When I first read about that proposed NTC circular about “Guidelines on the Provision of Contents, Information, Applications, and Electronic Games“, I shrugged it off because it was obviously referring to the mobile telecoms industry.
However, there were a lot of allegations flying around that this will affect all the millions of bloggers, forum posters, Friendster users and YouTubers in the Philippines if the NTC will require them to pay a license fee (amounting to Php6,300). So, I took a second and third look and re-read the definitions.
And while the definition of Content Developers was very broad (“persons or entities creating contents“), NTC’s definition of Content (“all types of contents delivered to/accessed by the users/subscribers such as music, ring tones, logos, video clips, etc.“) was obviously focused on mobile content and not content over the internet.
However, we can also make an argument that with the proliferation of mobile 3G, blog content and video clips from YouTube are also accessible via mobile phones. That holds true with email (iPhone Mail, GMail for Mobile, Yahoo! Go). The most prudent course of action was to ask the proponents of the circular what they meant by all these and who are specifically covered by it, which, Romeo Rabajante Jr. did (I applaud him for doing so):
I e-mailed NTC asking regarding this issue and Mr. Edgardo V. Cabarios director of Common Carriers Authorization Department of NTC replied to my e-mail. He said:
“Sir,
The proposed rules apply to those who offer contents, information, applications and/or electronic games to the public for compensation. If the contents, information, application and/or electronic games are free, then the providers are not covered by the proposed rules.
Edgardo Cabarios”
That explains the line in the memo that says “further encourage the development of contents, information applications and electronic games, the prevailing access charge regime between the contents, information, applications and electronic games providers and the networks providers which is revenue sharing should be replaced by fixed access charge” (emphasis mine).
Going back to the memorandum again, it also states that those are applying should provide the following documents:
1) Valid registration from the Securities and Exchange Commission or from the Department of Trade and Industry and Articles of Incorporation
2) Facilities lease agreement with duly enfranchised and certificated public telecommunications entity
Unless some blogger out there has applied a business license with the DTI and incorporated their blogs as a business entity with the SEC as well as signed facilities lease agreement with a telco, no one here is eligible. That supports the clarification that only those who are directly charging for their content are covered. I have yet to see a blog in the Philippines that follow the paid/subscription model although I’ve once talked somebody out of doing so.
About a year ago, a mobile content and service provider approached me and proposed a syndication deal for my blogs. The set up was something like that of the Amazon Kindle model — provide unlimited access to blog content via mobile device at a monthly flat rate. That rates were something like Php10 to Php20 a month to be able to read a blog via the mobile phone without additional access charges (i.e. free 3G connection).
It was a sound business model actually — instead of paying Php10 per 30 minutes (Php5/15mins), you only pay a one-time monthly fee to get unlimited access. Of course, there’s some sort of profit sharing there.
In that situation, the blogger becomes the Content Developer; the other party being the Content Providers as per the definition and therefore be covered by such proposed rules.
In its current form, I don’t see the proposed memorandum to gravely affect bloggers and publishers in general. What may need some more clarification would be professional bloggers charging their readers for reading their content. This might actually be more relevant to those people selling ebooks, online learning courses, web seminars and the like since they charge for access to content or gets a fee for providing services and the like.
Back in 2007, there was actually a draft memo by the NTC to regulate all forms of Internet content by classifying it as a value-added service (VAS) and charge fees accordingly. I supposed that memo was scrapped (see Unlawyer’s explanation here) altogether. Now that one could have direct effect to all bloggers.
YugaTech.com is the largest and longest-running technology site in the Philippines. Originally established in October 2002, the site was transformed into a full-fledged technology platform in 2005.
How to transfer, withdraw money from PayPal to GCash
Prices of Starlink satellite in the Philippines
Install Google GBox to Huawei smartphones
Pag-IBIG MP2 online application
How to check PhilHealth contributions online
How to find your SIM card serial number
Globe, PLDT, Converge, Sky: Unli fiber internet plans compared
10 biggest games in the Google Play Store
LTO periodic medical exam for 10-year licenses
Netflix codes to unlock hidden TV shows, movies
Apple, Asus, Cherry Mobile, Huawei, LG, Nokia, Oppo, Samsung, Sony, Vivo, Xiaomi, Lenovo, Infinix Mobile, Pocophone, Honor, iPhone, OnePlus, Tecno, Realme, HTC, Gionee, Kata, IQ00, Redmi, Razer, CloudFone, Motorola, Panasonic, TCL, Wiko
Best Android smartphones between PHP 20,000 - 25,000
Smartphones under PHP 10,000 in the Philippines
Smartphones under PHP 12K Philippines
Best smartphones for kids under PHP 7,000
Smartphones under PHP 15,000 in the Philippines
Best Android smartphones between PHP 15,000 - 20,000
Smartphones under PHP 20,000 in the Philippines
Most affordable 5G phones in the Philippines under PHP 20K
5G smartphones in the Philippines under PHP 16K
Smartphone pricelist Philippines 2024
Smartphone pricelist Philippines 2023
Smartphone pricelist Philippines 2022
Smartphone pricelist Philippines 2021
Smartphone pricelist Philippines 2020
JC John Sese Cuneta says:
The CICT has nothing to do with that one. From one of the blogs I read about the cancelled meeting, someone asked the CICT reps about the memo. They said that they went to the hearing because they themselves are not aware of what in the world the NTC drafted.
Also, if I’m not mistaken, the NTC was recently “returned back” to the CICT, I think they still have a lot of synch’ing to do.
But this is what really concerns me, and I’m glad someone else thought of this:
Anyone can do those… create and sell ebooks, provide online learning courses, charge for webinars, etc. But most of these people are not corporations but rather individuals. They won’t be able to provide the requirements requested.
And if the requirements requested are one of the basis of who falls under the proposal, then Corporations who also do those stuff will just put it under an individual’s name so they can avoid it.
So again, back to the question, the line is not clear. Who’s who, which is which? What are the criteria in determining who falls under the proposal?
What’s stopping Corporations from putting it in an individual’s name?
How will it affect individual netrepreneurs who provide such content as mentioned?
jason says:
I still think P 6,300 registration is too much, especially for small businesses trying to make their presence known via the web.
Snow says:
And so, they are now making a money out of blogging huh? tsk…tsk…tsk..
Jay says:
welcome to the philippines kabayans!
BrianB says:
And what should be clarified is the language of the bill itself.
BrianB says:
The industry’s too small. Their first priority should not be taxes but industry growth, so why bother with fees?
jomar Hilario says:
But most of the “content” we have here are hosted out of the country…!
rejie says:
ahh, ganoon ba?
salamat ka-yuga.
Roger D says:
I setup small food kiosk, I pay the necessary legal fess to setup and run my food kiosk. Then I sell my food.
Then someone said, “hey you’re selling food, you should payup per food you sell or else”.
BigBird says:
Haven’t they heard about Web2.0???!!!
ano ba yang draft na yan!
Jhay says:
The NTC and the CICT really needs to do more consultations and research before coming up with anything. Further more, they should work towards the better protection of IP rights for all those who are creating content on the internet.
jox says:
they should really clarify it to the public so there will be no conflicts.
Angelo Panares says:
Thanks a lot for the clarification. It was really mind boggling and incomprehensible why free content (emotional and expressive most of the times)should be regulated.
Woot to you Romeo Rabajante Jr. for asking and to you too yuga for helping share the clarification.
It is always better to get it from the horses mouth before speculating.
Andre Marcelo-Tanner says:
im sure that will encourage development of online paid content, by having to pay a government agency. NOT. if you try to regulate online content, people will just move the content out of the country and in the end you only affect the smaller businesses who are just trying to make it. looks like someone at the CITC needs money.