A tilted playing field

A Tilted Playing Field
Asia-Pacific Pay TV and OTT

Executive Summary 2
New Ways, Old Regs 3
The Dark Side 5
Conclusions 8
Brief Snapshots 11
Country Matrixes
Australia 16
China 18
Hong Kong 22
India 24
Indonesia 26
Japan 28
Malaysia 30
New Zealand 32
Philippines 34
Singapore 36
South Korea 38
Taiwan 42
Thailand 44
Vietnam 46
Acknowledgements 48
Table of Contents

2
Executive Summary
The business of delivering video to consumers
is undergoing a revolution; driven by new media
devices (such as tablets and smartphones),
growing broadband penetration, the rise of
platform competitors in most markets, and the
emergence of a new generation learning to
consume media via multiple devices in multiple
settings.
Many of the “new media” services arrive in the
consumer’s home over broadband data lines
which access the entire range of services and
media available over the global internet. Unlike
traditional pay-TV offerings or even the relatively
newer IPTV services marketed by telcos, the vast
majority of internet video is obtained from third
parties disaggregated from the networks over
which the data is transmitted.
This has given rise to “OTT” video for television
delivered “over the top” of broadband data. OTT
video uses internet infrastructure to reach the
consumer with an ever-growing array of offerings
from major media companies as well as new
entrants.
Off-shore/On-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.
CASBAA has examined the regulatory frameworks
in 14 Asian markets, seeking to understand how
the rules applied to OTT television differ from those
applied to pay-TV systems. (A similar analysis could
be done for free-to-air terrestrial TV regulations,
as free-to-air broadcasters usually face even more
substantial regulatory constraints, but the scope of
our interest is the pay-TV ecosystem). We consulted
with industry players, legal experts and government
agencies in an effort to understand how market
players and regulators view OTT television, as well
as the rules governing it.
Because in most places, most OTT offerings
take place within the framework of internet
regulation, we have summarized our findings in
two categories: pay-TV and OTT. This corresponds
to the regulatory reality, but it blurs many of the
key distinctions among OTT platforms – most
prominently between those located within a given
market and those located offshore.
And it also ignores the crucial difference between
legitimate platforms and those using unauthorized
and stolen programming for their content base.

TV’s Tilted Playing Field 3
For that reason, we have noted in our data
matrixes where a few governments have put
differentiated rules in place (for example,
regulating subscription OTT platforms in one
way, while treating ad-based services differently)
or licensing OTT services originating within the
government’s jurisdiction, but allowing platforms
offshore to enter as “internet services.” Where
those distinctions were clear, we have reported
them in our data matrixes.
New Ways, Old 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
all features of the OTT video environment in most
Asian markets.
Indeed, the very lightest regulatory hand is
reserved for video products supplied through the
global internet. Even governments which profess
to exercise some level of control over OTT services
originating within their own jurisdictions shrug
their shoulders and admit that a service provider
based offshore is almost impossible to govern
under existing rules and policies.
The result, not surprisingly, has been the rise of a
major industry housed offshore and largely out of
regulatory reach, using the internet to deliver video
without regard to national rules and regulations
– and the rules requiring respect for intellectual
property are the most flouted. The pirate video
transmission business is the most international,
least law-abiding, and lowest tax-paying of
any segment of the global media business. It
is growing by leaps and bounds, sapping the
energy of indigenous creative industries and
TV business operators around the region and
Internet-Based Television (authorised & unauthorised)
Description Examples
Legal sites “Catch-up” television BBC iPlayer; Hulu; TVB.com; iwanttv.com.ph
Live streaming Willow.tv
VOD offered by pay-TV providers Comcast XFINITY; J:COM Xvie
“TV Everywhere” Offerings by content/
platform partnerships
HBOGo; Fox Movies Play; ESPNPlayer
VOD (and subscription VOD) streaming
offered by providers other than pay-TV
providers
Netflix, Hulu, Quickflix
User-generated uploads (amateur and
professional)
YouTube, Dailymotion
Illegal sites Cyberlockers Megaupload, etc.
Live streaming 3pTV.cn
Peer-to-Peer BitTorrent networks The Pirate Bay
Closed peer-to-peer networks (numerous sites accessed by Android-based
TV boxes)

4
capturing very large advertising revenues for the
benefit of essentially global organized criminal
conspiracies1
.
This CASBAA study points up the need for urgent
attention to the issues of the tilted playing field.
Legitimate video supply industries cannot sustain
investment and continue to improve networks
and services in the face of unequal competition
from lightly-regulated internet-based services
– or worse – totally unregulated pirate video
transmission networks. Governments which allow
a tilted playing field and unhealthy competitive
environment to persist will see their own creative
industries damaged, local broadcasters weakened,
and investment in networks and content impaired.
In the end consumers will be worse off.
Action by regulators, officials, and political
leaders is necessary. CASBAA believes that
two important fields of action must be pursued:
governments must review their existing regulatory
constraints on pay-TV systems, in light of the
competitive challenge from legitimate OTT video.
Action should be taken to reduce or eliminate
regulatory codes, taxation policies, content
controls, etc. that burden the pay-TV industry and
leave it handicapped in the face of content from
OTT providers. And steps must be taken to block
growth of the illegitimate OTT sector – to prevent
offshore pirate video operators from growing
business models based on misuse and theft of the
legitimate industries’ content.
Unfortunately, there is ample evidence that
governments are not inclined to look the future in
the face and take decisions that make maximum
economic sense, but carry some political risk –
no matter how small. Bureaucracies created to
regulate broadcasting, shape revenue flows, and
control what the general public may watch do not
easily yield, even in the face of ample evidence
that the general public is turning away from the
regulated media and using online sources subject
to fewer strictures. One recent example has been
Australia’s Convergence Review, which posed
many excellent questions challenging the logic
of differential regulation, but which ended with
proposals that aimed to extend broadcast regulatory
schemes to OTT providers, including government
controls on use of sporting events, and local content
quotas. Australia’s decision to launch a review was
clear-sighted – they went first. But CASBAA hopes
other administrations will not follow Australia in
moving backwards rather than forwards.
Throughout Asia, similar issues lie in wait; they
will come to the fore in response to technological,
political and commercial developments in each
market. Indeed, generalizations are very risky in
this region, where political systems are dissimilar,
broadband penetration rates vary so hugely, and
where there is every prospect that great “digital
divides” between urban and rural areas will persist
for decades to come. A detailed examination by each
government of its own rules, and the development
of its own broadband economy is essential.
CASBAA firmly believes that the orientation of those
examinations should be to reduce the regulatory
load on tax-paying, job-generating Asian pay-TV
industry players, and not to try to find ways to extend
burdens to legitimate online content delivery.
The pirate video
transmission business is
the most international, least
law-abiding, and lowest tax-
paying of any segment of the
global media business
___________________________________________________________________________________________
1 The Megaupload website reported that it had 180 million registered users, received an average of 50 million daily visits,
and accounted for 4 percent of global internet traffic before it was closed pursuant to court indictments in the USA. It
used these visits to generate large revenues from advertising, estimated in court documents at US$25 million.

The Dark Side
The transmission of video content over the internet
is growing at a phenomenal rate. Cisco’s “Visual
Networking Index” study noted that while global
fixed-line internet traffic is growing at roughly
a 28% CAGR, carriage of video traffic on the
internet is rising even more rapidly – at a 34%
CAGR. Asia is already the largest consumer of
internet services among global regions; rising
consumption of video content on the Asian
internet is expected to drive a near-tripling of Asian
internet use (measured in petabytes1
) over the next
four years.
Consumer Internet Traffic Forecast in Asia-
Pacific
Unfortunately, a significant portion of this
consumption is videos transmitted unlawfully by
companies and syndicates ignoring copyright and
seeking to profit from the work of others. A 2011
study of Internet traffic by the research firm Mark
Monitor found that the top 43 sites for digital piracy
generated 53 billion unique visits annually, with the
then-top-three sites alone – which featured large
amounts of streaming video – accounting for 21
billion annual visits. A different web intelligence
firm, NetResult, reported that every major premium
sporting event gives rise to hundreds of unique
live OTT video streams. NetResult observed that
the number of sites promoting user feeds of live
sporting event streams doubled from 10 in 2009 to
20 in 2010, and then soared to 64 in 2011. Most of
these provide no “take down tool” that would allow
rights holders to stop the streams.
These are just a few indications of the size of the
piracy problem.
Websites Promoting User-Originated Pirate
Streams
Asia, regrettably, is a fertile ground for growth of
unauthorized OTT services, and a uniquely difficult
ground for establishment of competing legitimate
services.
• 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.
Source: Cisco VNI, 2012 (Note: Cisco defines peer-to-
peer traffic as “file sharing” even if it originates on a
commercially-oriented site. Most of this “file sharing”
traffic is made up of video content.)
40
20
0
VOIP Online Gaming Web/Email/Data
Internet Video File Sharing
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
ExabytesPerMonth
Source: NetResult
80
70
60
50
30
20
10
40
0
Tool No Tool
2012201120102009200820072006
ExabytesPerMonth
UGC Live Streaming Sites: no tool vs. takedown tool
(current status in August 2012 : 75 sites active)
___________________________________________________________________________________________
1 A petabyte (PB) is a unit of information equal to one million gigabytes (GB), The unit symbol for the petabyte is PB.

6
• 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 well-
established concept in many parts of Asia.
Large and successful syndicates have supplied
many Asian markets with pirated cassettes,
CDs and DVDs for decades, with relative
impunity. Most Asian legal regimes for IP
protection are weak, especially in the digital
environment.
• 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 locally-
produced films, dramas, and music for theft and
rebroadcast. Few Asian content producers have
the knowledge and stamina needed to fight back2
.
Increasingly, the wide availability of video content
online leads to consumer confusion. Some people
actively seek out infringing content, knowing
it is pirated and not caring. But many others –
the silent majority who make up the largest TV
audience – are not necessarily eager to consume
pirated content but are increasingly surrounded
online and in their social contacts with invitations
and encouragements to watch video whose
origins they cannot perceive. Even well-intentioned
consumers have difficulty knowing, in the online
environment, what is authorized content and what
is not.
In this situation, the messages conveyed by
government, and industry, become increasingly
important.
If the vicious cycle is to be interrupted, pressure
must be put on all the elements of the circle:
• 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.
Pirate websites make
available
More pirate websites
Illegal content
More, better quality
pirated content attracts
Consumers View
Greater numbers of
consumers
Ad and/or subscription
dollars attract
More Ad and/or
subscription dollars
___________________________________________________________________________________________
2 Some Asian industry organizations have found their voice, when publicly challenged. After Malaysian government
actions to block notorious piracy websites led to hacking attacks on government and legitimate websites, the local and
film and video industry called a press conference to support the site blocking action. The president of the local artists
association was quoted on the extent of the problem: “Illegal free downloads via the Internet have wrecked the industry,
to the extent that even pirated CD or VCD sellers find it hard to sell their products.“

Asian indigenous creative industries are already
suffering huge damage from competition from
OTT-based pirate websites. These directly and
unfairly compete with efforts by Asian artists,
producers and creators to earn a living from their
work. And of course, these websites are a very
significant part of the “tilted playing field” for the
pay-TV industry. In most countries there are no
local vested interests behind the piracy websites;
Asian governments should have a direct and
immediate interest in leveling this part of the
playing field, at least.
OTT Television – a Regulator’s View
In the marketplace, many services are dubbed “OTT.” For purposes of this study, we examine
regulations governing audiovisual programming provided by internet websites, which may be
accessed by a computer, tablet or smartphone without the need for additional hardware. Hardware
attachments may (or may not) be necessary to view the programming on a TV set.
Such services are usually separated from the party actually providing the broadband connection
over which they travel. (They are therefore easily distinguishable from telco-operated “walled
garden” IPTV systems. Such services are usually provided by the same party providing the network
connection).
OTT can be fully ad-supported, offered on a subscription basis, or use a hybrid model. It includes
professionally-generated video by broadcasting organizations, video aggregated by third parties
such as Netflix, and user-generated videos on ad-supported sites like YouTube and Youku.
In most places, the same “internet-oriented” light regulations cover both legally authorized sites
– where content is disseminated with the permission of copyright owners – and those which flout
intellectual property laws and misuse pirated content to build viewership and generate revenues,
usually through advertising.
However, a few governments have taken the highly worrisome approach of tightening approaches
for existing media players, while leaving more difficult-to-reach offshore sites, and pirate sites,
untouched.

8
Conclusions
Some general themes emerged from CASBAA’s
examination of the regulatory frameworks in Asia:
There is no regulation-free zone: There is
already some form of regulation of OTT TV/
internet content in every jurisdiction – the myth
of the wholly unregulated internet is indeed a
myth. (Even as liberal a market as Hong Kong
does not permit its citizens to access videos
promoting illegal gambling, or child pornography)
Moreover, as broadband penetration increases in
the developing world and online consumption of
media becomes more mainstream, regulation in
many jurisdictions looks set to increase. It is less
clear what regulation will be introduced, when it
will come into effect, and how it will affect offshore
service providers – this last issue is particularly
pressing for OTT TV suppliers given the global
reach of the internet.
Burdens are heaviest on home players: In many
markets, regulations bind domestically-based OTT
providers, but not those in other jurisdictions. This
is a recognition of the more free-wheeling aspect of
internet information flows, but also an unfortunate
reflection of (conscious or unconscious)
willingness on the part of political and regulatory
actors to impose disproportionate burdens on
the domestic TV platforms which are most likely
to create local content, pay local taxes, employ
local people, etc. Continuing expansion of the OTT
economic space will make it ever-more difficult to
ensure a “level playing field”, as between domestic
and offshore content providers, and as between
the various television platforms, such as cable,
satellite, terrestrial, IPTV and OTT TV.
Multiple revenue streams create multiple
challenges: When pay TV arrived in Asia,
whether financed through subscriptions or on-
demand payments, it presented a discrete set
of challenges; many governments established
specific regulatory frameworks for pay TV,
demarcating it from “free” TV depending on
whether payments were requested. In the OTT
space, however, lines are increasingly blurred.
Most online advertising in Asia is generated and
displayed internationally, and many OTT sites are
ad-based. Some “pay” content is provided without
access controls online based on a combination
of advertising and efforts to build brand loyalty.
“TV Everywhere” solutions use access controls
to provide “pay” content but involve no payment
at all (and in some cases no advertising either);
they are designed to reinforce consumer loyalty to
in-country pay-TV platforms. Finally, it is notable
that a huge pirate OTT industry is financed by
internationally-supplied advertising, generating
hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue that
competes with legitimate content suppliers on the
basis of their own stolen programming!
Focuses of 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 justified by governments on the
basis that television is a mass media platform
and accordingly content regulation is essential

to protect the vulnerable, such as children.
But this justification is significantly weakened
when censorship is applied indiscriminately to
television supply (regardless of the existence or
not of access controls) and when the consumers
of television services also consume online
video content, not subject to the same content
controls. In addition, strict content rules can
have a detrimental social effect, driving demand
underground to access content by illegal means.
Illegal content is not only censorship-free, it is
ethics-free and this is a supremely valid social
reason to lighten content controls on legitimate
content suppliers.
Better approaches for the modern world
are available, and they should be promoted
by regulators. One example may be seen in
jurisdictions such as Australia, where service
providers are required to provide their customers
with filtering options so that they may personally
control the content they and their dependents
access. A public consultation has just closed in
the United Kingdom to determine whether and
how ISPs should implement similar controls in the
U.K.
Copyright
For legitimate OTT TV service providers and their
content providers, copyright protection and
enforcement online present the most significant
legal and commercial issues. National copyright
regimes remain ill-equipped to deal with online
copyright infringement. Although various national
governments have conducted enforcement
campaigns targeting illegal uploaders of copyright
material, piracy remains widespread, and it is
growing as a result of the maturation of the online
advertising market, which has frequently been
hijacked to support illegal pirate websites. As a
result, legitimate services have to compete with
a vast number of infringing services online, some
of which are increasingly well-funded and highly
professional in outward appearance, quality of
delivery and customer service.
Copyright infringement is a very large barrier
to entry into the market, given the challenges
pirate services present to all legitimate OTT TV
content and service providers, especially weaker
new entrants. At a time when many governments
are attempting to encourage the development of
innovative content services for the high-speed
broadband networks they are building, the failure
to address systemic copyright infringement
discourages the very entrepreneurial investment
governments are seeking to promote.
Business models
Various governments impose numerous
restrictions on the business operations of
“traditional” pay-TV platforms such as cable,
satellite and even IPTV. Many of these are rooted in
licensing regimes (applicable to domestic players
only) that draw heavily from outdated concepts of
“broadcasting” regulation originating in the black-
and-white TV era.
Our study has found a consistent, large disparity
between regulatory regimes applicable to the
business models of pay TV, and those applied to
OTT television. It is clear that traditional pay-TV
platforms operate at a considerable disadvantage
as a result of the extensive regulatory interference
by many governments in commercial matters.
Examples include:
• 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),

10
reach breathtaking levels. Domestically-
supplied OTT television almost everywhere
is taxed at normal corporate rates, and
internationally-supplied OTT operates in a large
grey zone.
• Regulation of program supply/exclusivity: Pay-
TV content and service providers are subject to
rules restricting or prohibiting exclusive content
arrangements in countries such as India
and Singapore as well as specific mandated
sharing regimes for major sporting events.
Other jurisdictions dictate business models by
stipulating the channel bouquets to be offered
to consumers or, as in India, mandating a la
carte program supply. OTT television faces no
such constraints, and as market share for OTT
platforms grows, it is already apparent that
major players (ex. Youtube, Youku) are seeking
to leverage this regulatory differential by
developing their own exclusive programming.
We see development of new content options as
a competitive gain for consumers – as long as
the shackles are removed from the traditional
pay-TV industry.
• 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
(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
pay-TV distribution platforms and pay-TV content
is subject to very widespread restrictions.
The level of permitted foreign investment
varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction: China
prohibits foreign investment outright as does
the Philippines (cable and DTH), Indonesia
limits foreign investment to 20% in pay-TV
platforms, Thailand to 25%, Malaysia to 30%
and Singapore to 49%. Licensing conditions in
Malaysia and Vietnam require pay-TV licensees
to be locally incorporated. Such rules may be
applicable in some markets to OTT suppliers
based domestically, but offshore suppliers –
especially of illegal content – are wholly foreign-
owned.

Brief Snapshots
Australia
Australia’s online television environment is already the subject of some content regulation, with an
access control/removal system applying to online content which is sexually explicit, violent or otherwise
classified for mature audiences. The use of access control mechanisms is the internet industry’s
approach to balancing child protection with consumers’ freedom of choice.
The level of OTT content regulation is expected to increase following the recommendations of the
federal government-commissioned Convergence Review. That review provided an excellent opportunity
to re-adjust the regulatory balance between pay-TV and OTT television by reducing burdens on pay-
TV suppliers; unfortunately it has gone in the other direction, advocating new constraints for online
television.
Amongst other things, the May 2012 report recommended the establishment of an industry-funded,
cross-platform news regulator and the extension of the content quota system to professional online
content providers exceeding certain size and market thresholds.
In a separate development, the federal government has proposed that its already extensive “anti-
siphoning” regime (the world’s most comprehensive series of sports rights restrictions) be broadened to
apply to the acquisition of exclusive rights in sporting events by online providers.
The federal government has also commenced roll-out of a National Broadband Network (NBN) with the aim
of providing high-speed broadband access to every Australian household within 10 years. It remains to be
seen whether the proposed reforms, if enacted, will have a dampening effect on the development of online
content services for delivery over the NBN.
Other regulatory differentials will remain, and pay-TV platforms will continue to operate at a commercial
disadvantage given the continued application of advertising revenue restrictions, content quota rules,
captioning requirements, etc.
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

12
construction and distribution of equipment (e.g. set-top-boxes) designed to facilitate piracy. China also
is a base for criminal syndicates supplying massive quantities of infringing content over the internet to
an international online audience – aggressively targeting overseas markets from behind China’s wall of
sovereignty.
Hong Kong
Hong Kong has few regulations that apply to OTT services; specific language in the Broadcasting
Ordinance exempts television provided over “the service commonly known as the internet” from
regulatory licensing or oversight.
However, there are a few controls in existence, relating to specific types of content. Videos that engage
in solicitation of betting by any unauthorized website, domestic or foreign, are illegal. Proprietors
of offending foreign websites could be arrested if they set foot in Hong Kong. Also prohibited is the
distribution of obscene content through a local website. (The latter law does not extend to foreign
websites) Although Hong Kong ISPs are responsible for ensuring their services do not host obscene
material, it remains available on foreign websites accessible in Hong Kong.
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. India’s first commercial
subscription OTT-TV service launched in early 2012, with another prominent media business announcing
its launch plans soon afterwards. Such businesses operate under severe regulatory risk, however, as past
experience indicates that regulations can be imposed ex post facto, or even retroactively.
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 specific regulation. Online
advertising would be subject to general advertising rules, although it is not clear whether those rules
would apply to advertising on foreign websites.

The major regulatory disadvantage for pay-TV services in Japan is the licensing regime, particularly in
respect of foreign channels. As in India, OTT TV represents an opportunity to provide content direct to
consumers without the restrictions applicable to the more traditional pay-TV platforms.
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 significant government intervention in the online environment is the regulator’s disabling of
access to the most notorious of websites supplying pirated content. This move has demonstrated that the
government is willing to intervene to impose some rules on egregious offenders external to the country.
New 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 Zealand’s 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. Officials
state they expect any such framework would follow existing pay-TV principles in respect of licensing,
advertising and content regulation. However, for the time being there is considerable uncertainty.
In respect of content regulation, there is already legislation prohibiting online child pornography, which
would in theory apply to any OTT-TV content available in the Philippines, whether domestic or foreign.
There are no other clear rules applying to online television.
Singapore
Domestic OTT-TV service providers in Singapore must be licensed, although foreign OTT-TV service
providers are not. The licensing regime is more relaxed than that applying to the traditional pay-TV
platforms, although it is expected that content controls for pay-OTT services would be similar to those
applied to pay TV. The government does occasionally block access to foreign websites that it judges to be
egregious offenders.
In general, regulation of online content originating outside Singapore is much lighter than that applying
to pay TV, however the authorities moved swiftly to impose content regulation on Apple’s i-Tunes

14
immediately after it was launched from outside Singapore. There was no immediate explanation of what
factors – other than a well-known brand name – distinguished Apple’s offering from those of many lesser-
known external sites that deliver far more offensive content on demand.
The Singapore government is rolling out its Next Generation Nationwide Broadband Network (NBN),
intended to connect all physical addresses in Singapore by 2015. The government intends that the
NBN will encourage the development of new digital media services. However, in order to do so, online
copyright piracy will need to be adequately addressed.
South Korea
The regulation of OTT-TV services in South Korea is in a state of flux. It appears that the Korea
Communications Commission (KCC) is moving towards stricter regulation with the introduction of an
approval system for special types of telecommunication services, which may include OTT-TV services. It is
likely that the KCC would require an OTT-TV service provider to obtain approval if there are any copyright
infringement issues arising from the service. As the KCC could not compel compliance by foreign OTT-
TV service providers, this system, if applicable, might create a regulatory imbalance in favour of foreign
providers.
In respect of content regulation, general online regulations would apply to an OTT-TV service. In
particular, content harmful to children cannot be transmitted without access restrictions. The KCC may
block non-compliant foreign websites as a means of enforcing local content regulations against offshore
content providers.
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 classification system and access control mechanisms).
As of now, there are no other regulations on OTT-TV, however, the Taiwan government has proposed
numerous legislative amendments which could extend several aspects of pay-TV regulation to the OTT-TV
platform. In particular, the government has proposed an approval process for both domestic and foreign
content providers, which process would include a review of rates and content mix. Foreign investment
restrictions and an advertising minutage cap would also apply.
Many details of the legislative proposals remain unclear, including which online content services would
be subject to the new rules and how, if at all, the provisions might be enforced against offshore service
providers.

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, lèse majesté), but implementing rules are
lacking. Any enforcement (such as it might be) would likely focus on local services rather than foreign
services.
There is only one other evident regulatory restriction on OTT-TV: foreign investment in a local OTT-TV
service provider would be restricted to 25% under comprehensive licensing rules proposed by the
National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission, which assert the Commission’s licensing
authority over all content streams “by means of radio frequency, wire, optical, electromagnetic, or any
other system.”
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.

16
Regulatory Regime
Review
Pay TV OTT TV
How Regulated?
• Australian Communications and Media Authority
(ACMA) is an impartial and independent regulator.
• ACMA is responsible for regulating
telecommunications, broadcasting, radio-
communications and online content. However,
while it has one converged administrative structure,
it continues to implement different legislative
frameworks for broadcasting and telecoms.
• 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).
Copyright protection?
• 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.
• 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.
Licensing of foreign
channels: allowed,
prohibited or
unregulated?
• Licenses readily granted. • No licensing requirement for domestic nor foreign
OTT-TV services.
License fees and taxation? • Minimal. • None.
Rate regulation? • None, other than under general antitrust law. • None, other than under general antitrust law.
Restrictions on program
distribution/tiering/
packaging?
• No restrictions. • No restrictions.
Restrictions on ads
(allowed or prohibited,
minutage)
• Allowed
• Subscription fees must be pay-TV operator’s
predominant source of revenue. No more than 50%
of total revenues can come from advertising, but
minutage is unlimited.
• Allowed, no restrictions.
Local content quotas?
• 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
children’s programming as well.
• Pass-through channels not affected.
• Currently no quotas.
• A government-commissioned Convergence Review
has recommended that online content providers,
which provide professional (as opposed to user-
generated) 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.
Australia

Regulatory Regime
Review
Pay TV OTT TV
Content control?
• Standard requirements on all broadcasting services
relating to tobacco and pharmaceutical advertising
and the broadcast of political matters. SubscriptionTV
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).
• 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 withinAustralia, 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.
Regulations on languages
or dubbing/subtitling?
• General anti-discrimination legislation in
principle requires closed-captioning of television
programming. Subscription television currently
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.
• 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.
Restrictions on
exclusivity?
• No general restraints on exclusivity other than
under general anti-trust law.The government-
commissioned Convergence Review has
recommended its proposed communications
regulator have the power to investigate content-
related 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 government-
commissioned Convergence Review has
recommended its proposed communications
regulator have the power to investigate content-
related 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 FDI?
• All foreign ownership restrictions have been lifted.
• Specific foreign acquisitions of media assets could
be reviewed under Australia’s general foreign
investment policy.
• Specific foreign acquisitions of online television
assets could be reviewed under Australia’s general
foreign investment policy.

18
China
Regulatory Regime
Review
Pay TV OTT TV
How Regulated?
• 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.
• 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 value-
added 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.

Regulatory Regime
Review
Pay TV OTT 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.
• 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.
channels: allowed,
prohibited or
unregulated?
• 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.
• Theoretically, Internet TV is subject to same
restrictions as traditional TV and radio. Re-
transmission 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.

20
China
Regulatory Regime
Review
Pay TV OTT TV
License fees and taxation? • No industry-specific licence fees. • No industry-specific licence fees.
Rate regulation?
• Retail: basic cable prices determined by local
NDRC bureaus in consultation with SARFT.
• No government-determined rates in this area.
packaging?
Restrictions on ads
minutage)
• 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.
• No restrictions.
• Foreign content must not exceed 30% of daily
programming on a pay-TV channel.A foreign
channel may not be retransmitted in its entirety.
Content control?
• 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.
• 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.
• All foreign language channels require SARFT
approval.
• 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.

Regulatory Regime
Review
Pay TV OTT TV
Restrictions on
exclusivity?
Restrictions on FDI? • 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.

22
Regulatory Regime
Review
Pay TV OTT TV
How Regulated?
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• Copyright law in theory applies to internet
broadcasts, but infringement is widespread.
• Government has prosecuted uploaders of
infringing content.
channels: allowed,
prohibited or
unregulated?
• 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.
• 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? • None. • None.
packaging?
• None. • None.
Hong Kong

Regulatory Regime
Review
Pay TV OTT TV
Restrictions on ads
minutage)
• 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.
• 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.
Local content quotas? • None. • None.
Content control?
• Platform operators (and channels) required to
adhere to broad guidelines.
• No direct control on channel providers.
• 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.
Restrictions on
exclusivity?
• 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.

24
India
Regulatory Regime
Review
Pay TV OTT TV
How Regulated?
• No single regulator, but multiple agencies with
overlapping responsibility:
- The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting
(MIB) is part of the government;
- 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
channels: allowed,
prohibited or
unregulated?
• 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.
• No licensing regime.
• 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.
• No license fees.
Rate regulation?
• 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.
• No rate regulation.

Regulatory Regime
Review
Pay TV OTT TV
packaging?
• A basic service tier of at least 30 free-to-
air 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.
Restrictions on ads
minutage)
• 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.
Content control?
• Not restrictive - largely a self-regulatory
approach.
• Based on a published Program Code,
with separate codes adopted by industry
organizations.
• No regulations specifically applying to OTT.
• None. • None.
Restrictions on
exclusivity?
• 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.
• No regulations.
• 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.
• No regulations.

26
Regulatory Regime
Review
Pay TV OTT TV
How Regulated?
• 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).
• 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.
• Strong regulations on paper have been little
enforced, until 2009.
• Weak public understanding leads to much
infringement, especially outside Java.
• Copyright protection for online content, or
online infringement of copyright in audiovisual
materials, remains untested in Indonesia.
channels: allowed,
prohibited or
unregulated?
• No restrictions on channel programming.
• Retransmission of foreign-made ads for pre-
approved “international brands” is allowed under
“Made in Indonesia” ad regulations (not yet in
force).
• No licensing regime nor restrictions on channel
programming.
• 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.
- 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 in respect of an OTT-TV service.
packaging?
• Tiering is allowed and widely practiced. No a la
carte requirement.
• None.
Indonesia

Regulatory Regime
Review
Pay TV OTT TV
Restrictions on ads
minutage)
• 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.
• 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.
• Pay-TV operators are in theory required to
broadcast 20% local channels (10% FTA and
10% local content).
• None.
Content control?
• The Broadcasting Commission has developed
detailed content codes.
• Sensitivities on content issues are high.
• 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.
• Foreign films must be subtitled or dubbed. • None.
Restrictions on
exclusivity?
• 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.
• None.
• 20% in pay-TV platforms.
• 49% in telecoms.
• 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.

28
Regulatory Regime
Review
Pay TV OTT TV
How Regulated?
• 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.
• Online television not specifically 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.
channels: allowed,
prohibited or
unregulated?
• 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.
• Government hasn’t legislated for licensing of
channels.
• Nominal administrative filing fee for cable and
satellite operators.
• No license fees payable. No specific taxation
treatment.
Rate regulation?
• Filing and public disclosure of retail rates
required.
• Not regulated.
packaging?
Japan

Regulatory Regime
Review
Pay TV OTT TV
Restrictions on ads
minutage)
• 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.
• 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.
Content control?
• No government regulations for content; a self-
regulation 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.
• 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.
• Subtitles for the hearing-impaired, and audio
descriptions for the visually-impaired, are to
be provided wherever possible. (There are no
associated penalties.)
• None.
Restrictions on
exclusivity?
• 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).

30
Regulatory Regime
Review
Pay TV OTT TV
How Regulated?
• 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.
• MCMC is the relevant regulator.
• 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.
channels: allowed,
prohibited or
unregulated?
• 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.
Rate regulation?
• 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).
packaging?
Malaysia

Regulatory Regime
Review
Pay TV OTT TV
Restrictions on ads
minutage)
• 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 pass-
through channel streams must be replaced by ads
meeting the “Made in Malaysia” requirements.
• 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.
Content control?
• Intensive content control guidelines.
• Pay-TV services can be“exempted,” allowed to
perform self censorship based on detailed, published
guidelines from Government.
• Carriage of channels then subject to prior filing with
the authority.
• 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.
• None. • None.
Restrictions on
exclusivity?
• Licensees must be incorporated in Malaysia.
• FDI limited to 30%.

32
Regulatory Regime
Review
Pay TV OTT TV
How Regulated?
• 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.
• 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).
channels: allowed,
prohibited or
unregulated?
• Not burdensome. • No licence fees nor OTT TV-specific taxes.
packaging?
New Zealand

Regulatory Regime
Review
Pay TV OTT TV
Restrictions on ads
minutage)
• Allowed, no minutage restrictions.
• Self-regulated by association of industry bodies.
• As with pay 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 ASCB’s jurisdiction.
Content control?
• Self-regulated. Codes of practice for pay TV less
restrictive than for free-to-air TV.
• Backed up by appeal to Broadcasting Standards
Authority.
• 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.
Restrictions on
exclusivity?
• No limit.
• Government review/consent based on
transparent, non-restrictive criteria.
• As with pay TV.

34
Regulatory Regime
Review
Pay TV OTT TV
How Regulated?
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
channels: allowed,
prohibited or
unregulated?
• 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.
packaging?
• Nominal for Cable (about US$100 annually).
• Only slightly more for DTH (about $400
annually).
No restrictions.
Philippines

Regulatory Regime
Review
Pay TV OTT TV
Restrictions on ads
minutage)
• Allowed; no minutage restrictions. • No regulations
• 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.
Restrictions on
exclusivity?
• 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.)

36
Regulatory Regime
Review
Pay TV OTT TV
How Regulated?
• 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.”
• 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
subscriptionTV 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.
• 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).
• The criminal provisions regarding reception of
pirated pay TV do not apply to reception over
the internet.
channels: allowed,
prohibited or
unregulated?
• 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.
• 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.
• 2.5% of revenues.
• A concessionary rate of 0.5% of total revenue in
the first three years of licence duration.
• For domestic providers subject to a Broadcasting
Class Licence: annual fee of SGD$1,000.
Rate regulation?
• Not regulated.
• Retail rates are filed, but no rate control at present.
• None. Retail rates are not required to be filed.
packaging?
• 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.
Singapore

Regulatory Regime
Review
Pay TV OTT TV
Restrictions on ads
minutage)
• 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 operator’s total revenues
can come from advertising.
• Degree of application of advertising codes to
Internet TV is unclear, except on full subscription
TV licensees, who are fully bound.
• All nationwide operators must provide one
public service broadcasting channel for every
ten.
• None.
Content control?
• Comprehensive content regulations through
Content Codes.
• Authority for direct regulation of domestic and
foreign broadcasters.
• 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 doesn’t expressly apply
to domestic providers communicating content
outside of Singapore, the Government is likely to
expect and require compliance with the Internet
Code.
• Transmission of programs on channels in dialects
tightly controlled.
• Domestic Broadcasting Class Licensees are not
allowed to programme content in dialects.
• Otherwise, no restrictions.
Restrictions on
exclusivity?
• New regulatory mandate that pay-TV operators
must cross carry each other’s 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.

38
Regulatory Regime
Review
Pay TV OTT TV
How Regulated?
• 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.
• 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.
South Korea

Regulatory Regime
Review
Pay TV OTT TV
• Domestic copyright laws provide strong
protection with significant penalties.
• Online piracy is a major problem; competes with
pay 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.
channels: allowed,
prohibited or
unregulated?
• Prior individual authorization for each channel
required.
• Retransmitted programming capped at 20% of
each operator’s bouquet.
• No local ads or dubbing is allowed, on foreign
retransmitted channels.
• In principle, transmission facilities for joint-
venture channels should be in Korea, but
exceptions can be granted. (No restriction on
location of facilities for foreign channels.)
• None.
License fees and
taxation?
• 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 KCC’s approval
required for any changes.
• No regulation.
packaging?
• 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.

40
South Korea
Regulatory Regime
Review
Pay TV OTT TV
Restrictions on ads
minutage)
• 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.
• 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.
Content control?
• 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.
• 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 people’s
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.

Regulatory Regime
Review
Pay TV OTT 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.
Restrictions on
exclusivity?
• 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.
• 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.
• No restrictions on investment in OTT platforms.

42
Regulatory Regime
Review
Pay TV OTT TV
How Regulated?
• 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 cableTV.
• Not yet regulated, although NCC has proposed
draft amendments to broadcasting legislation
which contemplate extension of regulation to this
area.
• Weak but improving enforcement of domestic laws.
• Legal framework does not favor protection of pay-
TV signals. Copyright owners bear heavy burden to
stimulate enforcement. Fines for violations are too low.
• Taiwan copyright law would protect online
television broadcasts and programmes broadcast
online.
channels: allowed,
prohibited or
unregulated?
• 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 politically-
sensitive applicants have been delayed.
• Not yet regulated.
• NCC’s 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.
• 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.
• Not regulated.
Rate regulation?
• 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 NCC’s 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.
Taiwan

A tilted playing field

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to A tilted playing field

Similar to A tilted playing field (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

A tilted playing field