A few days ago, the National Assembly adopted the bill on amendments and addenda to the Law on Audiovisual Media in its first reading.
The package of amendments revised the provisions related to the functions of the Regulatory Authority and the Television and Radio Commission. It also clarified the application process for participating in the licensing competition for the use of a public multiplex slot, as well as the authorization process and the criteria for suspending or terminating a license.
Media.am spoke with Gohar Mamikonyan, a Commission on TV and Radio member, about the proposed changes and additions.
Ms. Mamikonyan, during the presentation of the bill in the National Assembly, the Minister of High-Tech Industry highlighted significant technical amendments proposed in the legislation. These amendments aim to establish new authorities for the Regulatory State Body. Let’s delve into the proposed changes.
Recently, the National Assembly reviewed a draft amendment to the Law on Audiovisual Media. Although the proposed amendments were primarily technical, their importance and necessity were evident.
According to current law, if the Broadcaster’s authorization or license is suspended or terminated, the Regulatory State Body must notify the multiplex operators broadcasting that program within three days so they can immediately cease broadcasting.
The government, represented by the Ministry of High-Tech Industry, has proposed assigning a new responsibility to the State Regulatory Body, i.e., informing the network operators broadcasting the respective program about the abovementioned.
There have been cases where the State Regulatory Body has ceased broadcasting certain programs on public multiplex, but network operators were unaware of this decision and continued airing them.
Next, the proposed amendment requires participants in the public multiplex slot licensing competition to submit a certificate confirming they have no overdue debts related to broadcasting services.
In addition, the prerequisites for authorization, license suspension, and termination have also been revised.
Let me give you an example: when monitoring the activities of network operators, we often see various violations. For instance, some programs are broadcasted without a proper contract or in violation of copyright. When this occurs, they receive a notification, leading to administrative proceedings, and they face fines, among other consequences. Currently, the conditions for suspending the licenses of network operators are quite complicated. Although obtaining a license is relatively easy, the State Regulatory Body can only impose fines on these operators; they do not have the authority to take further action. Network operators sometimes exploit the loophole in the law, repeatedly committing the same violation.
The proposed regulations seek to provide legal certainty in practice. As a result, the application of the law will become more transparent for economic entities, broadcasters, re-broadcasters, network operators, and the Regulatory body.
As a representative of the Regulatory Body, what issues do you observe in the field that will be addressed by the planned substantive changes?
There are numerous issues, such as legislative gaps regarding license issuance, license termination, authorization, and the operations of network operators. By participating in these discussions, I hope many of the problems I have mentioned will soon be resolved. These changes will significantly contribute to improving the overall health and effectiveness of the field.
Furthermore, some issues need political decisions to be resolved and regulated. One such issue is broadcasting television-like programs over the Internet, which is not governed by this law.
When discussing hate speech, calls for violence, and content that impacts children’s mental well-being, it’s important to note that licensed and authorized broadcasters are fully aware of legislative requirements. In recent years, they have been carefully conducting their activities in accordance with these regulations.
While there may be minor, exceptional shortcomings, the situation with internet TV-like programs is entirely different.
We can list several dozen such broadcasters that are well-known to the public and have many followers, but their activities are outside the scope of regulation.
Is the media landscape ready for this change? If not, what kind of resistance exists?
This issue often becomes the subject of speculation, and media representatives frequently discuss it, presenting it as a restriction. This raises the question: do licensed or authorized broadcasters face any limitations while conducting their broadcasts?
I want to emphasize that both those broadcasting TV-like programs over the Internet and those broadcasting through public multiplexes—along with network operators and authorized broadcasters— present their products to the same audience. In other words, they all reach the same public and society.
Therefore, it is unclear why one sector operates within the regulatory framework while the other operates outside.
All entities operating in the media field must understand that working in a regulated environment should not be seen as a restriction on free speech, as they often claim.
What does international experience imply in this regard?
We have held several meetings with our partner organizations in various countries, during which we studied their legislative experience and the laws and directives of the European Union related to audiovisual media. I must emphasize that in many countries, broadcasters of Internet TV-like programs have long been subject to the same regulations as licensed broadcasters. They are required to make financial contributions and share the same obligations and rights.
The EU regulation on audiovisual services outlines what qualifies as television-like broadcasting. This directive was adopted in 2010, and we are required to align Armenian legislation with the EU legal framework by the end of 2025. This includes the regulation of television-like programs. While the issue has been widely discussed, there has been no progress yet, which reflects a political decision that still needs to be made.
Is this issue addressed through the amendments?
No, this issue is not part of the substantive changes listed above. It should be addressed as a separate initiative. The Ministry of High-Tech Industry is fully aware of the situation. This issue is currently being discussed with the Minister and Deputy Minister.
Recently, the National Assembly held a discussion that included participation from the Regulatory Body, where the necessity for this change was once again addressed. However, there is some delay regarding this matter.The regulatory body is limited in its actions because it cannot propose legislative initiatives. Additionally, the Government and the National Assembly, which hold the authority to initiate legislation, have not yet presented any proposals for discussion.
I remain hopeful that both the National Assembly and the Ministry will make the necessary political decisions, allowing us to find a solution to the issue at hand.
