India is not the only country where the regulatory regime for internet protocol television or IPTV is tricky.
Wants DoT to govern telcos and cable operators to be put under I&B ministry ambit
NEW DELHI: India is not the only country where the regulatory regime for internet protocol television or IPTV is tricky.
In countries like China and Korea, it’s quite the same, shows a study by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai). And despite an integrated communications and broadcasting system in Japan, there are some regulatory hurdles when it comes to IPTV.
In the absence of a ‘convergence’ regime, the regulator in India has now said that “justice will be met if cable operators and telecom businesses are permitted to operate within the ambit of their respective licences/registrations” while offering IPTV services.
Even as the administrative ministry for IPTV continues to remain a grey area, Trai has pointed out that telecom companies will not require any other licence to offer IPTV.
Similarly, cable operators don’t have to go for any other registration or licence if they wish to offer IPTV services.
While the department of telecommunications (DoT) and the information and broadcasting (I&B) ministry will both be responsible for administering IPTV for telcos/ISPs and cable operators respectively, content will mainly be guided by the laws/norms framed by the I&B ministry (such as uplinking/downlinking guidelines, programming and advertising code) and the department of information technology (such as IT Act 2000).
Citing the example of Korea, Trai said, the Korean Broadcasting Commission and the Ministry of Information and Communications have discordant opinions on whether convergence services (such as IPTV) should be regulated as ‘broadcasting’ or ‘telecommunication’.
The Korean Broadcasting Commission fears that if telcos enter the broadcasting market, it may result in the collapse of the cable TV industry. Meanwhile, the ministry of information and communications wants rollout of IPTV as value-added network.
In China, an IPTV provider needs permission from several state agencies-state administration for radio, film and TV (SARFT), ministry of information industry, ministry of communications and the general administration of press and publication.
Trai points out that IPTV is under heavy regulation in China, both for licences and content monitoring. It is believed that SARFT is the primary body for licensing IPTV.
“All in all, the situation in China with respect to IPTV regulation is characterised by some degree of regulatory uncertainty including inter-agency rivalry,” says Trai.In India, IPTV is expected to witness intense competition soon. As of now, only MTNL and BSNL have entered the IPTV fray in India.
m_nivedita@dnaindia.net
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}