PCTA asks NTC to stop Smart Mytv
The PCTA filed on October 8, 2007 a complaint against Smart Communications, Inc. (Smart), Nation Broadcasting Corporation (NBC), GV Broadcasting System, Inc. (GV) and 360 Media, Inc. (360 Media) before the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) stemming from the commercial launch of the myTV service.
In its complaint, the PCTA asked the NTC to issue a cease and desist order requiring Smart and the other respondents to refrain from putting out print, TV and radio advertisements on myTV, and to refrain from commercially launching the service beginning October 16, 2007. PCTA primarily claims that Smart, with the active cooperation of the other named respondents, is illegally engaged in the provisioning of myTV services.
PCTA maintains that myTV is a broadcasting service in the form of digital TV and/or mobile TV. While Smart acknowledges that myTV is a form of broadcast service, it is prohibited from engaging in such activity by Section 4 (j) Republic Act No. 7925 (the Public Telecommunications Policy Act). Said law states that "[N]o single franchise shall authorize an entity to engage in both telecommunications and broadcasting, either through the airwaves or by cable."
PCTA contends that while Smart makes it appear that 360 Media is the one that ostensibly provides the myTV service, several factors disprove Smart's claim. Chief of these is the claim by Smart published in the 07 March 2007 edition of Business World that it will spend $50 Million to build up mobile TV services. PCTA further alleges that under the Subscription Services Agreement used for myTV and as claimed in the print advertisements for the service, Smart practically performs all the functions of a service provider, such as subscription acceptance, processing and management, billing and collection customer care, services and support.
According to PCTA, notices in regard to the subscription are in fact required to be sent to an office of Smart. PCTA further noted the fact that 360 media has not been granted either an authorization to provide television services or a VAS registration.
The PCTA further argues that since the NTC has yet to issue rules for the provisioning of digital TV and/or mobile TV services, no authorization may be issued for the provisioning of myTV or of any other form of digital or mobile TV services. And since the NTC has yet to grant an authorization for the provisioning of digital TV or mobile TV services, the respondents may not legally engage in the commercial operation of myTV services.
NBC and GV were named as respondents as PCTA claims that these entities are allowing the use by Smart of frequencies assigned to them for the test broadcast of handheld digital TV (DTT-H) in Demonstration Permits previously granted by the NTC. PCTA claims that the arrangement between Smart, NBC and GV for the use of such frequencies violates not only existing rules and regulations but also the conditions for the issuance of the Demonstration Permits granted to NBC and GV, which PCTA claims to have already expired.
The PCTA clarified that it is not against the promotion of competition in the broadcast industry as competition is beneficial not only for the consumers but also for the industry in general.
However, PCTA stressed, that competition unfettered by proper guidelines and regulations would be detrimental to the further development of the broadcasting industry and would ultimately work against the consumer. As such, PCTA said that competition must be guided by a proper regulatory framework giving due consideration to the various concerns of the public in general and of the stakeholders in broadcasting industry in particular.
Last October 24, 2007, the NTC ordered the respondent companies to appear before the Commission on November 12 at 9:30 in the morning to explain infractions the companies committed through the myTV service offering implemented by the said respondents. They were also given 15 days from the receipt of the order to show cause in writing why they should not be administratively sanctioned for such infractions and why no Cease and Desist Order (CDO) should be issued.
