The pay-TV industry in China is still in the early stages of development, being less than a decade old. In recent years it has been growing quickly, in step with China’s economy. The Chinese government has sought to boost market growth by contributing substantially to the digitization of cable networks and by launching its convergence policy with a 2015 target. However, the pay-TV industry’s growth is constrained by widespread online piracy, considerable foreign content and advertising restrictions, stringent censorship and foreign investment prohibitions. There is also considerable regulatory uncertainty surrounding the government’s convergence proposals.

The regulatory environment in Hong Kong is generally positive and pro-competition. The regulators’ light-touch, market-oriented approach has enabled Hong Kong consumers to enjoy the benefits of a comparatively high level of competition for the market’s size. However, Hong Kong’s copyright regime does little to discourage online piracy.

Regulation of the pay-TV industry in Australia is generally positive, with the exceptions being the restrictive anti-siphoning regime and legislative restrictions on pay-TV advertising revenue. These exceptions, combined with the presence of a very strong and well-protected free-to-air TV sector in a comparatively small market, have negatively affected growth and development of the Australian pay-TV industry.

Regulation of the Indian pay-TV industry has become the most restrictive in the region, if not the world. Almost every aspect of the industry is controlled, from channel availability, retail and wholesale rates, packaging, advertising, investment and even the commercial and technical arrangements between different levels of the supply chain. Each platform is subject to a different regulatory regime. For all the government’s micromanagement, considerable conflict prevails in the industry as the various players attempt to operate in such an arbitrary and inflexible environment. There does not appear to be any prospect of improvement in the near future, though the possibility of widespread digitization does hold out some promise.

The regulatory environment in Indonesia is relatively positive, for the time being: the regulators have resolved earlier conflicts relating to the scope of their respective authority; some progress has been made in changing the illegal behavior of provincial cable operators; the more restrictive localization regulations have not been given full effect in their implementation to date; and there are few restraints on pay-TV business models or offerings. Other than the restrictions on foreign participation in the Indonesian pay-TV industry, most of the industry’s regulatory challenges relate to uncertainty: from restrictive regulations remaining in the statute books, to the prospect of revised broadcasting and new convergence legislation, to the potential for corruption to interfere with legitimate commercial activity.

Japan’s regulatory environment is largely market-driven and competitive. A number of recent legislative proposals and enacted amendments foreshadow additional, largely positive refinements to the regime. However, these changes do not appear to affect the favoured position of incumbent local terrestrial broadcasters.

The pay-TV environment in Malaysia is generally positive, with new platform and content offerings driving competition. However, the market is constrained by stringent content control, the “Made in Malaysia” advertising rules and foreign investment restrictions**.

**Remark:
Information on Malaysia was drawn from experience since the previous CASBAA “Regulating for Growth” report, i.e. 2008-2010. In recent months, Malaysian officials have begun discussing a number of regulatory initiatives which if implemented could have a substantial negative effect on Malaysia’s regulatory environment, relative to other Asian markets.

In many respects, the regulatory environment in the Philippines is relatively positive, with no rate regulation, no licensing requirement for foreign channels, no tiering restrictions, no advertising constraints and only “light-touch” regulation of content. However, in other respects it is uncharacteristically restrictive (e.g. foreign investment rules and lack of copyright protection for broadcasters). The legislative, executive and judicial institutions charged with creating, administering and enforcing the applicable rules have fallen behind the rapid pace of change in the converging industries.

Singapore’s regulatory regime was designed to support Singapore as a regional media hub and encourage foreign direct investment. Paradoxically, the rules governing the local market have become increasingly interventionist. In addition to strict content controls and foreign investment rules, a cross-carriage scheme was introduced in 2010 which requires pay-TV operators to supply their “exclusive” content to certain other pay-TV operators. As the scheme is not yet fully in effect, it is still too early to assess its impact. However, many broadcasters and content providers believe that the scheme will adversely affect Singapore’s pay-TV industry.

There have been substantial changes and improvements in some aspects of policy in South Korea over the past three years, as resolute measures have been taken to create a more competitive pay-TV industry. However, this has not translated into changes in the way regulators work, and in many important ways the regulatory environment has not changed significantly since CASBAA’s last review. The new converged regulator continues its predecessor’s non-transparent regulatory practices, online piracy remains a significant challenge for the pay-TV industry, and cable television is still subject to more stringent requirements than other platforms. The protection of local programming against foreign competition persists through foreign channel restrictions, local content quotas and advertising and content rules.

The regulatory environment in Thailand has improved somewhat in recent years with the passage of the Broadcasting and Television Act in 2008 and the Frequency Allocation Act in late 2010. The latter Act created the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC) as a converged regulator. The selection process for NBTC commissioners is ongoing and until the NBTC has commenced its functions, considerable regulatory uncertainty remains. Weak intellectual property protection, inconsistent licensing regimes and foreign investment restrictions also impede the development of the pay-TV industry in the country. Competition in the pay-TV industry has, however, been boosted by the relaxation of the prohibition on television advertising. The Broadcasting and Television Act now permits 5-6 minutes per hour of advertising on pay-TV platforms. This limit remains very low, and local channels have been outspoken against the limit. However, it has nevertheless paved the way for a wider variety of business models across the industry and contributed to the rapid growth of a competitive satellite television sector, much of which is free-to-air but some of which operates on a subscription basis.

Taiwan’s regulatory system for pay television remains one of the most complex and restrictive in the region . Multiple levels of government are involved in licensing and rate regulation and there has been no convergence in respect of regulatory regimes for the various platforms. At the same time, digital take-up remains comparatively sluggish and the island’s TV economy continues to be excessively dependent on volatile advertising revenues. As a result of the unfavorable regulatory environment there has been little development of the industry since our last report was published in 2008.

Vietnam’s economic expansion over recent years has seen impressive growth in the country’s pay television services, now available on cable, digital terrestrial, satellite, IPTV and mobile platforms. This growth is all the more remarkable given the constraints in which the industry is operating, including rampant piracy, restrictive pricing, stringent content rules and foreign investment limits. Whilst the relatively positive regulatory environment in recent years has encouraged investment in the industry, this is changing in the short term. In March 2011, the government approved a new set of regulations for the pay-TV industry, including substantially increased regulation of channel licensing, advertising, content review and localization of content. Enactment of these measures will substantially increase the cost of doing business for international channels, and at the same time negatively affect revenues. The result is likely to be a reduction in the range of content available to Vietnamese consumers.

The regulatory framework for the United States pay-TV industry is generally market-friendly. Although there is some regulation of specific exclusive arrangements and retail rates in a few localities, such regulation is of limited effect in practice. Convergence, reform of the rules governing retransmission consent and an update of the copyright regime are the main issues facing US regulators today.

There is currently no sector-specific regulation of pay-TV in New Zealand. New Zealand has a patchwork regulatory framework, with several statutory and industry bodies being responsible for different aspects of broadcasting and media regulation. With a population of only 4.4 million, the size of the New Zealand market is relatively small. Accordingly, there is one dominant pay-TV operator in New Zealand, competing against two free-to-air networks, both of which also operate popular on-demand online services, and one other online on-demand service.

Regulation of the pay-TV industry in the United Kingdom is relatively market-friendly, with limited regulatory intervention in such areas as content regulation and program distribution. Some uncertainty has been introduced into the regulatory regime by a number of legislative reviews instigated by the current Government and Ofcom rulings on rate regulation. It is too early to assess the impact of the reviews and their findings on the prospects for the British pay-TV industry.

The Sri Lankan pay television industry is relatively young, as evidenced by limited competition and an ad hoc approach to regulation. A notable feature of the regulatory environment is preferential treatment for local content and operators through the application of additional content approval, tax and investment rules to foreign content and owners. The regulatory environment could be improved by removing barriers to foreign participation and increasing the independence and transparency of the regulatory agencies and their rules.

• Overlapping government-controlled regulatory agencies including Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (telecommunications and broadcast satellite and internet infrastructure), the State Administration for Radio, Film and Television (television and radio content and coaxial cable infrastructure) and the Ministry of Culture (online content).
• Judicial review of regulatory decisions technically available but rarely sought.

• Broadcasting and telecoms regulators are both 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 possible to Chief Executive.
• Judicial review available.

• The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) is an impartial and independent regulator, but key decisions are made by the federal Ministry.
• 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.

• No single regulator. Multiple agencies with overlapping responsibility:
  - Information Ministry (MIB) is part of the government
  - TRAI is Independent of the Ministry, though staffed by civil servants.
• Regulators are independent of all operators.
• Judicial review available.

• Regulatory jurisdiction shared between Ministry (Depkominfo) and Broadcasting Commission (KPI).
• Ministry has lead on licensing and market structure; Broadcasting Commission has 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).

• Independent from broadcast/cable/satellite operators.
• Not independent of the government.
• Judicial review traditionally not an option in practice.
• Regulatory framework favours established players.

• 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.

• NTC, the broadcasting and telecommunications regulator, is influenced by major operators and political leaders and is subject to arbitrary dismissal by the government. Its powers and authority are unclear.
• Judicial review of NTC decisions available, but courts have been used to stymie effective regulatory action.
• MTRCB, the content regulator, recently took overly stringent position on rules relating to tobacco.

• 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.”

• Converged regulator, the Korea Communications Commission (KCC), established in February 2008 by merger of the former KBC and the Ministry of Information & Communication.
• Independent from other Ministries and operators.
• Content standards administered by the Korean Content Standards Commission (KCSC).

• Regulatory vacuum has persisted for years.
• National Broadcasting Commission never established; National Telecom Commission has taken on some responsibilities.
• The legislature has passed a "Frequency Allocation Act" establishing a new National Broadcasting and Telecom Commission.

• 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.

• Ministry of Information and Communication is primary operational regulator.
• Part of government; not independent. It takes guidance from the party Committee on Popularization and Education (CPE), which has ultimate decision-making power.
• Enforcement of regulations is difficult, as MIC authority over multiple government-linked players and ministries is limited.
• Nascent competitive system sees multiple players jostling with former broadcast monopoly. Possible conflict of interest, as MIC itself owns one major player (VTC).

• Regulator (FCC) is independent, bipartisan, transparent and competent.
• Judicial review is readily available.

• 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.

• Ofcom independent, transparent and competent. Judicial review available.
• Major terrestrial player (BBC) subject to only limited review by Ofcom.
• VOD content regulated by new co-regulatory body, ATVOD.

• Ministry for Mass Media and Information is responsible for media policy, codes of ethics and licensing private television broadcasting services.
• Telecommunications Regulatory Commission (TRC) licenses television distribution platforms.
• The various regulatory agencies are not independent from the Ministry, forming part of the Sri Lankan Government.
• Judicial review of regulatory decisions is available and cost-effective, though time-consuming.

• Uplinking and downlinking permission required for all channels. Severe restrictions imposed on foreign channels, and uplink/downlink required to be via the Apstar-6 satellite.
• Establishment of domestic pay-TV channels is subject to approval by the SARFT or its local counterparts.

• No meaningful restrictions; channels not subject to downlink licensing, though operators are.
• Special facilitation for "non-domestic" broadcast uplinks.

• No meaningful restrictions; licenses readily granted.

• Downlinking approval has burdensome application requirements for channels.
• Approval process has been slow. However, more than 150 international channels now licensed.

• A requirement for satellite signal landing rights has been in force since 2007.
• The uplink station for DTH operators must be located within Indonesia.
• Has not been a significant barrier.

• No restrictions.
• Entities managing pay-TV, such as Skyperfect JSAT must submit documents required under the law to MIC and provide and disclose to the public its policy relating to its business and others required under the law.

• No restrictions.

• No restrictions.

• No restrictions, licenses readily granted.

• 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.

• Unclear rules; in practice there are both foreign and local uplinks/downlinks.
• NTC has proposed to implement "landing rights" licensing for satellite channels.

• Downlinking requires government "landing rights", with application through a local office.
• Most licenses readily granted, but some politically-sensitive applicants have been delayed.

• New regulations issued in March 2011 require all channels to get new landing licenses.
• Foreign channels must have a local agent as well as a local "editing" agency to censor content.

• No meaningful restrictions; licenses readily granted.

• No restrictions.

• All channels must register with Ofcom. The registration fee is nominal.
• Registration not required if channel already authorised elsewhere in EU.

• None

• Retransmission 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.
• Foreign advertising must comply with domestic advertising rules.

• None

• None.

• Since 2005, government permission required; some channels excluded from the market.
• Heavier restrictions on news channels.

• 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).

• Foreign channels restricted to one of the two satellite platforms ("communications satellite").

• Television content subject to intensive local content control laws.
• Foreign advertisements (with Made-in-Malaysia "exemption certificates") permitted only up to 30% of total advertising time; all other ads, even in those pass-through channel streams, must be replaced by ads meeting the "Made in Malaysia" requirements.

• No restrictions.

• 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.

• Prior individual authorization for each channel required.
• Retransmitted programming capped at 20% of each operator's bouquet.
• No local ads or dubbing allowed.

• No restrictions.
• Several new DTH services broadcast to Thai audiences.

• Channel retransmission permitted.
• Ads on premium cable channels cannot be retransmitted. (Not applicable to satellite or IPTV.)
• Burdensome restrictions on graphic advertising inserts sometimes enforced.

• Most foreign channels have in recent years been freely available to Vietnam pay-TV operators.
• New regulations are likely to mean government-imposed reductions in openness.
• New regulations also require "all" advertising to be made in-country.

• None

• No restrictions.

• No restrictions.

• No regulatory restraints on retransmission of foreign channels.
• A broadcasting license may restrict the operator’s programming to particular genres, such as educational or family programming.

• 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.

• 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 TV.

• 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.

• Domestic copyright laws on signal piracy are good, but enforcement lax, as local agencies not well educated on copyright matters.
• Piracy of DTH signals seems to be growing.
• Commercial fraud/underdeclaration is rife.

• Strong regulations on paper.
• Until 2009, little enforcement.
• Weak public understanding leads to much infringement, especially outside Java.

• Domestic copyright laws provide strong protection with significant penalties.
• Online piracy is a major problem.

• 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.

• Severely lacking. Piracy is rampant.
• Out-of-date copyright laws provide protection only for copyright owners, not channels or platforms.
• Unclear and burdensome procedural rules; judicial complaints subject to arbitrary dismissals and unreasonable delays.
• In practice, enforcement has been impossible to achieve.

• Generally good strong laws that are effectively enforced, except in respect of online piracy.
• Criminal offence to knowingly receive pirated pay-TV broadcasts.

• Domestic copyright laws provide strong protection with significant penalties.
• Enforcement is sufficient.
• Online piracy is a major problem; competes with pay-TV.

• Poor enforcement and minimal penalties for violators.
• A large pirate industry exists that flouts IP laws and government rules on advertising, content, etc.

• 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.
• Government has no ability to enter into major IPR conventions but there are bilateral copyright agreements.

• Government pressure and enforcement has led to stoppage of broadcast of unauthorized channel streams by national broadcasters.
• Compliance in the provinces not guaranteed..
• Unauthorized use of pieces of programming remains common.

• Domestic copyright laws provide strong protection with civil and criminal penalties and sufficient enforcement.
• Cable theft, including wilful unauthorized use of encrypted overspill signals, is a criminal offence as well as a civil copyright infringement.

• 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.

• Domestic copyright law provides strong protection with significant penalties.
• Enforcement is good, except for online piracy.

• Telecommunications Act makes signal theft and unlicensed pay-TV operations a crime.
• Police have pursued enforcement activities
• However, piracy, particularly involving overspill DTH transmissions from India, is common and unchecked.

• No industry-specific licence fees.

• 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.

• Minimal.

• Nominal for Cable - 500 Rps.
• DTH - 100 million Rps plus 10% of gross revenues.
• HITS - 100 million Rps.
• IPTV - annual fee ranges from 6-10% depending on license.
• Channel downlinking - 1 million Rps plus 100,000 Rps annually.

• 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.

• Nominal administrative filing fee for cable.
• No license fee for DTH operation, but a frequency usage fee is charged.

• 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.
• As of January 2011, a 6% tax applies to satellite TV subscription revenues. (no similar Tax on IPTV)

• Nominal for Cable (about US$100 annually).
• Only slightly more for DTH (about $400 annually).

• 2.5% of revenues.
• A concessionary rate of 0.5% of total revenue in the first 3 years of licence duration.

• Nominal fee 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 3 years, as is satellite mobile operator.

• National licenses - 6.5% of revenue.
• Provincial licenses - No fees, currently.
• (Likely to be changed upon establishment of National Broadcasting Commission.)

• 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.

• New regulations require payment of license fees, as yet unspecified.

• Local franchising authorities charge a fee of no more than 5% of revenue.
• Platforms offering VoIP service also required to pay modest contributions to Universal Service Funds.

• Not burdensome.

• Fees set annually to recover Ofcom's costs.
• Currently based on small percentage (well below 0.5%) of turnover after taxes.
• Full fee scale: Tariff Tables

• Application fee for a broadcasting licence is Rs. 100,000.
• Licence fee payable upon grant varies from licence to licence.

• IPTV and mobile TV services subject to SARFT license.
• Government committed to convergence of telecommunications, broadcasting and Internet over next four years. Pilot program announced. Regulatory conditions unclear.

• Technology-neutral regulatory regime.
• No restrictions on distribution platform.
• A mobile broadcasting platform has been licensed.

• Yes, under a subscription TV licence.
• However, programming is also being provided by Internet providers under telecom licenses.
• At present, there are cable, satellite, and IPTV systems.
• Mobile broadcasting underway by 3-G licensees.

• Disparate treatment, with telecoms favoured in a variety of ways.
• Non-convergent frameworks being used to regulate IPTV and mobile.
• Not clear whether, or how, content rules will apply to them.

• Regulations require separate licenses for pay-TV and telecom services.
• IPTV regulations continue this approach; require a consortium with licenses for
  a) pay-TV,
  b) ISP service, and
  c) network infrastructure.
• Regulatory frameworks being written for mobile and digital TV.

• Playing field is level among alternative platforms, and among participants in the various platforms.
• However, government tilts toward established terrestrials and the "broadcast satellite" platform.
• Proof of sufficient economic foundation to conduct an ongoing broadcasting business is required of license applicants.
• Significant competition between operators (DTH, Cable, and increasingly IPTV and mobile phones).

• Goal of technology neutral regime.
• Regulator states it is attempting to "standardize" licenses, but some differences persist.
• No restrictions on type of platforms (except exclusivity for current DTH provider).
• Competitive platforms having difficulty getting established.

• Several DTH platforms licensed.
• "Demo" mobile platform operated for a while, but commercial operations were impeded by licensing. Operator then abandoned mobile broadcasting in favor of 3-G video.
• Online distribution services (pay and free) are in operation. (No licensing requirement.)
• Regulatory regime outmoded and unclear, imposing a serious obstacle to new ventures.

• Yes, under licenses.
• Government has instituted relaxed conditions as an incentive for "niche" operators.

• Fully level playing field does not yet exist.
• Regulator treats terrestrial broadcasters differently than cable.
• Former rate caps have been eliminated.

• Unclear situation. Several DTH platforms operating without pay-TV licenses.
• No policy on mobile TV.
• Broadband networks are launching IPTV services without separate broadcast licenses, relying on their telecom licenses.

• Several DTH systems authorized, and government licensed one ADSL-based system.
• Rate caps undermine ability of any alternative system to get market share.
• Playing field is not level; differential restrictions bind cable, DTH and IPTV operators.

• No regulatory impediments. Regulators follow the principle of technological neutrality.
• Digital terrestrial, IPTV, WebTV, and mobile services are already operating.
• Complicated licensing procedures often require multiple licences to be obtained.

• DTH is licensed and regulated by FCC.
• Confused regulatory situation for IPTV; federal, state and local authorities all seeking to regulate.
• "OTT" internet video is growing, with no regulatory clarity.
• Outlook is unclear.

• Framework is technology-neutral and even-handed.
• Small size of market limits competition.
• Several online on-demand services have begun operating, but so far no full-fledged pay-TV service via broadband.

• All types of competing platforms can be licensed and a level playing field exists between platforms.
• Substantial regulatory intervention in favour of public service broadcasters.

• The TRC issues licences for the pay television distribution platforms in Sri Lanka, including DTH and cable.
• Licence conditions vary from one platform to another and from one licensee to another.

• Basic cable prices determined by local NDRC bureaus in consultation with SARFT.

• None.

• None.
• In 2002, Foxtel pledged to the competition regulator to meet certain caps for a 3-year period as a result of its content merger with Optus.

• Retail rates controlled since 2004 in most (non-CAS) areas. (Small rate increments have been allowed.) No indication when freeze might be lifted.
• Since 2006, in CAS areas (3 m homes), a single price (5.35 rps per mo.) has been set for each channel, with no market logic.

• None

• Filing and disclosure to the public of rates required.
• This has not generally been a constraint.

• Filing of rates only (after which an “investigation” could be opened by MCMC.)

• None

• Not regulated.
• Rates are filed, but no rate control at present.

• Retail rates are regulated, with KCC's approval required for any changes.

• In principle, rates must be in line with criteria specified by the regulator.
• In practice, this requirement has not to date been burdensome.

• 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.

• No official regulation.
• However, cable operators have to explain to central and provincial authorities about any plans to increase retail rates, and are subject to pressure to maintain reasonable rates.

• FCC regulates basic cable rates only where a cable system is not subject to effective competition.
• Nationwide DTH means there is competition virtually everywhere.

• None

• None

• Retail rates are approved as part of the pay television operator’s license.
• Any change in rates requires regulatory approval.

• No specific restrictions on tiering or bundling.

• No restrictions.

• No restrictions.

• A basic service tier of at least 30 free-to-air channels is prescribed.
• In CAS districts, a-la carte channel offerings mandatory at wholesale and retail levels.

• Tiering is allowed and widely practiced. No a la carte requirement.

• Tiering Allowed.

• No restrictions.

• No restrictions.
• Tiering is now a common practice in the market.

• Cross-carriage system imposes regulation of bundling and pressure for a-la-carte.
• Also foresees regulation of channel numbering.
• Regulator requires notification of channels in channel line-ups.

• Tiering and bundling are allowed and are common.
• Korean operators offer some premium channels a la carte but there is no regulatory requirement.

• Tiering is allowed/no a la carte requirements.
• Packages need to be approved by regulator.
• Requirement is not burdensome in practice.

• Mandatory carriage of large, prescribed basic package. (90-100 channels)
• Tiering is not allowed within basic range.
• Above basic level, regulations currently unclear: an a la carte prices must be set but in practice some bundling has been permitted, with prices lower than the sum of a la carte rates.

• No restrictions.
• In practice, tiering not prevalent because of low consumer spending power and preferences to receive the entire range of channels available.

• No restrictions.

• No restrictions.
• Packing of programming into differentiated packages is a common practice in the market.

• No restrictions.

• No regulatory requirements. Tiering permitted.

• None.

• None.

• None.

• Wholesale rates frozen. (Small increments allowed.)
• No indication when freeze might be lifted.
• Since 2006, in CAS areas, wholesale prices set by government.
• Government has fixed prices for DTH and IPTV systems at 50% of the rate charged to non-CAS cable operators.

• None

• None

• None

• None

• None

• No rate regulation.

• In principle, rates must be in line with criteria specified by the regulator.
• In practice, this requirement has not to date been extremely burdensome.

• No direct regulation, but strong government interference.
• Wholesale market is heavily cartelized.

• None

• None, in practice.
• FCC retains theoretical authority to regulate rates of vertically integrated program providers, but has exercised it only exceptionally.

• None

• None

• None

• Advertisements generally prohibited on domestic channels unless SARFT approval obtained.
• Advertisements must also 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.

• Allowed.

• Allowed.
• Subscription fees must be pay-TV's predominant source of revenue. No more than 50% of pay-TV operators' total revenues can come from advertising.

• Allowed.

• Allowed.
• Regulation has been passed requiring domestic ads be subject to new "Made in Indonesia" requirement.
• Ads for "international brands" are exempted.
• Law has not been enforced yet

• Allowed.
• Ratings may be influenced by the cartel that controls rating services.

• Allowed.
• Subject to “Made in Malaysia” requirement.

• Allowed.

• Allowed.
• No more than 25% of operator’s total revenues can come from advertising.

• Advertising on domestic channels allowed.
• Foreign retransmitted channels may not include ads for the Korean market

• Legal ban on advertising on pay TV has been relaxed, but unusually strict time limits remain.
• Special restrictions on ads for tobacco & alcohol.

• In theory, no advertising permitted on "pay" premium channels.
• Enforcement unclear.

• Allowed.
• Regulations require "all" advertising to be made in-country, but interpretation is not clear.

• Allowed.

• Allowed.
• Self-regulated by an association of industry bodies.

• Allowed.

• Allowed.

• Minutage restrictions of 12 minutes per hour (9 minutes per hour in peak viewing period), with additional restrictions on number and length of in-program commercial breaks.

• No limit for pay-TV.

• Unlimited by government.
• Ad content is governed by industry Codes of Practice.

• Limited to 10 mins. per hour plus 2 promo mins.
• Applies to cable, DTH and IPTV.

• No limitation.

• No regulatory restrictions.
• However, since the amount of time for ads are included in the document submitted to MIC when filing, MIC could request a reduction in ad time.

• Limited to 10 minutes/broadcast hour/channel average over 24 hours.

• No restrictions now in force.

• 14 minutes per hour.

• Capped at an average of 10 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.

• Limited to a daily average of 5 mins per hour, with no more than 6 mins in any one hour.

• Limited to 10 mins per hour (on basic tier channels)

• Limited to 5% of air time over a 24 hr period.
• No more than 2 ad breaks (max five minutes each) per film, and 4 breaks in other entertainment programs.
• Enforcement is not stringent.

• No limits in general programming.
• Ads in children's programmes limited to 10.5/12 min/hour (weekends/weekdays).

• No regulatory limits.

• Average of 12 minutes in any one hour, with special formula for teleshopping channels.

• 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.

• None.

• 10% of total program expenditure on drama channels must be spent on new Australian/New Zealand dramas.
• Flexibly administered; a shortfall in one year can be made up during the next year. Surplus in one year can be carried over to following year.
• Pass-through channels not affected.

• None currently.

• Pay-TV operators are in theory required to broadcast 20% local channels (10% FTA and 10% local content).

• None

• None for programming, only ads.

• None

• None

• Mandatory local content quotas applicable to domestic (not foreign) channels.
• Different quotas for different genres; currently range from 25 to 60%

• Domestic content ratios may be specified by the NBTC.

• Cable must provide at least 20% local programming in its mix. (Requirement not burdensome.)
• DTH, IPTV and mobile have no similar requirement.

• No mandatory regulation.
• The Cinema Law provides official "encouragement" for local movies to make up at least 30% of movies broadcast, but no binding restrictions.

• None

• None

• Must follow EU rules requiring 50% EU content "where practicable".
• Must source 10% of programming from independent producers.

• None

• 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.

• Platform operators (and channels) required to adhere to broad guidelines.
• No direct control on channel providers.

• No direct control on channel providers. Self-regulation according to Codes of Practice devised and published by the industry association.

• Not restrictive - largely a self-regulatory approach.
• Based on a published Program Code, with separate codes adopted by industry organizations.

• Broadcasting Commission has developed detailed content codes.
• Sensitivities on content issues are high.

• Self-regulation system that functions well.
• Guidelines coordinated by National Association of Commercial Broadcasters.
• BPO ("Broadcasting Ethics & Program Improvement Organization"),aims to deal, on a voluntary basis, with complaints and ethical issues surrounding broadcasting from an independent, third-party standpoint.

• 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.

• Self-regulation system administered by the Association of Broadcasters of the Philippines (KBP) and backed by the regulator (NTC), not overly restrictive and no direct control over channel providers.
• MTRCB recently took active role in respect of tobacco rules.

• Comprehensive content regulations through Content Codes.
• Authority for direct regulation of domestic and foreign broadcasters.

• Self-regulatory approach by pay-TV operators.
• Supervision and standards-setting by the Korea Communications Standards Commission.
• KCSC also applying in-program content-display rules to both domestic and foreign channels.

• Pay-TV services perform self censorship based on published guidelines from a government regulator.
• Regulator has theoretical authority to approve program plan, but in practice this has not been exercised.

• General guidelines on content control.
• Overall controls not burdensome but there are substantial political issues.

• Operators exercise day-to-day control, under direction from several government agencies, which have the power to fine/punish offending operators.
• Some politically sensitive programs (e.g.news or films) are "blanked out" or replaced in foreign channel streams.
• New regulations require foreign channels to have an authorized local "editing" firm to ensure compliance with content/censorship rules.

• Pay-TV services perform self regulation based on individual channel standards and guidelines.
• At FCC, only basic anti-obscenity rules apply to pay-TV.

• System of self-regulation works well.
• Codes of practice for pay-TV less restrictive than for free-to-air TV.
• Backed up by appeal to a Broadcasting Standards Authority.

• Pay-TV services perform self-regulation based on Ofcom's Broadcasting Code.
• Ofcom reviews compliance and adjudicates complaints.

• No advance censorship.
• Restrictions contained in television broadcasting licenses include prohibitions on programmes:
  - which are detrimental to national security;
  - which incite ethnic or religious hatred;
  - which are morally offensive and/or indecent;
  - which breach Sri Lankan law.

• Any foreign language channels require SARFT approval.

• None

• General anti-discrimination legislation in principle requires closed-captioning of television programming. The government is working out implementation targets.

• None

• Foreign films must be sub-titled or dubbed.

• None

• None

• None

• Transmission of programs on channels in dialects tightly controlled.

• Dubbing prohibited on foreign retransmitted channels but subtitling is allowed.
• For domestic channels only, restictions related to timing and size of subtitling.

• NTC regulations encourage, but do not mandate, dubbing or subtitling of international channels into Thai.

• None

• 2011 Regulations require subtitling or dubbing by most channels.
• Proportion of content affected differs by genre.
• Movie and news channels most affected.

• Requirement for closed-captioning for hearing-impaired viewers applies to most new English and Spanish-language programming.
• Requirements for captioning of "old" programming being gradually phased in.
• New requirement for audio description for visually-impaired consumers to begin phase-in.

• No restrictions.

• For channels exceeding minimum threshold for audience share, annual subtitling, signing and audio description targets set by Ofcom.

• None

• No specific regulations affecting exclusivity.

• No restrictions.

• No general restraints on exclusivity.
• Restrictive "anti-siphoning" provisions require many sporting events to be offered first to free-to-air TV.

• Not allowed for linear channels. Allowed for specific pieces of content on channels, and for VOD offerings.
• Restrictive "sports sharing" provisions require many sporting events to be given to the public broadcaster, since 2006.

• 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.

• No restrictions.

• No restrictions.

• In principle, exclusivity is not allowed, but In practice, no requirements are enforced.
• Philippine broadcasters jealously guard their exclusive content.

• New regulatory mandate that pay TV operators must cross carry each other's exclusive content effectively bans exclusivity.

• No regulation of exclusive carriage contracts for channels.
• Some specific events required to be shared.

• No current restrictions.

• No restrictions.

• No restrictions.

• General antitrust laws apply.
• Under those laws and FCC rules, affiliated or vertically integrated carriers and channel providers cannot do exclusive contracts.

• No restrictions, at present.

• No general restrictions, although specific deals may be examined by EU for anticompetitive impact.
• Limited list of sports programming may not be subject to exclusivity.

• No restrictions.

• No restrictions.

• No restrictions.

• No restrictions.

• Highly restrictive "Must Provide" regulations in force. Apply to all platforms -- cable, DTH and IPTV.
• Some digital platforms using "VOD" channels to air exclusive content.

• No restrictions.

• No restrictions.

• No restrictions.

• In practice, no requirements are enforced.

• "Cross-carriage" mandate requires that major operators be supplied with "exclusive" content, both broadcast and VOD.

• Requirement to share broadcast public events of widespread popularity.
• List is narrow, e.g. Olympics and World Cup games.

• No requirement.

• No restrictions.

• No requirement.

• No requirement, other than those governing affiliated organizations mentioned above.

• No restrictions.

• No restrictions other than for limited sporting events.

• No restrictions.

• Foreign investment prohibited.

• No limits on foreign investment, though a majority of directors must be HK residents.

• All foreign ownership restrictions have been lifted.
• Specific foreign acquisitions of media assets could be reviewed under Australia's general foreign investment policy.

• 49% in DTH (20% direct and 29% "institutional.").
• 49% in Cable.
• 74% in Telecom, who could operate IPTV and mobile.

• 20% in pay-TV platforms.
• 49% in telecoms.

• 100% legalized in cable TV (1999).
• 20% in DTH (BS and 110゜CS) and terrestrial TV.
• 100% in telecom (IPTV and mobile).

• Licensees must be incorporated in Malaysia.
• FDI limited to 30%.

• No FDI allowed in cable operators, DTH or terrestrial broadcasters.
• 40% FDI allowed in telecom operators, including IPTV and mobile.

• Investment in local broadcasters restricted -- 49% cap.
• Subject to government approval of substantial shareholders, directors and CEOs.

• Foreign Investment limited to:
  - 0% in free terrestrial TV.
  - 49% in cable operators and DTH operators.

• FDI in pay-TV limited to less than 25% of the voting stock. (Limit for Telecoms is 49%.)

• Theoretical limit of 20% on foreign ownership on domestic operators. (Does not apply to "offshore" DTH broadcasters.)
• In practice, foreign holdings are structured to allow higher levels.
• 3 largest MSOs were all foreign-owned, but two are returning to local ownership.

• No stipulated limit. Provincial investment departments consider pay-TV proposals on same basis as other investments.
• However in practice the government has so far applied a 49% FDI limit.
• Licensees must be incorporated in Vietnam.

• No limitation on foreign private investment.

• No limit.
• Government review/consent based on transparent, non-restrictive criteria.

• 100% foreign ownership allowed.

• Limit of 40% of issued capital applies to foreign investment in mass communication businesses.
• Additional foreign investment may be allowed, with approval of the Board of Investment of Sri Lanka.

• Foreign investment prohibited.

• None

• No specific restrictions on content providers.

• 100% for downlinked foreign channels.
• 100% for uplinked Indian channels (non-news).
• 26% for Indian news channels.

• None

• Channels exceeding 20% foreign ownership restricted to "communications satellite" platform.

• None

• No specific restrictions on content providers.

• None, on foreign channels.

• 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.

• A 49% FDI limit applies to wholesale providers based in Thailand.

• None

• Same rules as for distribution platforms.

• None

• None for foreign entities.
• NZ entities potentially subject to same criteria as platforms.

• 100% foreign ownership allowed.

• None

• None, in the context of heavy state ownership and control.

• Some constraints on control of multiple media outlets apply to both domestic and foreign investors.
• A broadcast licensee cannot have control of other licensees nor can an advertising agency, sound broadcasting licensee or a proprietor of a newspaper produced in Hong Kong have control over a licensee without prior government approval.

• No restrictions other than general anti-trust laws.

• Cross-holdings between DTH platforms and other types of broadcasters or cable operators limited to 20%.

• Companies may own directly or indirectly no more than:
  - one pay-TV company, one private radio station and one newspaper in the same region;
  - one pay-TV company and one private FTA TV station with one newspaper in the same region;
  - one pay-TV company, one private FTA TV station and one private radio station.

• Ownership of newspaper, radio and television broadcasting by one company is prohibited in principle. However there are some special exceptions that create anomalies.
• Cross-ownership of more than one fundamental broadcasting company particularly restricted.

• No restrictions on cross media ownership (eg. TV-news papers) but there is a theoretical restriction against cross sectoral ownership (TV - telecoms).
• The restrictions are however being relaxed.

• Law prohibits use of telecom franchises to engage in broadcasting, and vice versa.
• However,in practice awards of dual franchises have been tolerated, including some level of indirect foreign participation in certain platforms.

• No specific cross-media restrictions.
• General requirements for government approval of shareholdings greater than 5%.
• This requirement is becoming increasingly burdensome for operators, whose ownership changes unpredictably as a result of large publicly traded share ownership.
• In practice, the government owns controlling shares in both pay-TV and free-TV operators as well as other media.

• Ownership by newspaper groups or conglomerates is restricted to:
  - 49% of of pay-TV operators;
  - 30% of program providers;
  - 10% of terrestrial broadcasters.
• There are also market share restrictions.

• The Broadcasting Act also contains some cross-media ownership limitations.
• Allowed ownership percentages are to be specified by the national regulator.

• No legal bar to cross-media ownership.
• However, in practice such ownership seems to be discouraged.

• No express restrictions.
• Each type of media requires a separate license, giving the government a high degree of effective control.

• Some constraints on cross-ownership of newspapers and terrestrial broadcast stations; no rules for pay-TV operators.

• No restrictions.

• General public interest consideration of media plurality for media mergers.

• None

• State-owned provincial satellite channels must re-transmit the CCTV evening news.

• No requirements for carriage.
• No exemption for payment of rights; commercial negotiations required.

• No government must-carry rule. Law requires agreement/payment to channel owners.

• Cable and DTH must carry 2 national Doordarshan channels and two Parliament channels.
• Cable must also carry a regional Doordarshan channel.
• IPTV obliged to carry four additional Doordarshan channels.

• 20% of each pay-TV operator's bouquet must be local channels (FTA and local content). Currently only enforcing 10% FTA requirement.
• Must also carry government channel TVRI.

• In areas where reception of terrestrial broadcasts is inadequate, cable operators must retransmit FTA programs without charge.

• No requirement.

• Cable Operators required to carry all terrestrial UHF and VHF channels within their locality.

• National operators required to carry all licensed FTA channels.
• Such carriage is exempted from payment of copyright licensing fees.

• Cable and DTH platform operators required to carry 2 terrestrial channels (KBS1, EBS), as well as more than 2 news channels and more than 1 general channel.
• No regulatory requirement yet for IPTV operators.

• No regulatory requirement.
• However, True Visions carries the six analogue terrestrial channels.

• Cable operators must carry four major analogue FTA channels.
• No copyright licensing payments are required.
• (No similar rules for IPTV or DTH operators.)

• Operators must carry certain national programs as requested by the government (e.g. national evening news)
• Where a local government channel is available, local players must carry it.
• Many operators misuse the national broadcaster's "entertainment" channels without authorization or payment, despite absence of any "must carry" requirement.

• Licensed "full power" terrestrial broadcasters have the right to carriage of one digital program stream on local cable systems. Broadcasters who exercise this right give up right to licensing fees.
• Other channels subject to "retransmission consent," i.e. negotiation of carriage agreements with fees.
• Satellite systems carrying any local stations must carry one feed from each of them.

• No requirements. Carriage of FTA channels is negotiated commercially.

• None

• No restrictions.