Indonesian Telecommunication Regulatory Body (BRTI) Commissioner Agung Harsoyo delivering his expertise virtually at the judicial review hearing of the Broadcasting Law, Wednesday (4/11) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—All electronic media platforms including internet-based content or over-the-top (OTT) services has been regulated in Article 2 of the Government Regulation (PP) No. 71 of 2019, which shows that all internet-based services are among the electronic systems and transactions that must comply with statutory laws, said Indonesian Telecommunication Regulatory Body (BRTI) Commissioner Agung Harsoyo delivering his expertise virtually at the judicial review hearing of Law No. 32 of 2002 on Broadcasting. The hearing for case No. 39/PUU-XVIII/2020, which was led by Chief Justice Anwar Usman, took place virtually on Wednesday, November 4, 2020 in the Plenary Courtroom under strict adherence to the COVID-19 health protocols.

Also read: RCTI and iNews Question Regulation on Internet Broadcasting 

Agung said that broadcasting includes broadcast receiver devices. Broadcasting has a solid and universal definition. He added that OTT services varied, which include telecommunication, media, content, e-commerce, services, and social media. He believes OTT media services do not belong to broadcasting. Anyone with the means and ability can offer OTT media services or place their content in existing OTT media platforms. Broadcasting operators can also do the same thing that OTT media services, by placing their broadcast content on the internet.

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

Agung further explained that in his field of IT, the regulations must be clear. OTT services is global as it uses the internet, so that any content broadcasted by individuals will be accessible to the whole world. “So, because OTT media services can be provided by anyone, it wasn’t regulated as a type of broadcast,” he said.

Definition of “Broadcasting”

Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih said that Article 1 number 2 of the Broadcasting Law doesn’t regulate internet-based broadcasting. “Does [the article] not cover [internet-based broadcasting] at all? So, what is the position of internet-based broadcasting, as it relates to dissemination [of content]? The next question is how to interpret broadcasting in the phrase ‘other media?’ Are the other media outside of the internet, or are there any other media? Please explain the scope of ‘other media,’” she asked.

Also read: Expert: State Must Regulate OTT Content  

In response, Agung said that in IT, media are divided only into two: physical media and wireless media. An example of physical media is fiber optics. Meanwhile, wireless media are divided into terrestrial and satellite media. He added that the internet is not media in terms of delivery of information.

“Because in the basic communication system, the communication system is comprised of the transmitter, the media (channel), and the receiver. In this case, any other media could be satellites, etc. The internet doesn’t belong to any media. [The Government Regulation] No. 71 of 2019 stipulates that OTT services, in this case digital platforms, are within the category of private electronic transaction and system,” he explained.

He believes that platforms and content creators can be blocked should their content violate statutory laws. He said that the Broadcasting Law, the Telecommunications Law, and the EIT Law stipulate that any texts, sounds, animations, and videos being transmitted are defined as content.

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. 

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: Utami Argawati
Editor: Lulu Anjarsari
PR: Andhini S. F.
Translator: Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 11/09/2020 15:15 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.