Sejm Committee Rejects Controversial Lex Pilot

March 29, 2023 | wiadomosci.dziennik.pl

The Sejm’s Digitization, Innovation and Modern Technologies Committee will recommend to the Sejm the rejection of the draft acts on electronic communication and the provisions introducing the act – Electronic Communications Law, known as the so-called Lex Pilot, which introduces e.g. additional amendments to the Broadcasting Act as regards shaping must-carry and must-offer obligations.

10 deputies voted in favor of accepting the motions to reject the drafts submitted during the discussion, while 5 were against.

On Tuesday, “Dziennik Gazeta Prawna” informed that the government intends to withdraw from the most controversial provisions of the act called “lex pilot” on Wednesday.

The government side will no longer insist that the above-mentioned five TVP stations occupy the first five places in the list of stations of each operator. Moreover, no one will have such a privilege. There will be an amendment prohibiting setting the order of channels on the remote control in contracts between the operator and the broadcaster. Currently, broadcasters with the greatest negotiating power can require operators to place in the top five and in some cases, in the top three channels.

A public hearing was held in early March.

The subject of the must-carry, introduced in 2011, is the distribution of some programs of the public broadcasters TVP1, TVP2, and one regional television program distributed by TVP, with the obligation to distribute a regional television program appropriate for a given area only for some operators (mainly cable networks). In addition, the obligation covered the terrestrial broadcasts in 2011 of Polsat, TVN, Polskie Media, and Puls. The must-carry obligation is combined with the so-called must-offer obligation.

Lex pilot

The purpose of the draft regulation is – as indicated in the justification – to supplement the must-carry by regulating the obligation to properly display and ensure easy access to specific programs, to extend the must-carry to other terrestrial public television programs (other than only TVP1 and TVP2 and the relevant regional program) , open shaping of the list of non-public must-carry programs and defining the categories of entities subject to the must-carry obligation.

The draft assumed that the must-carry obligation should cover, by the Act itself, operators distributing programs in a telecommunications network, excluding entities distributing programs digitally via terrestrial diffusion in a multiplex. This obligation was to apply to operators who jointly meet the following requirements:

– distribute television programs for identified, contractually entitled recipients, in specific locations, only on the territory of the Republic of Poland;

– devices used by recipients to receive programs are connected to the operator’s network, or the operator uses technical security or IT solutions to ensure the reception of programs only in specific locations.

The draft assumed that the statutory list would cover TVP programs (i.e. TVP1, TVP2, TVP Info, and TVP Kultura) and the regional TVP program appropriate for a given area.

The supplementary list would be determined by way of regulation of the National Broadcasting Council. At the same time, the National Broadcasting Council would be obliged to include at least those public television programs distributed digitally by terrestrial diffusion in a multiplex. The National Broadcasting Council could also include other programs on the list, taking into account public interest considerations.

The draft provides for a statutory definition of the maximum number of programs that could be covered by must-carry regulation at the level of 30.

The draft provisions expanded and clarified the applicable must-offer principle. Based on these provisions, the broadcaster could not conclude a contract for the distribution of a program conditional on the conclusion of a contract for the distribution of a program or package of programs other than the one requested by the operator. In addition, the broadcaster would not be able to differentiate the fees for making the same program or package of the same programs available to operators distributing the program.

The operator distributing the program would be obliged to offer the recipient the opportunity to purchase individual programs and could not conclude a contract for the provision of distribution services of these programs conditional on the conclusion of a contract for the distribution of other programs or program packages.

2023-03-30T14:33:24+00:00
Go to Top