1 / 11

OPA Representations on Convergence Bill

OPA Representations on Convergence Bill. JP Farinha 16 August 2005. INTRODUCTION. Online Publishers Association Voluntary, non-profit association 22 members – SA’s most professional online publishers Aim is to ensure a sustainable and vibrant online publishing industry Objectives include:

casey-mcintosh
Download Presentation

OPA Representations on Convergence Bill

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. OPA Representations on Convergence Bill JP Farinha 16 August 2005

  2. INTRODUCTION • Online Publishers Association • Voluntary, non-profit association • 22 members – SA’s most professional online publishers • Aim is to ensure a sustainable and vibrant online publishing industry • Objectives include: • Endorsement of highest standards in online publishing • Development and promotion of standards • Enhancement of trust necessary to support sustainable online publishing businesses • OPA will focus on aspects of the Bill which are of concern to our members

  3. PRIMARY CONCERN • To ensure the Bill does not require the licensing and regulation of online publishing and information services • Intention of the drafters appears to support this view, however; • A number of definitions and provisions are not clear

  4. WHY SHOULD ONLINE PUBLISHING NOT BE LICENSED? • Freedom of expression • Could limit the constitutional right to freedom of expression • Contrary to approach adopted in open and democratic societies • Only justifiable content medium is broadcasting due to scarce spectrum • Online publishers are not using scarce resources • Unfair discrimination against Online Publishers • Print media are not required to be licensed or regulated

  5. WHY SHOULD ONLINE PUBLISHING NOT BE LICENSED? • Adverse consequences • Thousands of individuals, corporates and public bodies would be affected • Anyone with a web site e.g. guesthouses • Costs would adversely affect small business and is likely to result in closures • Development of the provision of online content stifled • Discourage investment in business of online content • Disadvantage local companies in relation to international • Local online businesses might move offshore • Right of persons to freedom to receive or impart information adversely limited • Counter to approach adopted in other democracies • Negative international image projected

  6. SPECIFIC CONCERNS • Definitions which concern the OPA • Application • Application Service Licensee • Communications • Communications Network • Communications Network Service • Communications Service • Content • Content Service • Subscriber

  7. SPECIFIC CONCERNS • Provisions which concern the OPA • Section 8(2)a • To a lesser extent section 2(x) and (y) • Proposed solutions • Amendments to definitions to remove ambiguity with respect to content services • Re-wording of the provisions

  8. PROPOSALS • That the Bill should not provide for the specific licensing of "application services“ • Accordingly, the definitions of "application", "application service" and "application service licensee" ought to be deleted • That the definition of "communications" be amended so that it reads as follows: "the emission, transmission, or reception by any means of voice, sound, audio, data, text, visual material, visual images, signals or a combination thereof (whether with or without the addition of value by means of technological interventions), by means of electricity, magnetism, radio or other electromagnetic waves or any agency of a like nature (whether with or without the aid of tangible conductors)"

  9. PROPOSALS • The definition of "communications network service" be amended, so that it means "a service whereby a person makes available a communications network, whether by sale, lease or otherwise – (a) for that person's own use for the provision of a communications service or a broadcasting service; or (b) to another person for that other person's use in the provision of a communications service or a broadcasting service; or (c) for resale to a communications service or a broadcasting service". • That the definitions of "content" and of "content service" be deleted. • That the definition of "subscriber" be amended so that it means "a person who receives a communications service or a broadcasting service under an agreement with, or according to terms and conditions determined by, the provider of that service".

  10. PROPOSALS • As regards s2(x), that it be reworded as follows: "ensure that persons who provide broadcasting services have access to communications network services in order to provide such broadcasting services". • As regards s2(y), the paragraph accordingly ought to be deleted. • As regards s8(2)(a), in which there is a reference to "content services", the paragraph needs to be reworked, including so as to delete the reference to "content services".

  11. Conclusion The OPA would like to thank the Committee for the opportunity to comment on the Convergence Bill. We look forward to a favourable consideration of our representations. Thank You

More Related