South Africa Starts Debate on IPTV Regulation Despite Lack of Broadband Services
South Africa shouldn’t regulate Internet Protocol TV services, commentators told the country’s telecom regulator late last month. Although IPTV hasn’t taken off in there, there’s “considerable interest from stakeholders,” the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa said in a discussion paper. After reviewing how the EU, U.S., U.K., France, South Korea, India and Canada handle IPTV rules, ICASA said it will focus on content issues. Respondents urged it to stay out of content regulation.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
The market for IPTV services is still relatively small compared to satellite and terrestrial markets but there’s growing demand for them, ICASA said. IPTV offerings are being held up in developing countries by a “minimal uptake of broadband services” that prevents telecom operators from entering the market, it said.
Regulation, particularly with regard to the status of VOD, varies by country depending on national definitions of broadcasting, ICASA said. Some define IPTV as a broadcasting service, subjecting providers to the same rules and license conditions as subscription broadcasters, it said. Content regulation is one of the key challenges facing IPTV rollout, ICASA said.
ICASA sought input on several regulatory and policy questions. These included how to separate IPTV and Internet broadcasting which isn’t susceptible to regulation, and what framework is needed to license IPTV without regulating Internet broadcasting services. Other questions included: (1) Whether there’s social and economic value in the current separation of non-linear services as electronic communications and linear services as broadcasting services. (2) Whether South African law should be changed to allow a unified licensing regime to allow convergence between broadcasting and e-communications. (3) Whether, if linear and non-linear services are separate, it’s necessary or feasible to regulate content on non-linear services.
Three key principles should guide ICASA’s decision on whether to change the law or regulations for IPTV, the Freedom of Expression Institute, Association for Progressive Communications, Shuttleworth Foundation and SANGONeT said. They are the protection of free speech, ICASA’s duty to promote convergence and the requirement that it foster competition.
"Introducing new regulations for IPTV may conflict with all” of them, the groups said. Broadband isn’t developing quickly enough to provide affordable services to most South Africans, and regulatory intervention at this point could either encourage or stifle it, they said. There are dangers of vertical integration if fixed-line telecom companies use their market power as network providers to compete in the content services space, they said.
ICASA shouldn’t distinguish between IPTV and Internet broadcasting, the organizations said. Radio stations don’t need a new kind of license to stream content, and TV stations shouldn’t either, they said. If content creators or owners want to distribute material over the Internet, they don’t need a license now and should not need one in the future, they said.
South African law doesn’t refer to linear or non-linear services, the groups said. ICASA is making an arbitrary distinction based on the EU audiovisual media services directive and “definitions of ‘IPTV’ from Wikipedia,” they said. South Africa “should not slavishly follow European examples as there is a tendency in the EU to over-regulate and stifle innovation,” they said. Nor should ICASA regulate content provided on non-linear services, they said: “No one regulates content on the Internet."
ICASA “would face trying to unscramble an omelet” if it plans to separate IPTV and Internet broadcasting, said Professor Guy Berger, head of the Rhodes University School of Journalism and Media Studies. Online content of whatever description isn’t pushed into society like free-to-air broadcasting but must be accessed, even when free, by consumers who have to pay ISPs, he said. It can’t be equated to unilinear content broadcasting streams, so any regulation should have a light-touch or, better yet, be nonexistent, he said.
The issue isn’t the service offered but whether society has legitimate claims based on the use of a public resource such as the airwaves, and legitimate concerns about messages that may harm children and other vulnerable groups, Berger said. Online content, whatever its mode of communication, doesn’t fall into either category and ICASA should have “very little or no involvement with it” because content rules fall to laws and agencies outside it, he said. Instead, the regulator should “avoid further activities in regard to the online arena, and focus on its core offline business that concerns traditional broadcasting and telecoms,” he said.
The consultation ended March 26 but ICASA hasn’t yet posted responses. It’s holding public hearings April 8-9.