CASBAA’s 2015 Survey of OTT TV and Pay TV Broadcasting Policies in Asia CASBAA Policy Roundtable Executive Session Monday, October 26 th, 2015 John Medeiros, Chief Policy Officer Janine Lapworth, Senior Consultant

CASBAA Members

Membership by Sector *Includes agencies, consultancies, law firms, and research companies.

2015 Survey CASBAA engaged with Knowledge Partners in 17 Asian jurisdictions and the 2 benchmark jurisdictions of the United States and the United Kingdom. Investigated and reported on regulation of pay television and “over-the-top” television in each jurisdiction.

2015 survey outputs Wallchart of pay television regulation Online summaries of pay television and over-the- top television regulation, by jurisdiction (with comparison tool): available at Print publication with summaries of pay television and over-the-top television regulation, country reports and analysis: forthcoming Online summaries of advertising regulations for pay television and over-the-top television, by jurisdiction: forthcoming

“OTT TV” Catch-up for local pay/FTA services Linear online simulcasts of local pay/FTA channels Video embedded in websites such as online newspapers and periodicals, official websites for local TV services Transactional video on demand, eg. iTunes Subscription video on demand, eg. Netflix International live streaming services with subscription revenue base, eg. willow.tv International video services with advertising revenue base, eg. YouTube International services sharing pirated content, eg. Popcorn Time

APAC Internet Traffic Source: Cisco VNI

Since the last review (2012)... No new licensing regimes. Still generally-applicable content prohibitions, plus regulation ranging from strict to self- regulation to no formal regulation. Still generally applicable advertising prohibitions in most jurisdictions and otherwise, advertising self-regulation common. Internet advertising less constrained. Mushrooming piracy. Some site-blocking but not enough to manage the threat.

Since the last review (2012)... Operators “getting on with it”, with introduction of numerous new services across the region, in spite of (not because of) regulatory environment: – Uncertainty (paper vs practice) – legitimate/local OTT TV services vs illegitimate/offshore OTT TV services – pay TV services vs OTT TV services

OTT TV: paper vs practice “Cosmetic regulation” on paper. In reality – often, no enforcement mechanism for offshore OTT TV services, and even if there is a theoretical mechanism, little or no enforcement action actually taken. Applies to both media regulation (eg. content) and IP rights protection.

Legitimate/local OTT TV vs illegitimate/offshore OTT TV Legitimate local OTT TV operators disadvantaged in competition with: – Pirate and other illegitimate sites (eg. pornography) – International sites which are in practice not subject to same rules Result of unfair competition: – Barrier to entry for new services – Some services failing due to unfair competition

Pay TV vs OTT TV “Traditional” pay TV operators even further disadvantaged (in terms of their pay TV platforms and, at times, on their OTT TV platforms) compared with new, third-party OTT TV operators, including: – licensing and rate regulation – content rules (local content quotas, scheduling, censorship) – advertising rules (minutage restrictions, “Made in...” requirements) – program supply (content sharing, a la carte rules) – constraints on foreign investment

Pay TV vs OTT TV – a comparative continuum Pay TV regulation OTT TV regulation Singapore? South Korea? Vietnam? LightStrong Cambodia Myanmar Sri Lanka Hong Kong Japan New Zealand Australia Malaysia Philippines Singapore South Korea Thailand India Indonesia Taiwan Vietnam China LightStrong Cambodia Hong Kong Indonesia Myanmar Philippines Sri Lanka Taiwan Thailand India Japan New Zealand Australia Malaysia China

For the regulators OTT TV – further “onshore-only” regulation likely to have unintended detrimental consequences for legitimate local operators. Pay TV - consider whether legacy regulatory environment still necessary and appropriate given the wide availability of unregulated media. (And don’t make matters worse, with big new tilts in the playing field!)

For the regulators IP enforcement against pirate websites will make it easier for legitimate operators to compete by discouraging both supply and consumption of illicit content: – Effective legal framework, targeting not only businesses but, where appropriate, consumers – Active enforcement by government and industry – International cooperation – Consumer education

For the regulators For content regulation, in addition to alternatives to broad government regulation (such as industry self-regulation), consider non-regulatory approaches: – technological solutions (filters/parental controls) – consumer education and assistance (“trusted sites” lists/”trusted channel” lists)

THANK YOU