Discussion
Mr. Ishikawa noted the impressive impact of European integration on the economy and regulatory authorities. He highlighted the fiscal problems faced by high population density countries, such as Japan, and low population density countries, such as Sweden. He then opened the floor to discussion.
Mr. Kim commented on the convergence of telecommunications and broadcasting. He pointed out the issue of content regulation, noting that in Korea, there has been a recent scandal concerning the broadcasting of indecent material. He then asked what measures Japan had in place to tackle the issue of broadcasting regulation.
Mr. Yoshida responded by noting that in the context of Internet content, no regulations had yet been imposed by the Japanese government. He added that at the moment the industry is undertaking self-regulatory measures. However, he added that the government is currently considering the responsibility of Internet service providers, citing an example in the United States where a special law was enacted with regard to infringement of copyright and the responsibilities of ISPs.
Mr. Kim remarked that an issue in Korea was access by children to indecent adult-related material. He asked if any other members had comments on the regulation of broadcasting, adding that it was difficult to reach a consensus on this issue in Korea.
Mr. Ishikawa noted that there was a large problem of the sexual exploitation of children on the Internet. Mr. Yoshida added that Japan did not use chips to restrict content, unlike in the United States, and that content has yet to be regulated. He reiterated that broadcasters have undertaken some self-regulation, but this has been a voluntary measure to date.
Mr. Jacobsen of Denmark stated that the debate in his country, regarding censorship of the Internet, had revolved around preventing children from viewing adult material. He explained that the Danish government had recently decided that it is up to individual municipalities to decide how to filter Internet content, for example, in public libraries and other public access sites.
Dr. Choi of Korea commented that it seemed to be the case that in Germany there was a multi-media screening device to screen out material that was illegal in Germany. This situation caused complaints from overseas concerning censorship, as the screening technology prevented people in other countries information from accessing the information.
Mr. Caquot of France explained that a case similar to the one mentioned by Dr. Choi had occurred France in which items in a Yahoo auction were illegal and were therefore removed from the Internet in France; but this raised questions about the applicability of national laws to the Internet, because people in other countries had also been unable to access the web pages that had been prohibited in France. Mr. Caquot noted that this raised the issue of co-regulation.
Mr. Jacobsen noted that there is an EU program, the "Internet Action Plan" that aims to make Internet filtering products more suitable and targeted in their filtering. He added that the program supported the development of filtering software and hotlines that make it easier for people to report indecent material appearing on the Internet. Mrs. Birkett added that the EC had also undertaken work on the topic of Internet filtering.
Mr. Kim raised the issue of another regulatory case, closely related to the promotion of the digital opportunity in many ways. He noted that there was a case in which a cyber-pharmacy established in New Zealand was advertising controversial pharmaceutical products in Korea. He added that similar operations had been set up in the United States targeted at consumers in Korea, and asked participants what their countries were doing to control or regulate Internet content from third countries.
In response, Mr. Lindroos noted that there had been a court case in Germany, in which a telepharmacy operation from another EU member state had targeted German consumers, and that mutual recognition was an issue that had been raised during the course of this important case.
Mr. Yoshida asked about ADSL services in Korea. Mr. Kim explained that one of the reasons for the fast growth of ADSL in Korea has been a policy of open competition. He added that initially a small company introduced Internet access via cable services which proved popular and brought in other competitors, including Korea Telecom. He added that the competitive environment in Korea thus aided the spread of ADSL. Dr. Choi supplemented Mr. Kim's comments noting that electronic games had also been important in the spread of ADSL.
Dr. Choi asked what sort of policies should be pursued in order to provide a truly competitive environment. Mrs. Birkett responded that in the United States, the legislation is at one extreme or the other, with either heavy regulation or no regulation at all. She added that the FCC took the decision to hold back from regulation in order to protect investment and encourage the building of infrastructure in the United States. Returning to the situation in Europe, Mrs. Birkett explained that in situations where a service provider has a dominant place in a given market, it may be subject to interconnection obligations. She added that that in new legislation it was stipulated that in a new market there may be circumstances in which it may not be necessary to impose the regulatory obligations straight away.
Back to Index