Local content quotas?

16

Pay TV
Standard requirements on all broadcasting services relating to tobacco and pharmaceutical advertising and the broadcast of political matters. Subscription TV licensees are subject to content obligations in respect of channels delivered on their platforms. X-rated material prohibited. R-rated material permitted on narrowcasting subscription services only. Co-regulation according to Codes of Practice devised and published by the industry association and registered by ACMA. Various reviews have proposed a complaints and access restriction/content removal scheme across all platforms (as applies currently to online content).
OTT TV
In respect of OTT-TV content hosted outside Australia, if ACMA receives a complaint that the content is X-rated, or R- or MA15+ rated without access restrictions, ACMA may notify ISPs to deal with the content pursuant to the prevailing industry code or standard (eg. by filtering the content). In respect of OTT- TV content hosted within Australia, if ACMA receives a complaint that the content is X-rated, or R- or MA15+ rated without access restrictions, ACMA may require the content to be removed. Various reviews have proposed a similar complaints and access restriction/content removal scheme across all platforms. In respect of news and commentary, it has been proposed that a new body be established to oversee news reporting across all platforms.
Content control?
General anti-discrimination legislation in principle requires closed-captioning of television programming. Subscription television currently
General anti-discrimination legislation in principle requires closed-captioning of audio-visual material. At this stage the government has not put forward any implementing proposals in respect of OTT TV.
Regulations on languages or dubbing/subtitling?

subject to captioning levels as determined in the context of this legislation. The government has drafted amendments to broadcasting legislation setting out implementation targets for pay-TV services. No general restraints on exclusivity other than under general anti-trust law. The governmentcommissioned Convergence Review has recommended its proposed communications regulator have the power to investigate contentrelated competition issues. Restrictive anti-siphoning provisions require many sporting events to be offered first to free-to-air TV.
No restraints on exclusivity other than under general anti-trust law. The governmentcommissioned Convergence Review has recommended its proposed communications regulator have the power to investigate contentrelated competition issues. Although current anti-siphoning provisions do not apply to online platforms, the government has proposed amendments to broadcasting legislation, prohibiting online service providers from acquiring exclusive rights to listed sporting events.
Restrictions on exclusivity?
All foreign ownership restrictions have been lifted. Specific foreign acquisitions of media assets could be reviewed under Australias general foreign investment policy.
Specific foreign acquisitions of online television assets could be reviewed under Australias general foreign investment policy.
Restrictions on FDI?
17
China

Pay TV
Overlapping regulatory agencies include the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT, for telecommunications and broadcast satellite and internet infrastructure), the State Administration for Radio, Film and Television (SARFT, for television and radio content and coaxial cable infrastructure) and the Ministry of Culture (MOC, online content). Judicial review of regulatory decisions technically available but rarely sought.
OTT TV
Regulatory regime distinguishes between programming available on internet websites and usually viewed on computers, (OTT TV) and programming delivered via the internet to television sets with or without set-top boxes (Internet TV). Several regulatory agencies involved in regulation of OTT TV and Internet TV. The constituting legislation is vague, leading to some overlap in the respective agencies authority, but the principal regulators are MIIT and SARFT. SARFT introduced a new permit system for content and aggregation services relating to Internet TV in 2010 but has issued only a few licenses to its affiliated entities and traditional domestic TV stations. OTT-TV services require an Internet Audio/Visual Program Transmission License, which licensing regime is also administered by SARFT. MIIT regulates value-added telecom services such as ICP services (internet content providers or online information service providers), including OTT TV and Internet TV. The operators of such businesses must first obtain a valueadded telecom service permit from the MIIT or its provincial level counterparts. The General Administration of Press and Publication (GAPP) regulates internet publication (upload or download) of audio-visual programs. The State Internet Information Office (SIIO) regulates internet news and also monitors online content. The Ministry of Culture is responsible for the online transmission of internet culture products including music and gaming.
How Regulated?
18

Pay TV
Online content piracy widespread despite recent improvements in enforcement. No legal penalties to deter China-based international circumvention networks. Unauthorized overseas content received by millions of consumers using illegal satellite dishes.
OTT TV
Online content piracy widespread. The Chinese government has conducted a number of campaigns against online copyright infringement since 2005, most recently the 2011 Jian Wang Campaign, requiring video websites to audit their online content. Copyright infringement of online video content has resulted in the imposition of administrative penalties. Pre-2010, Internet TV manufacturers worked with online video companies to build up their own platforms for OTT-TV operation, causing online piracy to spread to Internet TV. However, most partnerships between Internet TV manufacturers and online streaming websites terminated with the introduction of the SARFT permit system, given its strict requirements for content (as for traditional TV platforms), indirectly bolstering copyright protection in that market segment. Despite these government controls on internal content, China has become a hub for streaming of intercepted international programming onto the global internet, pushed by criminal syndicates profiting from sales of internet-linked set-top boxes, and from advertising. Theoretically, Internet TV is subject to same restrictions as traditional TV and radio. Retransmission of foreign channels is prohibited; any import and re-broadcasting of foreign content on Internet TV requires prior approval of SARFT. (Before the 2010 SARFT regulations, foreign content was available on platforms built by TV manufacturers.) This rule is ignored by the international Internet TV streaming piracy syndicates, whose content is available both inside and outside China. Foreign-invested enterprises are prohibited from providing OTT TV (including over mobile internet). Domestic providers may become subject to the SARFT import review system in respect of certain foreign content, such as foreign television dramas and films. TVs Tilted Playing Field 19
Re-transmission of foreign channels generally prohibited. However, with regulatory approval, foreign TV channels may be transmitted in hotels rated 3-stars or above and in designated areas where foreigners predominantly reside. The importation or re-broadcasting of foreign content requires prior approval from SARFT, which is not easily granted. Establishment of domestic pay-TV channels is subject to approval by the SARFT or its local counterparts.
Licensing of foreign channels: allowed, prohibited or unregulated?
China
License fees and taxation? Rate regulation?
Pay TV
No industry-specific licence fees. Retail: basic cable prices determined by local NDRC bureaus in consultation with SARFT. No restrictions.
OTT TV
No industry-specific licence fees. No government-determined rates in this area.
Restrictions on program distribution/tiering/ packaging?
No restrictions.
Generally prohibited on domestic channels unless SARFT approval is obtained. Ads must comply with advertising regulations, requiring integrity of program to be maintained and continual visibility of channel mark and restricting use of on-screen insertions and certain program sponsorships. Minutage is restricted to 12 minutes per hour (nine minutes per hour in peak viewing period), with additional restrictions on number and length of in-program commercial breaks. Foreign content must not exceed 30% of daily programming on a pay-TV channel. A foreign channel may not be retransmitted in its entirety. Domestic pay-TV channels must self-censor to ensure programs comply with stringent censorship requirements. All imported programming also subject to censorship. Script approval required for production of TV dramas and movies.
No restrictions.
No restrictions.
Internet TV content aggregators have same obligations as TV channels. All imported programs subject to censorship and approval. OTT-TV content must also comply with strict content rules, although imported programs are not yet subject to prior approval. SARFT recently issued a circular requiring online content providers to closely self-regulate content of online video content. Industry associations are expected to develop content guidelines for online video content. Internet TV: All foreign language content on Internet TV requires prior SARFT approval. OTT TV: Prior SARFT approval is not yet required for imported online programs.
Content control?
All foreign language channels require SARFT approval.
20

Restrictions on exclusivity? Restrictions on FDI? No restrictions.
Pay TV
No restrictions.
OTT TV
Foreign investment generally prohibited, though some investors have found work-arounds.
Internet TV: Foreign investment prohibited. However, some investors involved at various points in value chain. OTT TV: Foreign investment theoretically prohibited. Foreign investment also prohibited in online news businesses, online audio program services and all online culture businesses other than music. Providing technical services rather than content integration or supply for Internet TV and OTT TV is permitted to foreign investors. Above rules are ignored by piracy syndicate, some of whom appear to have significant foreign involvement.
21
Hong Kong

Pay TV
Merger of broadcasting and telecoms regulators is underway and will require several years to complete. Both previous regulators were efficient, transparent, statutory bodies independent of operators and political parties, though staffed by civil servants. Telecoms facilities and frequencies licensed under a unified carrier license regime. Appeal of regulators decisions is possible to Chief Executive; judicial review is available. Infringement of copyright in broadcasting is usually a civil, not a criminal, offence. Commercial transactions involving unauthorized decoders are a criminal offense, but enforcement is lax for decoders for international pay-TV services. No restrictions on retransmission of foreign channels. Channels not subject to downlink licensing, though operators bouquets must be notified. Special facilitation for non-domestic broadcast uplinks.
OTT TV
No economic regulation of internet-based services. The Telecommunications Ordinance focuses on the means of provision of services, while the Broadcasting Ordinance excludes services provided on the service commonly known as the internet from being classified as television programme services.
How Regulated?
Copyright law in theory applies to internet broadcasts, but infringement is widespread. Government has prosecuted uploaders of infringing content.
Government has no legal authority to regulate channels broadcast over the internet, whether domestic or foreign in origin.
License fees and taxation?
Domestic pay TV annually: HK$1.533 million plus HK$4 per subs. Non-domestic TV annually: as low as HK$56,400. Intention is that fee only covers all administrative costs.
Government has no legal authority to impose licenses or fees on channels broadcast over the internet, whether domestic or foreign in origin.
Rate regulation? Restrictions on program distribution/tiering/ packaging? 22
None.
None.
None.
None.

Pay TV
No limit on ad minutage for pay TV. A range of proscribed products and services may not be advertised, including gambling, firearms, real estate, undertakers, fortune-tellers, nightclubs, dancehalls, saunas, etc.
OTT TV
No limits on advertising. Hong Kong law outlaws solicitation of bets (bookmaking) by unauthorized websites, including TV sites, whether they are located inside or outside Hong Kong. (However, as a practical matter, police are only able to take action against sites located within Hong Kong.) No restrictions on advertising firearms, real estate, undertakers, fortune-tellers, dancehalls or saunas online. However, the information in ads for firearms would likely lead to different offences under the Firearms and Ammunition Ordinance or other laws. None. Basic controls in the Control of Obscene and Indecent Articles Ordinance apply in theory to Internet TV. Distributing obscene materials through a website based in Hong Kong would be an offense. A Code of Practice commits internet service providers in Hong Kong not to allow their services to host material likely to be classifiable as obscene. No extraterritorial reach to websites outside Hong Kong. No attempts are made to repress reception of obscene video from foreign sites. None.
None. Platform operators (and channels) required to adhere to broad guidelines. No direct control on channel providers.
Content control?
Regulations on languages or dubbing/subtitling? Restrictions on exclusivity?
None.
None.
None.
No limits for distribution platforms, though a majority of directors must be HK residents. (Some minor restrictions on cross-media ownership). No limits on wholesale provision of pay-TV programming.
No limits of any kind on internet broadcasters, including cross-media ownership.
23
India

Pay TV
No single regulator, but multiple agencies with overlapping responsibility: - The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) is part of the government;
OTT TV
Under the Information Technology Act, the Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT) monitors online content, but the agency has a mandate limited to computer security. At present, no other regulatory agency involved.
How Regulated?
- The Telecommunications and Radio Authority of India (TRAI) is independent of the Ministry, though staffed by civil servants. Regulators are independent of all operators. Judicial review available. Domestic copyright laws on signal piracy are good, but enforcement is lax, as local agencies are not well educated on copyright matters. Piracy of DTH signals seems to be growing. Commercial fraud/underdeclaration is rife. Since 2005, government permission required; some channels excluded from the market. Heavier restrictions on news channels. Downlinking approval has burdensome application requirements for channels and the approval process has been slow. However, more than 150 foreign channels have been licensed. Nominal for Cable 500 Rps. DTH 100 million Rps plus annual fee equivalent to 10% of gross revenues. HITS 100 million Rps IPTV annual fee ranges from 6-10% of adjusted gross revenue depending on category of license. Channel downlinking 1 million Rps plus 100,000 Rps annually. Retail rates, other than for certain commercial subscribers, controlled since 2004 in most (non-CAS) areas. (Small rate increments have been allowed.) Since 2006, in CAS areas (3 m homes), a single retail price (5.35 rps per pay channel per mo.) has been set for each channel, with no market logic. Not applicable to certain commercial subscribers. Wholesale rates have been frozen. Small rate increments have been allowed but there has been no indication as to when freeze may be lifted. Since 2006 in CAS areas, wholesale rates set by government. Government has fixed prices for DTH and IPTV systems at 42% of the rate charged to non-CAS cable operators.
Copyright protection? Licensing of foreign channels: allowed, prohibited or unregulated?
Online piracy is very difficult to control. CERT is the theoretical de facto authority for addressing online issues including piracy, in absence of any other enforcement agency.
No licensing regime.
No license fees.
Rate regulation?
No rate regulation.
24

Pay TV
A basic service tier of at least 30 free-toair channels is prescribed for analogue cable operators. In CAS districts, a la carte channel offerings mandatory at wholesale and retail levels. New regulations for digital addressable systems specify consumers should be offered basic package of non-premium 100 channels. No restrictions.
OTT TV
Ads on cable, DTH and IPTV limited to ten minutes per hour plus two promo minutes.
No specific regulations applying to OTT TV, although the self-regulatory body, the Advertising Standards Council of India, seeks to regulate advertisements in any media, including online media. None. No regulations specifically applying to OTT.
None. Not restrictive - largely a self-regulatory approach. Based on a published Program Code, with separate codes adopted by industry organizations. None. Exclusivity not allowed for linear channels. Allowed for specific pieces of content on channels, and for VOD offerings. There are also highly restrictive must provide regulations in force, applicable to all platforms, cable, DTH and IPTV. In addition, restrictive sports sharing provisions require many sporting events to be given to the public broadcaster. In respect of pay-TV distribution platforms, FDI limits are 49% in DTH (20% direct and 29% institutional.), 49% in Cable, 74% in Telecom, who could operate IPTV and mobile. (Government has announced intention to equalize most limits at 74%.) In respect of wholesale provision of pay-TV programming, FDI limit of 26% applies to Indian news channels only.
Content control?
None. No regulations.
No regulations.
25
Indonesia

Pay TV
Regulatory jurisdiction is shared between the Ministry of Communications and Information (Kominfo) and the Broadcasting Commission (KPI). Ministry has taken the lead on licensing and market structure while Broadcasting Commission has taken the lead on content regulation. Some encouraging signs of transparency, but also some sudden and unpredictable moves. Broadcasting regulators have been professional and even-handed. Other bodies with some regulatory role have been subject to influence (e.g. Competition Commission). Strong regulations on paper have been little enforced, until 2009. Weak public understanding leads to much infringement, especially outside Java. No restrictions on channel programming. Retransmission of foreign-made ads for preapproved international brands is allowed under Made in Indonesia ad regulations (not yet in force). License fees for new pay-TV licenses are as follows: - Applicants for a temporary initial license pay IDR15-50mn depending on the zone. This is a one-time fee payable for each licensed coverage area.
OTT TV
Pure OTT television is not regulated. Unlike IPTV service providers, OTT operators are not required to be licensed nor to give a service level guarantee to customers. Indonesian regulators are aware of the disparity between traditional pay TV and OTT TV and intend to deal with it when addressing convergence in the revised Telecommunication Law, scheduled for discussion in 2013. However, OTT is not yet regarded as a pressing issue due to the limited availability and cost of bandwidth.
How Regulated?
Copyright protection for online content, or online infringement of copyright in audiovisual materials, remains untested in Indonesia.
No licensing regime nor restrictions on channel programming.
None in respect of an OTT-TV service.
- Recipients of permanent licenses pay IDR5.3 - 17.7mn annually, depending on the zone. Fees are levied for each licensed coverage area. IPTV operators must also pay 2% of gross revenues from their ISP activities for their ISP license. None. Tiering is allowed and widely practiced. No a la carte requirement. None. None.

Pay TV
Allowed; no limitation on minutage. Regulations requiring domestic ads be subject to new Made in Indonesia requirement have yet to be enforced. Ads for international brands are exempted. Pay-TV operators are in theory required to broadcast 20% local channels (10% FTA and 10% local content). The Broadcasting Commission has developed detailed content codes. Sensitivities on content issues are high. None.
OTT TV
The Made In Indonesia requirement might, in theory, apply but there is at present no mechanism for the requirement to be enforced against OTT-TV service providers.
Content control?
Indonesian Pornography Regulation requires ISPs to block all access to pornographic content. The Electronic Information and Transactions Act contains some content restrictions, including in respect of content against propriety, defamatory content and content inciting racial or ethnic hatred, although there has not yet been any enforcement action against content providers under this legislation. None.
Foreign films must be subtitled or dubbed.
The Broadcasting Law is silent on exclusive content. However, the Ministry has taken a stance that essential content must be distributed through a transparent tender process. Anti-monopoly law has also been interpreted to restrict some essential content from exclusive contracts. Non-essential programming (determined on case-by-case basis) may be exclusive; there are no must-provide restrictions. 20% in pay-TV platforms. 49% in telecoms.
None.
In reality, none, as OTT-TV operators do not need to be registered in Indonesia. If the company is also a multimedia service provider (if so described in its articles of association, or if the Investment Coordination Board regards it as such) or ISP then there is a 49% foreign ownership cap. TVs Tilted Playing Field 27
Japan

Pay TV
Regulator is independent from broadcast/cable/ satellite operators, but not independent of the government. Judicial review traditionally not an option in practice. Regulatory framework favours established players. Broadcast Act creates separate categories for basic broadcast and general broadcast, which are assigned to different satellites.
OTT TV
Online television not specifically regulated.
How Regulated?
Domestic copyright laws provide strong protection with significant penalties. Anti-circumvention laws in effect. Online piracy is a major problem.
Illegal to download and upload copyrighted music and video unless authorized by rightsholders. Anti-circumvention laws in effect. Online piracy is a major problem. Government is supporting private-sector efforts to develop self-regulation systems including by ISPs. A Provider Liability Limitation Act Guidelines Review Committee has set out model procedures for notice and takedown, etc.
Foreign channels previously restricted to the general broadcast satellite platform. Now, firms with some foreign participation have been licensed as basic broadcasters. Some restrictions on foreign investment in these channels remain. Nominal administrative filing fee for cable and satellite operators.
Government hasnt legislated for licensing of channels.
No license fees payable. No specific taxation treatment.
Filing and public disclosure of retail rates required.
Not regulated.
No restrictions.
No restrictions.

Pay TV
Advertising allowed. General advertising rules would apply (e.g. in relation to accuracy). No regulatory restrictions on ad minutage, however, filing with MIC is required of the amount of time allotted for ads.
OTT TV
General advertising rules would apply (e.g. in relation to accuracy). No issue yet raised regarding extraterritorial application to foreign channels. JIAA (Japan Internet Advertising Association) issued a guideline to members (online ad media companies) as means of self-regulation.
None. No government regulations for content; a selfregulation system functions well. Guidelines coordinated by Japan Commercial Broadcasters Association. BPO (Broadcasting Ethics & Program Improvement Organization), a private independent third party, aims to deal, on a voluntary basis, with complaints and ethical issues surrounding broadcasting.
None. Self-regulatory system does not yet extend to OTT TV, but would apply indirectly where same content also broadcast on traditional pay TV/FTA platforms. Government is supporting private-sector efforts to develop self-regulation schemes to control objectionable content.
Content control?
Subtitles for the hearing-impaired, and audio descriptions for the visually-impaired, are to be provided wherever possible. (There are no associated penalties.)
None.
No restrictions.
No restrictions.
100% legalized in cable TV (1999). 20% in DTH (BS and 110 CS) and terrestrial TV. 100% permitted in telecom (IPTV and mobile).
No restrictions (under general Japanese companies registration law, a Japanese company would need at least one local respresentative director).
29
Malaysia

Pay TV
Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) is independent of all operators. Political independence not assured. Judicial review available in theory but never tested in practice.
OTT TV
MCMC is the relevant regulator.
How Regulated?
Enforcement divided between government agencies. Regulator lacks enforcement resources, but the DTH operator supports investigations in cooperation with Government. On balance, this public-private partnership has made for good enforcement.
Malaysian law protects online communication/ broadcasts. A notice and takedown procedure applies to infringing online content on Malaysian websites. MCMC has disabled access to notorious overseas piracy websites, leading to increased ISP cooperation in Malaysia.

Television content subject to intensive content control laws.
Online content services are currently exempt from the licensing regime.
License fee is 0.5% of gross turnover less applicable rebates, subject to a minimum license fee of 0.15% of gross turnover or RM50,000 whichever is higher. Pay-TV customers also pay a 6% service tax on their subscriptions.
Currently no licensing fees as online content services exempt from licensing regime. Service tax is not collected on payments to OTT content providers.
Filing of retail rates only (after which an investigation could be opened by MCMC).
No filings required. Technically, Minister may intervene to set rates for good cause or in the public interest, but there is currently no such intervention in respect of OTT TV (or other TV delivery modes).
Rate regulation?
Restrictions on program distribution/tiering/ packaging? 30
No restrictions.
No restrictions.

Pay TV
Allowed, subject to Made in Malaysia requirement. Minutage limited to 10 minutes/ broadcast hour/channel average over 24 hours. Foreign advertisements (with Made-in-Malaysia exemption certificates) permitted only up to 30% of total advertising time; all other ads even in passthrough channel streams must be replaced by ads meeting the Made in Malaysia requirements.
OTT TV
No minutage restrictions, nor Made in Malaysia requirements. The Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Content Code (the Content Code) applies on a voluntary basis, unless the relevant Minister directs otherwise. The Content Code requires producers and transmitters of advertising to ensure advertisements comply with general content rules, are honest and do not concern tobacco, gambling, pornography or other prohibited content.
None for programming, only for advertising (see Made in Malaysia advertising requirements above).
None.
Intensive content control guidelines. Pay-TV services can be exempted, allowed to perform self censorship based on detailed, published guidelines from Government.
Under the voluntary Content Code, providers should ensure content transmitted complies with general content control guidelines.
Under the voluntary Content Code, ISPs, content hosts and content aggregators must comply with a notice and take-down mechanism in respect of prohibited content.
Content control?
Carriage of channels then subject to prior filing with the authority.
None.
None.
No restrictions.
No restrictions.
Licensees must be incorporated in Malaysia. FDI limited to 30%.
No restrictions.
31
New Zealand

Pay TV
No sector-specific regulation. Authority divided between several agencies. These generally regarded as transparent, open and autonomous of both government and large corporate players. Judicial review available. As with pay TV.
OTT TV
How Regulated?
Department of Internal Affairs enforces censorship legislation by prosecuting New Zealanders who trade objectionable material via the internet. Publications categorised as objectionable are automatically banned by the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993. No enforcement against foreign websites.
Strong copyright laws with good enforcement. Improvements introduced in 2008, but there are significant loopholes on circumvention devices, including omission of coverage for access controls Graduated response mechanism introduced in 2011 to address online copyright infringement.
As with pay TV: Copyright Act 1994 applies. 2011 amendment allows copyright owner to take the internet account holder to the Copyright Tribunal for online file sharing that infringes copyright, provided that after two infringement notices are issued, the third notice is issued within nine months. (This applies only to peer-to-peer file sharing, and not to online streaming of content).
No restrictions.
No restrictions.
Not burdensome.
No licence fees nor OTT TV-specific taxes.
Rate regulation?
None.
None.
No restrictions.
No restrictions.
32

Pay TV
Allowed, no minutage restrictions. Self-regulated by association of industry bodies. As with pay TV.
OTT TV
If an OTT-TV provider is not a member of the Advertising Standards Authority, then no avenue of complaint via the Advertising Standards Complaints Board (ASCB). The Broadcasting Standards Authority has jurisdiction over an advertising programme if neither the broadcaster nor the advertiser recognise, in relation to a complaint, the ASCBs jurisdiction.
None. Self-regulated. Codes of practice for pay TV less restrictive than for free-to-air TV. Backed up by appeal to Broadcasting Standards Authority.
None. Self-regulated, subject to the Broadcasting Act 1989. This legislation contains broad definitions of broadcasting and programme, causing it to apply to programes broadcast online, other than on-demand content. No Codes of Broadcasting Practice specific to OTT TV. Appeal to the Broadcasting Standards Authority available for linear broadcasts (including an online stream), but not available for on demand content available online only or a complaint which falls outside the 20 working day period after the offline broadcast. Law Commission proposal Dec 2011 to bring streamed online content in line with actual broadcast material.
Content control?
No restrictions.
No restrictions.
No restrictions.
No restrictions.
No limit. Government review/consent based on transparent, non-restrictive criteria.
As with pay TV.
33
Philippines

Pay TV
The National Telecommunications Commission (NTC), the broadcasting and telecommunications regulator, is subject to political interference and subject to arbitrary dismissal by the government. On some issues, its powers and authority are unclear. Judicial review of NTC decisions is available. However, the judicial process is slow in the Philippines, and courts have at times been used to stymie effective action. The MTRCB (Movie and Television Review and Classification Board), is responsible for content standards and censorship.
OTT TV
NTC would also be regulator for OTT television, but there are no regulations dealing with domestic or foreign OTT TV since there is no definitive pronouncement yet (from Philippine Congress and NTC) whether OTT TV should fall under broadcast or telecoms. In the absence of a regulatory framework, some officials take the position that only free OTT services can be offered in the Philippines. This has yet to be tested.
How Regulated?
In the Philippine legal context, any future NTC regulation is likely to apply to all services available in the Philippines, including international services, despite the challenges of enforcement against offshore service providers.
Severely lacking. Piracy is rampant despite efforts by parts of the government to address it. Burdensome procedural rules; judicial complaints subject to arbitrary dismissals and unreasonable delays. In practice, enforcement has been impossible to achieve.
The same rules, as regards copyright, would most probably apply. In addition, the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000 provides additional theoretical penalties for online piracy and copyright infringement.
No restrictions.
No regulations. However, likely to be allowed under the same set of conditions as in pay-TV.
Nominal for Cable (about US$100 annually). Only slightly more for DTH (about $400 annually).
No regulations yet.
Rate regulation?
None. Nominal for Cable (about US$100 annually). Only slightly more for DTH (about $400 annually).
None.
No restrictions.
34

Pay TV
Allowed; no minutage restrictions. No regulations
OTT TV
None. Cable TV operators are required to provide a free access channel for government, health, educational, cultural and civic purposes.
No regulations.
Content control?
A self-regulation system administered by the Association of Broadcasters of the Philippines (KBP) in coordination with MTRCB governs most broadcasters, with NTC regulating non-KBP members. Under Philippine law (P.D. 1986), MTRCB prescribes rules regarding classification, review and censorship for film and TV. MTRCB recently took an active role in respect of tobacco rules.
No general regulation yet. Specific provisions of a 2009 law ban child pornography. This legislation applies to any content available in the Philippines.
None.
None.
In principle, exclusivity is not allowed, but in practice, no requirements are enforced. Philippine broadcasters jealously guard their exclusive content.
No regulations.
No FDI allowed in cable operators, DTH or terrestrial broadcasters. 40% FDI allowed in telecom operators.
As it is not yet clear whether OTT TV would be classified as broadcasting or telecoms, investment rules are uncertain. (If broadcasting, no FDI allowed; if telecoms, a maximum of 40% FDI would be allowed.)
35
Singapore

Pay TV
Media regulator is a separate legal entity, independent of all operators, active and neutral across all technologies. Unlike other Singapore bodies, there is no statutory reconsideration process. Only appeal from decisions is to the Minister. Under law, the Minister can also give direction to the regulator. Judicial review available, but Singapore courts seldom challenge government actions. Spectrum regulator not converged.
OTT TV
The Media Development Authority (MDA) regulates OTT TV via its Broadcasting Class Licence if the provider is registered as a company in Singapore. OTT providers with a subscription-based business could also be required to obtain a niche pay-TV license. OTT offerings of companies that are already subscription TV licensees in Singapore are regulated under their existing licenses, with the possibility of stricter conditions than class licensees. A content provider registered as a company in Singapore and providing content outside of Singapore is subject to a lighter licensing regime, also the responsibility of the MDA. OTT-TV providers operating from outside of Singapore are not regulated. The criminal provisions regarding reception of pirated pay TV do not apply to reception over the internet.
How Regulated?
Generally good strong laws that are effectively enforced, except in respect of online piracy. Criminal offence to knowingly receive pirated pay-TV broadcasts over traditional pay-TV platforms (ie. not Internet). Channels require government approval. Approval not granted for most channel transmissions in dialects, but VOD operators are allow to broadcast dialect content up to a maximum of 50% of the programmes offered. 2.5% of revenues. A concessionary rate of 0.5% of total revenue in the first three years of licence duration. Not regulated. Retail rates are filed, but no rate control at present. Cross-carriage system imposes regulation of bundling and pressure for a la carte. Regulator requires notification of channels in (i) channel line-ups, (ii) subscription rates.
For domestic OTT service providers, license required pre-launch of service but no prior approval then required to launch new content or new channels. No dialect programming allowed. No licensing regime for foreign providers. For domestic providers subject to a Broadcasting Class Licence: annual fee of SGD$1,000.
Rate regulation?
None. Retail rates are not required to be filed.
No restrictions.
36

Pay TV
Ads are allowed but comprehensively regulated through the TV Advertising & Sponsorship Codes. A minutage limit of 14 mins per hour per channel applies. No more than 25% of operators total revenues can come from advertising. All nationwide operators must provide one public service broadcasting channel for every ten. Comprehensive content regulations through Content Codes. Authority for direct regulation of domestic and foreign broadcasters. None.
OTT TV
Degree of application of advertising codes to Internet TV is unclear, except on full subscription TV licensees, who are fully bound.
The Internet Code of Practice applies, which is more relaxed than the Content Codes applicable to other pay-TV platforms. The Internet Code proscribes content which is racist, incites hatred, anti-national, contains explicit nudity and explicit sexual activity, The Internet Code is not usually enforced against foreign providers but the government reserves the right to block foreign sites and has done so. Whilst the Internet Code doesnt expressly apply to domestic providers communicating content outside of Singapore, the Government is likely to expect and require compliance with the Internet Code. Domestic Broadcasting Class Licensees are not allowed to programme content in dialects. Otherwise, no restrictions. No restrictions.
Content control?
Transmission of programs on channels in dialects tightly controlled.
New regulatory mandate that pay-TV operators must cross carry each others exclusive content (both broadcast and VOD) effectively bans exclusivity. Investment in local broadcasters restricted -49% cap. Subject to government approval of substantial shareholders, directors and CEOs.
No restrictions, except on full subscription TV licensees.
37
South Korea

Pay TV
An independent converged regulator, the Korea Communications Commission (KCC), was established in February 2008 by merger of the former KBC and the Ministry of Information & Communication. Content standards administered by the Korean Communication Standards Commission (KCSC). Decisions by the KCC may be subject to judicial review.
OTT TV
KCC also regulates OTT-TV services. KCSC also involved in administering content standards. Until recently, under the Korean law, services like OTT TV were categorized as a value added telecommunication service and only a filing of a simple report with the KCC was required. However, recent amendments to the Telecommunications Business Act (TBA) introduced a KCC-approval system for a special type of value-added telecommunication service (VAS), with stricter requirements than the former report system (eg. a certain type of VAS provider must have particular equipment and human resources available for the protection of copyright pursuant to the TBA). Due to vague terminology in the amendments, it remains unclear whether OTT TV will be considered a service requiring approval. However, as the fundamental purpose of these amendments is to protect copyright, in the event of a copyright infringement issue arising from an OTT service in Korea, the KCC may well require the OTT operator to obtain approval under the TBA. As a matter of law, no distinction is made between domestic and offshore OTT-TV operators, although, as a practical matter the KCC could not compel offshore OTT-TV operators to comply with the respective report and approval systems.
How Regulated?
38

Pay TV
Domestic copyright laws provide strong protection with significant penalties. Online piracy is a major problem; competes with pay TV.
OTT TV
Domestic copyright laws provide same strong protection for online content, although unclear whether online live transmissions of events would be protected. Online piracy remains a major problem, although the government has recently implemented a number of policies to address this problem. In particular, the government has required internet service providers and online content portals to ensure only legitimate content is accessible by users. None.
Prior individual authorization for each channel required. Retransmitted programming capped at 20% of each operators bouquet. No local ads or dubbing is allowed, on foreign retransmitted channels. In principle, transmission facilities for jointventure channels should be in Korea, but exceptions can be granted. (No restriction on location of facilities for foreign channels.) Nominal fee is charged for Cable TV licenses; no fee specified for DTH license. Cable & DTH system operators must contribute to a Broadcast Promotion Fund; IPTV operators exempt for three years, as are satellite mobile operators.
None.
Rate regulation?
Retail rates are regulated, with KCCs approval required for any changes.
No regulation.
Tiering and bundling are allowed and are common. Korean operators offer some premium channels a la carte but there is no regulatory requirement for a la carte sales.
No restrictions.
39
South Korea

Pay TV
Foreign retransmitted channels may not include ads for the Korean market Advertising on domestic channels is allowed. Capped at an average of ten mins per hour/12 minutes in any one hour. Frequency of interruptions for commercials is also limited, e.g. two in a 60-minute program.
OTT TV
No specific regulations for ads on OTT TV, but general regulations governing online services apply. Accordingly, OTT-TV service providers must not transmit advertisements to a juvenile containing content harmful to a juvenile, without any restriction of access. The law does not distinguish between local and offshore OTT-TV services and the KCC may block the website of an offshore OTT-TV service which does not comply with the relevant advertising rules. A self-regulatory system of advertisement review is administered by the Korea Advertising Review Board (KARB).
Mandatory local content quotas apply to domestic (not foreign) channels. Different quotas for different genres; currently range from 25 to 60%.
None.
Self-regulatory approach is practised by pay-TV operators. Supervision and standards-setting by the Korea Communications Standards Commission. KCSC also seeking in-program display of content classification symbols on both domestic and foreign channels.
Content control?
No specific regulations for OTT TV, but general regulations governing online services apply. In law, OTT-TV service providers must (i) advise viewers if the programming displays any content harmful to juveniles (ii) not distribute information that could infringe on other peoples rights, such as invasion of privacy or libel, (iii) delete or take temporary action to prohibit the distribution of information that falls within the scope of (ii) above, and (iv) prohibit distribution of any other illegal information. The law does not distinguish between local and offshore OTT-TV services and the KCC may block the website of an offshore OTT-TV service which does not comply with the relevant content rules. In-program display of content classification symbols on both domestic and foreign channels not required on OTT-TV services.
40

Pay TV
Dubbing is prohibited on foreign retransmitted channels but subtitling is allowed. For domestic channels only, restrictions related to timing and size of subtitling exist. No restrictions.
OTT TV
No regulation of exclusive carriage contracts for channels. Some specific events are required to be shared. Requirement to share broadcast public events of widespread popularity. The list is narrow, e.g. Olympics and World Cup games.
No regulation.
For dstribution platforms: - 0% in free terrestrial TV. - 9% in cable operators and DTH operators.
No restrictions on investment in OTT platforms.
For programming: - 20% for general channels, which have no restrictions on the broadcast genres. - 10% for news channels. - 49% for other content-specific channels. - 20% for IPTV contents providers (general and news), 49% for other content-specific.
41
Taiwan

Pay TV
Regulatory system has heavy state-control orientation, insufficient business sector input. Overlapping jurisdictions (central and local). Cumbersome legislative process delays and inhibits needed regulatory updates. Politicization and vested interests particularly at the local level also block reform efforts affecting cable TV. Weak but improving enforcement of domestic laws. Legal framework does not favor protection of payTV signals. Copyright owners bear heavy burden to stimulate enforcement. Fines for violations are too low. Channel retransmission permitted, but ads on premium cable channels cannot be retransmitted. (Not applicable to satellite or IPTV.) Downlinking requires government landing rights, with application through a local office. Most licenses readily granted, but some politicallysensitive applicants have been delayed.
OTT TV
Not yet regulated, although NCC has proposed draft amendments to broadcasting legislation which contemplate extension of regulation to this area.
How Regulated?
Taiwan copyright law would protect online television broadcasts and programmes broadcast online.
Not yet regulated. NCCs proposed amendments to Satellite Broadcasting Act would require pre-approval of any OTT service available in Taiwan, whether based locally or (in theory) offshore. (The draft refers to other channel or program service provider, defined as any business which, by any means other than satellite, transmits programs or ads with specific channel to any broadcast platform available for audio or visual reception by the public, and submits such services to a requirement for approval, whether based in Taiwan or offshore). However, it is not yet clear to which online content services the provisions are intended to apply, nor how the provisions could be enforced against offshore operators. Not regulated.
Various nominal and transparent fees charged for license application and renewal. In addition, 1% of gross revenue is charged to a development fund, whose proceeds are used by the government to benefit pay TV, free-to-air TV, and local cultural facilities. Retail: No market orientation. Extensive, rigid and overlapping cable rate regulation from central and local government bodies. Rates for new digital packages are unregulated, as are satellite DTH rates. Wholesale: no regulation but strong government interference, particularly with respect to the basic cable tier.
Not yet regulated. If NCCs proposed amendments go through, the pre-approval process would include review of rates. As noted above, it is not yet clear to which online content services the provisions are intended to apply, nor how the provisions could be enforced against offshore operators.
Rate regulation?

42

Pay TV
Mandatory carriage of large, prescribed basic package. (90-100 channels) Tiering is not allowed within basic range. Above basic level, regulations currently unclear: a la carte prices must be set but in practice some bundling has been permitted, with prices lower than the sum of a la carte rates. More recently, NCC permission for carriage of each new channel is required, but packaging/bundling not subject to approval. In theory, no advertising permitted on pay premium channels. Advertising on basic tier channels limited to ten mins per hour. Burdensome restrictions on graphic advertising inserts sometimes enforced. Not yet regulated Not regulated.
OTT TV
If NCCs proposed amendments go through, the maximum 1/6th of a program advertising rule would apply to regular programming (as opposed to shopping channels) on OTT platforms. NCC would administer the rules. Unclear how the limits could be enforced against offshore operators. Not regulated. If NCCs proposed amendments go through, the pre-approval process would include review of proposed content mix. General guidelines apply. The guidelines make no distinction between locallybased and foreign content, but it is not clear how they could be enforced against content originating offshore. NCC is also studying creation of a foundation to develop new rules to protect minors from harmful internet content. Classification systems, mandatory filtering and access controls to exclude minors from some internet content may be considered. None.

Cable must provide at least 20% local programming in its mix. (This requirement is not burdensome; there is much local programming in the market.) DTH, IPTV and mobile have no similar requirement. General guidelines on content control. Overall controls not burdensome but there are substantial political issues. System of fines for content violations backed up by license suspensions.
Content control?
None.
No restrictions.
No restrictions.

Theoretical limit of 20% on foreign ownership on domestic operators. (Does not apply to offshore DTH broadcasters.) In practice, foreign holdings are structured to allow higher levels.
Not yet regulated If NCCs proposed amendments go through, a limit of 50% would apply to any OTT licensee (but not to any parent or holding company).
43
Thailand
Regulatory Regime Review Pay TV
All pay-TV and free-to-air TV broadcasts are now regulated by the newly-formed National Broadcasting & Telecommunications Commission (NBTC). How Regulated? The Commission has approved a Draft Broadcasting Master Plan, which calls for a higher level of regulatory activity than under past regulatory arrangements. Licenses are to be issued for all operators, and oversight increased.
OTT TV
Internet-transmitted content is under supervision of the Minister of Information and Communications Technology (MICT). There is no economic regulation of internetbased services; the principal law governing providers is the Computer Crime Act 2007, which also involves the Police Department.
Lax enforcement and minimal penalties for violators. Copyright protection? A large pirate industry exists that flouts IP laws.
Copyright law in theory applies to internet broadcasts, but infringements are widespread. Government has prosecuted some uploaders of content, but for the most part, civil suits by copyright owners themselves are required.
No restrictions, pending NBTC licensing. Licensing of foreign channels: allowed, prohibited or unregulated? In practice there are both foreign and local uplinks/downlinks.
No licensing requirements.
National licenses: 6.5% of revenue. License fees and taxation? (Changes in amounts and procedures possible, as NBTC increases its role).
Government has no legal authority to impose licenses or fees on channels broadcast over the internet, whether domestic or foreign in origin.
In principle, rates must be in line with criteria specified by the regulator. Rate regulation? In practice, this requirement has not to date been burdensome.
None.
Tiering is allowed/no a la carte requirements. Restrictions on program distribution/tiering/ packaging? Packages need to be approved by regulator. This requirement is not burdensome in practice.
None.
44
Pay TV
Advertising on pay TV subject to restrictive time limits (a daily average of five mins per hour, with no more than six mins in any one hour). Special restrictions on ads for tobacco & alcohol.
OTT TV
No minutage restrictions. Domestic gambling websites are proscribed but there is no control over foreign ones. Some restrictions on advertising firearms, medicine and foods, fortune-tellers, etc. online.
Domestic content ratios may be specified by the NBTC.
None.
Pay-TV services in theory perform self censorship based on published guidelines from a government regulator. Content control? Regulator has theoretical authority to approve program plan, but in practice this has not been exercised.
Little regulation of internet content, and no published guidelines. As a matter of law, some categories (obscenity, offending the monarchy) are illegal even on the internet. Any enforcement would be more strict on TV streams originating in Thailand than on internet broadcasts from overseas.
The previous NTC regulations encourage, but do not mandate, dubbing or subtitling of international channels into Thai.
None.
No current restrictions.
None.
FDI in pay TV is limited to less than 25% of the voting stock. (Limit for telecoms is 49%.) A 49% FDI limit applies to wholesale providers based in Thailand. Restrictions on FDI?
No specific limits of any kind on internet broadcasters, including cross-media ownership. However, any internet broadcaster located within Thailand would be limited to 25% FDI by new broadcast licensing rules.
45
Vietnam

Pay TV
The Ministry of Information and Communication (MIC) is the primary government regulator. The Administration for Broadcasting and Electronic Information (ABEI) of MIC oversees pay TV. The party Committee on Popularization and Education (CPE) has ultimate decision-making power. Nascent competitive system sees multiple players jostling with former broadcast monopoly.
OTT TV
The Ministry of Information and Communication (MIC) is the primary government regulator. The Administration for Broadcasting and Electronic Information (ABEI) of MIC oversees TV on the internet. The party Committee on Popularization and Education (CPE) has ultimate decision-making power. Effectively unregulated, although in theory regulated by much outdated regulations on internet content which have no specific provisions covering OTT TV; new internet regulations being drafted are expected to cover this.
How Regulated?
Government pressure has led to stoppage of broadcast of unauthorized channel streams by national broadcasters. Compliance in the provinces not guaranteed.. Respect for Intellectual Property is not well established; unauthorized use of pieces of programming remains common.
Legal framework of copyrights is fairly strong but compliance is weak due to limited enforcement New regs in June 2012 mandated a high level of ISP responsibility for online copyright infringement, including obligations to prevent infringement, expeditiously take down pirated content and pay compensation, where infringement occurs. Not yet clear what effect these regulations will have.
New regulations issued in March 2011 required all channels to get new landing licenses. Foreign channels must have a local agent as well as a local editing agency to censor content.
Local free OTT-TV service providers would require press and internet content provider licenses. Local pay OTT-TV service providers would also require a pay-TV license. If a foreign free- or pay OTT-TV service provider had an office in Vietnam (ie. a local operation), it would require an editing/localization license. No such licenses have yet been issued. Offshore OTT-TV service providers do not require any licenses as Vietnamese regulation does not apply to them.
New regulations require payment of license fees, as yet unspecified by the Ministry of Finance. The current tax rate is 10% of carriage payments (net of agents commission).
Unregulated for local free OTT TV. For local pay OTT-TV, new pay TV regulations would require payment of license fees, as yet unspecified by the Ministry of Finance. Pending new internet regulations, no taxation applies.
46

Pay TV
No official regulation. However, cable operators have to explain to central and provincial authorities about any plans to increase retail rates, and are subject to pressure to maintain reasonable rates. No restrictions. None. None.
OTT TV
Rate regulation?
Allowed. Theoretically Limited to 5% of air time over a 24hour period. No more than two ad breaks (max five minutes each) per film, and four breaks in other entertainment programs. Enforcement is not stringent. New regulations also require some in-country payments for regional advertising; structure and enforcement of this mandate remain unclear. No mandatory regulation. The Cinema Law provides official encouragement for local movies to make up at least 30% of movies broadcast, but there are no binding restrictions. Operators exercise day-to-day control, under direction from several government agencies, which have the power to fine/punish offending operators. Some politically sensitive programs (e.g.news or films) are blanked out or replaced in foreign channel streams. New regulations require foreign channels to have an authorized local editing firm to ensure compliance with content/censorship rules. The new regulations require subtitling or dubbing by most channels. Proportion of content affected differs by genre. Movie and news channels are the most affected. None. No stipulated limit. However in practice, the government has so far applied a 49% FDI limit. Licensees must be incorporated in Vietnam. The same rules apply for distribution platforms.
None.
None.
ICP (internet content providers) and ISPs exercise day-to-day control under direction from several government agencies, which have the power to fine/ punish offending operators (both ICPs and ISPs). Censorship enforced against anti-State, anticommunist party, religiously/racially charged content, explicit content, among others. IP address/ site blocking is the preferred method of punishment, especially for foreign ICPs using offshore servers. None.
Content control?

None. None.
47
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 Mel A. Macaraig Address Tel Fax Email Web 2nd, 3rd, 4th & 5th Floors, The Valero Tower 122 Valero Street, Salcedo Village Makati City 1227, Philippines +632 817.6791 to 95 +632 819.2724 to 25 +632 817.5938 melmac@cltpsj.com.ph www.cltpsj.com.ph
CASTILLO LAMAN TAN PANTALEON & SAN JOSE was established on January 2, 1981 as a full-service law rm by the late Gregorio R. Castillo and 16 other partners and associates. The rm 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 Fax +886 2 2715 3300 +886 2 2713 3966
Lee & Li is the largest and longest-established law rm in Taiwan and favored by its clients in various elds of practice. The rm 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 rm has maintained for decades its time honoured expertise in intellectual property elds. During the past decade, the rm has been actively participating in the liberalization of the Taiwan telecom and media market and M&As in the industry. The main ofce is in Taipei, with branch ofces in Hsinchu Science-Based Industrial Park, Taichung and Southern Taiwan.
E-mail joycefan@leeandli.com jameschen@leeandli.com
Contact Timothy Siaw Address 7th Floor, Wisma Hamzah-Kwong Hing No.1, Leboh Ampang 50100 Kuala Lumpur Malaysia Tel Fax E-mail +603 2027 2660 +603 2072 2758/2034 1889 (Intellectual Property) timothy@shearndelamore.com
Established in 1905, Shearn Delamore & Co. is one of the oldest full service law rms 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 rms. By combining its lawyers diverse experience, and interdisciplinary collaborations, Shearn Delamore & Co. is able to provide a complimentary range of skills.
48
Contact Michael Chang Address 6th Floor, Ace Tower 1-170 Soonhwa-dong, Jung-gu Seoul, 100-712 South Korea Tel Fax E-mail +82 2 316 4653 +82 2 756 6226 mchang@shinkim.com
With over 300 professionals, Shin & Kim is a leading fullservice Korean commercial law rm. More importantly, it is the rst major law rm 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 nance 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 Tel Suite 2218 China World Ofce 1, 1 Jianguomenwai Avenue Beijing 100004, China +86 10 6505 8188
TransAsia Lawyers is one of the leading law rms licensed in the Peoples 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.
E-mail jthchang@transasialawyers.com pqu@transasialawyers.com
Contact Malcolm Webb Address Tel Fax Level 3, 110 Customs Street West PO Box 105-426 Auckland City 1143 New Zealand +64 9 970 4100 +64 9 970 4102
Webb Henderson is a premium international law rm with ofces in Sydney, Auckland, and Singapore. The Firm provides specialist legal advice in the media and telecommunications sectors throughout the Asia Pacic. In its media commercial practice, Webb Henderson advises broadcasters on strategic transactions with other media industry participants, the acquisition of signicant content rights, and provision of broadcasting services over different platforms and licensing requirements. The Firms 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.
E-mail Malcolm.Webb@ webbhenderson.com
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 Ofce 802 Wilson House 19-27 Wyndham Street Central, Hong Kong Tel: 852 2854 9913 Enquiry: casbaa@casbaa.com
ISBN 978-988-15705-2-9
2012 CASBAA holds all copyrights to this report unless otherwise stated, and no part
9 789881 570529
thereof may be reproduced or replicated without prior explicit and written permission.

CASBAA - A Tilted Playing Field - Asia Pacific Pay TV & OTT

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

CASBAA - A Tilted Playing Field - Asia Pacific Pay TV & OTT

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

A Tilted Playing Field

Asia-Pacific Pay TV and OTT

Internet-Based Television (authorised & unauthorised)

New Ways, Old Regs

The Dark Side

Exabytes Per Month

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Source: NetResult

0 VOIP Internet Video Web/Email/Data

Pirate websites make available Greater numbers of consumers

More Ad and/or subscription dollars

More, better quality pirated content attracts

Ad and/or subscription dollars attract

More pirate websites

OTT Television a Regulators View

TVs Tilted Playing Field

TVs Tilted Playing Field

TVs Tilted Playing Field

No licensing requirement for domestic nor foreign OTT-TV services.

Minimal. None, other than under general antitrust law.

None. None, other than under general antitrust law.

Restrictions on ads (allowed or prohibited, minutage)

Local content quotas?

Regulatory Regime Review

Regulations on languages or dubbing/subtitling?

TVs Tilted Playing Field

Regulatory Regime Review

Licensing of foreign channels: allowed, prohibited or unregulated?

Restrictions on program distribution/tiering/ packaging?

Restrictions on ads (allowed or prohibited, minutage)

Local content quotas?

Regulations on languages or dubbing/subtitling?

All foreign language channels require SARFT approval.

Regulatory Regime Review

TVs Tilted Playing Field

Licensing of foreign channels: allowed, prohibited or unregulated?

License fees and taxation?

Rate regulation? Restrictions on program distribution/tiering/ packaging? 22

Regulatory Regime Review

Restrictions on ads (allowed or prohibited, minutage)

Local content quotas?

Regulations on languages or dubbing/subtitling? Restrictions on exclusivity?

No limits of any kind on internet broadcasters, including cross-media ownership.

TVs Tilted Playing Field

Copyright protection? Licensing of foreign channels: allowed, prohibited or unregulated?

License fees and taxation?

Regulatory Regime Review

Restrictions on program distribution/tiering/ packaging?

Restrictions on ads (allowed or prohibited, minutage)

Local content quotas?

Regulations on languages or dubbing/subtitling?

TVs Tilted Playing Field

Licensing of foreign channels: allowed, prohibited or unregulated?

No licensing regime nor restrictions on channel programming.

None in respect of an OTT-TV service.

License fees and taxation?

Rate regulation? Restrictions on program distribution/tiering/ packaging? 26

Regulatory Regime Review

Local content quotas?

Regulations on languages or dubbing/subtitling?

Foreign films must be subtitled or dubbed.

Licensing of foreign channels: allowed, prohibited or unregulated?

Government hasnt legislated for licensing of channels.