---

Communications expert Ade Armando delivering his expertise for the Relevant Party at the judicial review hearing of Law No. 32 of 2002 on Broadcasting, Monday (16/11/2020) virtually. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—If the petition filed by RCTI and iNews of the judicial review of the provision of internet-based content (over-the-top/OTT services) as regulated in Law No. 32 of 2002 on Broadcasting was granted by the Constitutional Court (MK), this would restrict the people’s creativity, said communications expert Ade Armando, who was presented by the Relevant Party, at a judicial review hearing on Monday, November 16, 2020.

In his testimony, Ade said that if the petition was granted, it wouldn’t only affect Netflix and similar platforms, but also creators of user-generated content as it would require them to follow the Broadcasting Law, the Ministry of Communication and Informatics, and the Indonesian Broadcasting Commission (KPI).

Also read: RCTI and iNews Question Regulation on Internet Broadcasting 

“Even Zoom broadcast used at this Constitutional Court hearing or in remote meetings at various agencies, webinars, or other events, will have to be regulated by the Broadcasting Law, including in terms of permit through the KPI, and so on. In my opinion, this will not only cause bureaucratic issues, but will also restrict the people’s creativity that has progressed rapidly since the development of the OTT worldwide. Some even say that the internet has led to democracy that no other era has ever seen. And it will cease if the Petitioners’ petition is granted,” said the University of Indonesia lecturer of the Faculty of Social and Political Sciences (FISIP).

Also read: House: OTT Services Not among National Broadcasting System  

Equating All OTT Services

Ade said that the change that the Petitioners requested also seemed to equate all kinds of OTT services. He stressed the difference between OTT services and OTT media services. OTT services, he said, refer to all content in the form of data, information, and multimedia that goes over the internet. Meanwhile, OTT media services are those provided by companies or media institutions.

“In this case, for example, what we know as user-generated content, or content created by internet users, belongs in OTT, but is not OTT media services. This includes content created by YouTube users, for example, Facebook users, Instagram users, TikTok users, or remote classroom content amid the pandemic. In fact, what we are doing now belongs in the category of user-generated content, which is relayed to the wider public. These are all user-generated content that is spread over the internet. As for what is included in the OTT media services, and I think this is what the Petitioners actually questioned, […] are Netflix or other video-on-demand services that we now know in Indonesia […]. These are two different things and cannot be generalized. The difference between the two has very serious implications,” Ade explained before the panel of justices led by Chief Justice Anwar Usman.

Also read: Expert: State Must Regulate OTT Content  

Broadcasting Law Revision

Ade also said that if private broadcasters expect to see tougher regulations on OTT media services, they should encourage the revision of the Broadcasting Law in the DPR (House of Representatives). According to Ade, the revision cannot be completed only by annulling the definition of broadcasting in Article 1 point 2 of the Broadcasting Law.

Also read: Expert: License for OTT Services Regulated by Telecommunications Law, Not Broadcasting Law

The Petitioners of case No. 39/PUU-XVIII/2020 are PT Visi Citra Mitra Mulia (Inews TV), represented by executive director David Fernando Audy and director Rafael Utomo (Petitioner I), as well as PT Rajawali Citra Televisi Indonesia (RCTI), represented by directors Jarod Suwahjo and Dini Aryanti Putri (Petitioner II). Their legal team is Taufik Akbar and peers. They requested a material review of Article 1 number 2 of the Broadcasting Law, "Broadcasting means an activity of broadcasting through a transmitter and/or transmission facilities on land, in the sea, or in space by using radio frequency spectrum through air, cable, and/or other media to be received simultaneously and synchronously by the public with a broadcast receiver." 

They argued that the provision of Article 1 number 2 of the Broadcasting Law has caused constitutional damage for them because it has led to unequal treatment between the Petitioners as conventional broadcasters using radio frequency and broadcasters using the internet such as OTT services. 

Also read: Government’s Expert: OTT Services Already Regulated in Statutory Laws

They believe that because there is no legal certainty whether internet broadcast such as the a quo OTT services falls under broadcasting as regulated in Article 1 number 2 of the Broadcasting Law or not, so far internet broadcast such as OTT services is not bound by the Broadcasting Law. Because internet broadcasters are not bound by the Broadcasting Law, the Petitioners believe it has caused unequal treatment.

Writer: Nano Tresna A.
Editor: Lulu Anjarsari
PR: Andhini S. F.
Translator: Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 11/17/2020 12:15 WIB

Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian version, the Indonesian version will prevail.

---