11.16.05
The GIO & TVBS: non (literal) sense
The GIO debacle continues, with the GIO releasing a position paper on their handling of the TVBS dispute (via Rank). Most of it rehashes the known facts, but the interesting bit is in the conclusions:
Judging from the background and intention of the legislation as outlined above, it is clear that “directly held,” as stipulated in Article 10 of the Satellite Broadcasting Act, should not be taken in the literal sense to merely indicate “direct investment by foreigners.” Instead, it should go one step further to include foreign investors achieving the purpose of direct investment in satellite broadcasting enterprises through a 100 percent indirect investment. The GIO concludes, therefore, that the TVBS ownership structure clearly violates Article 10 of the Satellite Broadcasting Act.
In other words, the GIO feels that laws should not be taken literally, but that it is qualified to interpret the intent of those laws (and act accordingly). Glad they’ve sorted that out for us …
In other news, it seems they’re less than keen to prosecute Formosa TV (a pro-Green station) which also seems to be in violation of the broadcasting laws. Presumably they’ve only broken a ‘literal interpretation’ of that law, so there’s nothing to worry about.
Wolf Reinhold said,
November 16, 2005 at 6:59 pm
What is “a 100 percent indirect investment”?
sun bin said,
November 17, 2005 at 1:50 am
“…. should not be taken in the literal sense ….”
wonder how they present that to a judge in an appeal. or can one appeal to the court and sue the government in Taiwan?
—
mathematical genius.
100% indirectly
The View from Taiwan said,
November 20, 2005 at 2:22 pm
over this affair are just one more manifestation of the pan-Blues hatred of the President. David at jujuflop, who has inserted a rhetorical knife behind Pasuya Yao’s gills and gently removed his spine several times, scored Yao again with a poston the “literal” reading as well: In other words, the GIO feels that laws should not be taken literally, but that it is qualified to interpret the intent of those laws (and act accordingly). Glad they’ve sorted that out for us…
One whole jujuflop situation » Random notes said,
November 25, 2005 at 6:19 pm
[...] The Pasuya show continues: As head of the GIO, Yao is responsible for publishing the minutes of the weekly cabinet meeting. So what does he do when premier Frank Hsieh chews him out for his general incompetence in last week’s meeting? He publishes the criticisms on the GIO website, then edits the comments out, then denies it happened at all. Unfortunately, he forgot that some journalists might have actually checked the website before he changed it: However, the story was denied outright by Yao and Cabinet Spokesman Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰). Yao implied that Lee had made up the story. [...]
Sun Bin: 2005/11 said,
August 28, 2006 at 6:03 pm
[...] Jujuflop noted the GIO of “ROC in Taiwan” Pasuya Yao ’s brachiosaurus brain has issued an official statement ‘admitting its TVBS [mis]-handling”Judging from the background and intention of the legislation as outlined above, it is clear that “directly held,” as stipulated in Article 10 of the Satellite Broadcasting Act, should not be taken in the literal sense to merely indicate “direct investment by foreigners.” Instead, it should go one step further to include foreign investors achieving the purpose of direct investment in satellite broadcasting enterprises through a 100 percent indirect investment. The GIO concludes, therefore, that the TVBS ownership structure clearly violates Article 10 of the Satellite Broadcasting Act” - GIOApparently Taiwan’s law should not be taken in the “literal” sense, then what about in the “business” sense?First, here are the different ways to deliver video signal to your homeTerrestrial (broadcast) TV: must have a local broadcast tower, limited bandwidth, wide reach (to anyone within 20-40km radius)Cable TV: must have local infrastructure (HFC) to deliver, virtually unlimited bandwidth, 100s of channels[ADSL TV]: this is similar to Cable TV; delivered through your telephone line (copper wire), bandwidth smaller than Cable TV, but technology will improve quicklySatellite TV: a satellite’s typical footprint is almost 1/6 of the earth surface (typically 6 to cover the whole earth), you only need a satellite dish to receive (in reality, many satellite TV signals were relayed through local Cable TV or ADSL TV); virtually unlimited bandwidth, 100s channelsBroadband TV/video: this delivers to your computer; no geographic or infrastructure restriction, your broadband internet bandwidth is the only constraint. Example: the streaming or downloadable video clip we watch over the internet today.[IPTV is a technology which can be send via any network, but more pratical in 2-way networks such as 2/3/5]Taiwan’s broadcast law was drafted with extreme clarity, as part of the obligation to open market in its accession to the WTO, with good business rationaleTerrestrial TV: foreign shareholder strictly forbidden (due to its wide reach)Cable TV: Direct+indirect foreign ownership must be less than 60%, in which direct ownership must be lower than 20%Satellite: Direct foreign ownership must be under 50%. It is clear that here is no restriction on indirect ownership, since it must otherwise be stated there when this law was drafted together with the Cable TV lawTaiwan does not have ADSL TV yet (HK’s PCCW is already in service and gain significant market share). There is also no regulation you can put on broadband TV, unless you set up a great-firewall-full-of-holes like mainland China does.The legislation makes perfect sense because there is no point in regulating satellite TV to restrict foreign ownership. Because satellite stations such as NHK (Japan) and CCTV (mainland China) can be received anywhere in Taiwan already. Why not legalize it by requiring a local intermediate entity, so that you can retain control (such as when there is legal or financial dispute), enforce transparency and collect some fees? By granting such license you also allow local Cable TV to relay the signals to extend the coverage. But you retain the flexibility to block them because you still have full control on the Cable TV operators.—–The legal definition of direct and indirect ownership is very simple and straightforwardDirect: the company that is immediately above in the org chart, and its name appears in the legal document as “shareholder”Indirect: the company that you can trace up the hierarchy of “shareholder’s shareholder” in the org chartThese definitions are very clear, in ANY COUNTRY, ANY LANGUAGUE. Mainland China failed to clarify ‘direct’ and ‘indirect’ in its telecom law and opened a loophole in the 1990s, it only required the shareholder to be “Chinese”. Many foreign investors set up the so called C-CF(China–China-Foreign) JV (joint venture) to circumvent the law, so that INDIRECT foreign holding can be over 50%. It was subsequently corrected in 1999, by re-drafting the law. At least even the “communist” did not try to apply literally interpretation to its own laws.The legal discussion is a tired topic. It is amazing that Pasuya would so blatantly disregard the legal advice he received (I suppose someone must have given him some advice). It is even more amazing many people in Taiwan, including the Taipei Times and Hsiech Chang-ting (his superior and a lawyer) preferred to cheat themselves by supporting Pasuya’s mistake. Perhaps Chen Shui Bian is happy to watch Pasuya dragging Hsieh down, as there may be a power struggle within DPP. // //Backlinks: ‘+ BL_BacklinkCount['113186962612026269'].innerHTML +” ); //]]> Read more! [...]
reviews said,
September 9, 2009 at 1:25 pm
VERY GOOD WEBSITE!I LIKE IT.
tip said,
September 12, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Perfect site
I will recommend it to all my friends and fans