CASBAA’s 2015
Survey of OTT TV and Pay TV
Broadcasting Policies in Asia
CASBAA Policy Roundtable
Executive Session
Monday, October 26th, 2015
John Medeiros, Chief Policy Officer
Janine Lapworth, Senior Consultant
CASBAA Members
Membership by Sector
Channels/Content Providers
14%
37%
15%
Satellite Operators &
Service Providers
Platforms
14%
20%
Technology/Hardware/Soft
ware
Other *
*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-thetop television regulation, by jurisdiction (with
comparison tool): available at
http://www.casbaa.com/rfg
• 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
2019
2014
Gaming
Business
Consumer
Data
Consumer
Video
File
"Sharing"
Gaming
Business
Cons. Data
Cons. Video
File "Sharing"
Source: Cisco VNI
Since the last review (2012) ...
• No new licensing regimes.
• Still generally-applicable content prohibitions,
plus regulation ranging from strict to selfregulation 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
Light
Strong
Cambodia
Myanmar
Sri Lanka
Hong Kong
Japan
New Zealand
Australia
Malaysia
Philippines
Singapore
South Korea
Thailand
India
Indonesia
Taiwan
Vietnam
China
OTT TV regulation
Light
Cambodia
Hong Kong
Indonesia
Myanmar
Philippines
Sri Lanka
Taiwan
Thailand
Strong
India
Japan
New Zealand
Singapore? South Korea? Vietnam?
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