tackle

JAKARTA – The dramatic evolution of digital platforms, streaming services, multiplatform media, and the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) have fundamentally reshaped Indonesia’s national broadcasting landscape, rendering existing regulations increasingly obsolete. In response, the Indonesian government, in close collaboration with the House of Representatives (DPR RI), is actively engaged in a comprehensive revision of Law Number 32 of 2002 concerning Broadcasting. This legislative endeavor aims to recalibrate the legal framework to align with the dynamic and ever-expanding digital media ecosystem, ensuring its continued relevance and efficacy in an era of unprecedented technological change. The urgency of this revision underscores a national commitment to fostering a fair, secure, and competitive digital environment while safeguarding public interest and national digital sovereignty.

The Digital Tsunami: A Shifting Media Landscape

The original 2002 Broadcasting Law was conceptualized and enacted in an era predominantly defined by conventional terrestrial television and radio broadcasting. The digital revolution, however, has since unleashed a "tsunami" of new media forms and consumption patterns that the existing legislation was never designed to address. Indonesia, with its vast and youthful population, has embraced digital technology with unparalleled enthusiasm. According to data from the Indonesian Internet Service Providers Association (APJII), internet penetration in the country reached 79.5% of the population in 2023, equating to approximately 220 million users. This surge in connectivity has fueled the proliferation of over-the-top (OTT) streaming services such as Netflix, Disney+ Hotstar, Vidio, and WeTV, which offer on-demand content accessible via various devices.

Beyond streaming, social media platforms like TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, and Facebook have become dominant channels for content creation, distribution, and consumption, blurring the lines between traditional broadcasters and individual creators. Furthermore, the burgeoning capabilities of Artificial Intelligence are beginning to impact content production, personalization, and even automated news generation, presenting novel ethical, legal, and regulatory challenges. This convergence of technologies and platforms has fundamentally altered how Indonesians access news, entertainment, and information, moving away from scheduled linear broadcasts to an on-demand, user-centric model. Traditional broadcasters, once the sole gatekeepers of mass media, now compete with an explosion of diverse content sources, many operating beyond the purview of current national regulations.

Legislative Imperative: Bridging the Regulatory Gap

Dave Akbarshah Fikarno Laksono, Deputy Chairman of DPR RI Commission I, which oversees defense, foreign affairs, and information, has been a vocal proponent of the regulatory update. He emphasized that the primary objective of this legislative overhaul is to ensure the broadcasting legal system remains pertinent to the evolving patterns of information production, distribution, and consumption within society. "The digitalization of broadcasting, the internet, digital platforms, and artificial intelligence necessitate our laws to adapt to prevent a regulatory vacuum, while simultaneously protecting public interest and the nation’s digital sovereignty," Laksono stated, highlighting the dual imperative of innovation and protection.

The limitations of the 2002 law are starkly evident. It primarily regulates conventional television and radio, leaving the vast and rapidly expanding domain of digital platforms largely unaddressed. This regulatory asymmetry creates an "unequal playing field" where traditional broadcasters operate under stringent licensing, content, and advertising rules, while digital platforms often enjoy greater operational freedom, potentially leading to unfair competition and gaps in consumer protection. Laksono elaborated that the existing framework is insufficient to govern the myriad ways society now accesses and disseminates information. The revised law, therefore, seeks to create regulatory parity, fostering a climate of legal certainty for all industry players, irrespective of their operational model.

Key Pillars of the Proposed Revision

The draft Broadcasting Bill (RUU Penyiaran) is designed to be comprehensive, providing a unified regulatory framework for both conventional and multiplatform broadcasting. This integrated approach is crucial for achieving the "equal playing field" that Laksono underscored, ensuring that all content providers operate under a consistent set of rules. Several key areas are being addressed in the revision:

1. Expanded Scope and Equal Regulation: The new law intends to explicitly define and regulate digital broadcasting, streaming services, and multiplatform content providers, extending the regulatory reach beyond traditional terrestrial and satellite broadcasts. This includes clarifying what constitutes "broadcasting" in the digital age, a critical step to ensure fairness.
2. Strengthening the Komisi Penyiaran Indonesia (KPI): The revision seeks to empower the Indonesian Broadcasting Commission (KPI), the independent regulatory body, by broadening its institutional mandate and expanding its scope of supervision. Under the current law, KPI’s authority is largely confined to conventional broadcasters. The proposed changes aim to grant KPI the necessary tools and jurisdiction to effectively monitor and regulate content across digital platforms, including issues like misinformation, hate speech, and content deemed inappropriate for minors. This expansion of power is seen as essential for consistent enforcement and consumer protection.
3. Reinforcing Public Broadcasting Institutions: The role and funding mechanisms for public broadcasters like TVRI and RRI are also under review. The aim is to strengthen these institutions, enabling them to better serve their public mandate in providing diverse, informative, educational, and culturally relevant content amidst intense commercial competition.
4. Modernizing Advertising Regulations: The current advertising rules are largely tailored for traditional media. The revised law will address the complexities of digital advertising, including targeted ads, influencer marketing, native advertising, and programmatic buying. The goal is to ensure transparency, prevent deceptive practices, and protect consumers from harmful commercial content across all platforms.
5. Updating Broadcast Behavior Guidelines and Program Standards (P3SPS): The Pedoman Perilaku Penyiaran dan Standar Program Siaran (P3SPS) serve as the ethical and content guidelines for broadcasters. These are being updated to reflect contemporary societal values and address the unique challenges of digital content, such as rapid dissemination of unverified information, privacy concerns, and the global nature of digital content. The revision will likely introduce new provisions regarding content moderation, fact-checking, and accountability for user-generated content, especially when monetized or widely distributed.

A Chronology of Convergence and Concern

The journey towards revising Indonesia’s Broadcasting Law has been a protracted one, reflecting the complexity and rapid pace of technological change.

• 2002: Law No. 32/2002 is enacted, primarily regulating traditional radio and television, with limited foresight into the digital explosion.
• Early 2010s: The advent of widespread broadband internet, smartphones, and early streaming services (e.g., YouTube, local players) begins to challenge the established media ecosystem. Discussions about media convergence and the inadequacy of existing laws start to emerge in academic and industry circles.
• Mid-2010s: Global streaming giants like Netflix enter the Indonesian market, rapidly gaining subscribers. Social media platforms solidify their role as major news and entertainment sources. Calls for regulatory updates become more urgent from traditional broadcasters and the KPI, which struggles to assert authority over new digital players.
• Late 2010s: Formal legislative discussions regarding a revision to the Broadcasting Law commence within the DPR. Initial drafts and public consultations begin, grappling with definitions of "broadcasting" and the scope of regulation for digital platforms.
• Early 2020s: The COVID-19 pandemic accelerates digital adoption, making streaming and online content consumption ubiquitous. The urgency for regulatory reform intensifies, especially concerning misinformation and content safety on digital platforms. AI’s growing influence on content generation and distribution adds another layer of complexity.
• Current Phase (2023-2024): The DPR RI and the government are actively engaged in detailed discussions on the draft Broadcasting Bill. Key stakeholders are being consulted, and various provisions are being debated. The mention of "Ahad (19/7/2026)" in Dave Laksono’s statement suggests a target or projected timeframe for significant progress or even potential enactment and implementation of the revised law, indicating the ongoing, forward-looking nature of these legislative efforts.

Stakeholder Perspectives and Reactions

The proposed revision has elicited a range of reactions from various stakeholders, each with their unique interests and concerns.

• Government and Legislature (e.g., DPR, Kominfo): The overarching narrative from the government and legislature emphasizes national interest, public protection, and digital sovereignty. They view the revision as a necessary step to create a balanced regulatory environment that fosters fair competition, prevents the spread of harmful content, and ensures that Indonesia has greater control over its digital information space. Dave Laksono’s statements consistently highlight the need to prevent regulatory vacuums and adapt to technological shifts.
• Traditional Broadcasters (e.g., TVRI, private TV stations): These entities generally welcome the move towards an "equal playing field." For years, they have argued that digital platforms operate with an unfair advantage, unburdened by the same content regulations, licensing fees, and local content quotas that they face. They anticipate that the revised law will bring parity, ensuring that all content providers contribute fairly to the national media ecosystem. However, they may also express concerns about potential new regulatory burdens or advertising restrictions that could impact their existing business models.
• Digital Platforms and Tech Giants (e.g., Google, Meta, TikTok, Netflix): International digital platforms often advocate for self-regulation or light-touch regulation, citing concerns about stifling innovation, increasing compliance costs, and potential restrictions on content freedom. They may argue that their global operations make specific national regulations challenging to implement and that existing terms of service and community guidelines are sufficient for content moderation. Key concerns for these players include:
  • Definition of "Broadcasting": A broad definition could subject them to stringent rules designed for traditional media.
  • Content Liability: Responsibility for user-generated content, especially if it leads to legal repercussions.
  • Data Localization and Taxation: New requirements for local data centers or specific taxation rules.
  • Censorship and Freedom of Expression: Concerns that overly strict content rules could lead to censorship or restrict legitimate expression.
• Content Creators and Influencers: This rapidly growing segment of the digital economy is keenly watching the developments. Their concerns often revolve around:
  • Freedom of Expression: Potential for new regulations to limit creative freedom or introduce subjective content standards.
  • Liability: Clarification on their responsibilities for content they create or disseminate, especially when monetized.
  • Monetization Rules: How advertising and sponsorship regulations will impact their revenue streams.
  • Fairness and Transparency: Ensuring that rules are applied transparently and do not disproportionately affect smaller creators.
• Consumer Advocacy Groups: These groups typically champion public interest, focusing on issues such as:
  • Protection from Harmful Content: Stronger safeguards against misinformation, hate speech, pornography, and content harmful to minors.
  • Data Privacy: Enhanced protection for user data collected by digital platforms.
  • Content Diversity and Access: Ensuring a wide range of content is available and accessible, promoting local content, and preventing media monopolies.
  • Transparency: Greater transparency in content moderation and algorithmic recommendations.
• Academics and Legal Experts: Experts in media law and policy provide critical analysis, often debating the constitutional implications of proposed regulations, the balance between state control and freedom of expression, and the practical challenges of implementing such a complex law in a rapidly evolving technological environment. They often highlight the difficulty in drafting future-proof legislation in the face of continuous innovation.

Global Precedents and Lessons

Indonesia is not alone in grappling with these regulatory challenges. Nations worldwide are actively reforming their media laws to address the digital shift. The European Union, for instance, has introduced the Digital Services Act (DSA) and Digital Markets Act (DMA), which impose strict obligations on large online platforms regarding content moderation, transparency, and competition. Australia has explored media bargaining codes to compel tech giants to pay news publishers for content. Canada is also in the process of updating its Broadcasting Act to include online streaming services. These global precedents offer valuable lessons, demonstrating various approaches to balancing innovation, competition, consumer protection, and freedom of expression, though each nation tailors its approach to its unique legal and cultural context.

Broader Implications: Shaping Indonesia’s Digital Future

The revised Broadcasting Law will have far-reaching implications, shaping Indonesia’s digital future across several critical dimensions:

• Economic Impact: The "equal playing field" aims to foster fairer competition, potentially stimulating investment in local content production and digital innovation within Indonesia. However, stringent regulations could also deter some international digital platforms or increase compliance costs, potentially affecting market entry and service affordability. A clear and predictable regulatory environment is crucial for attracting and retaining investment in the digital sector.
• Social Impact: A key driver of the revision is the protection of the public, especially minors, from harmful or inappropriate content, and the combatting of misinformation and hate speech. Stronger content guidelines and enforcement mechanisms across all platforms could lead to a safer online environment. However, critics caution against potential overreach that could stifle legitimate public discourse or artistic expression. The law’s ability to promote diverse, high-quality information and cultural content will be vital for social cohesion and civic engagement.
• Digital Sovereignty: The revision is a significant step towards asserting Indonesia’s digital sovereignty. By regulating digital platforms, the government seeks to ensure that national laws and values are upheld within the digital sphere, reducing dependence on the self-regulatory mechanisms of foreign tech companies. This includes aspects like data governance, content moderation consistent with Indonesian norms, and the promotion of local digital ecosystems.
• Freedom of Expression: This remains a delicate balance. While the law aims to protect the public from harmful content, there are ongoing debates about how to implement these protections without inadvertently curbing legitimate freedom of expression, which is a constitutional right. Definitions of "harmful content" and the procedures for content removal will be scrutinized to ensure they are clear, objective, and do not lend themselves to arbitrary censorship.
• Innovation: The regulatory framework must be adaptive enough to encourage innovation rather than stifle it. Striking the right balance between necessary oversight and providing room for technological advancement and creative expression will be a continuous challenge. The law should ideally foster an environment where new technologies, including AI, can be harnessed responsibly for the benefit of society without compromising ethical standards or public safety.

In conclusion, the revision of Indonesia’s Broadcasting Law is an arduous yet essential undertaking. It represents a critical juncture for the nation as it navigates the complexities of the digital age. The successful implementation of an adaptive and forward-looking regulatory framework will be instrumental in safeguarding public interest, fostering a fair and competitive media industry, and ensuring Indonesia’s robust participation in the global digital economy while upholding its national values and digital sovereignty. The ongoing deliberations in the DPR signify a profound commitment to building a media ecosystem that is resilient, equitable, and responsive to the future.