The decision by LG HelloVision to terminate channel transmission has sparked a dispute between content providers (PP) and multi-channel video programming distributors (SO). The PP claims that LG HelloVision is moving forward with the termination without adequately reflecting the results of channel evaluations, potentially infringing on viewer rights. In contrast, the SO argues that the PP has insisted on maintaining existing program fees despite declining viewership and subscriber numbers, leading to a breakdown in negotiations.
On November 10, the Korea Broadcasting Channel Promotion Association (KBCA) issued a statement demanding that LG HelloVision adhere to government guidelines regarding channel change procedures. The association also urged the Broadcasting Media Communications Commission (BMCC) to review whether the acceptance of changes to the terms of service related to the channel termination was appropriate.
According to the KBCA, guidelines established by the paid broadcasting cooperative in 2021 stipulate that channel change procedures should be based on objective channel evaluation results. The KBCA noted that the channels targeted for termination had performed well in previous evaluations, but LG HelloVision did not adequately consider these results. Furthermore, the KBCA criticized the BMCC for accepting the terms of service changes without sufficient prior notice and public consultation, setting a precedent that could allow other paid broadcasters to unilaterally terminate channel transmissions.
The KBCA reported that advertising revenue for PPs decreased by 32.8%, from 1.6862 trillion won in 2021 to 1.1331 trillion won last year. In this context, if the SO uses its channel scheduling authority as leverage in fee negotiations, it could stifle PP investment in production and limit viewers' choices.
The Korea Cable TV Broadcasting Association's SO Council also issued a statement on the same day, arguing that the expansion of online video services (OTT) has weakened the competitiveness of paid broadcasting content, necessitating a fee adjustment. They pointed out that the same content is available on OTT platforms about five minutes after it airs live, yet paid broadcasting continues to demand the same fees as before.
The SO Council reported that the viewership of a specific channel dropped by 20% from 2023 to 2025, while the subscriber base for the corresponding paid broadcasting service decreased by 6.3% during the same period. They claimed that while the channel group holds a 21.8% share of viewership, it accounts for over 50% of the total fees for general channel programming.
Both sides provided differing accounts regarding the negotiation process. The PP emphasized that demands for fee reductions, delayed payments, and the suspension of transmissions should not shift the financial burden onto them. The SO Council contended that CJ ENM refused to accept proposals for gradual fee reductions and channel adjustments, and did not respond to government mediation or broadcasting law dispute resolution. They stated that they have filed a lawsuit demanding the full payment of fees based on previous contracts and up to 12% in late payment damages.
Regarding the BMCC's acceptance of the notification, the SO Council claimed it was based on a comprehensive review of the lengthy negotiation process and viewer protection measures. They called on CJ ENM to engage in fee negotiations that reflect market value. The PP urged the BMCC to investigate whether the notification of changes to the terms of service was sufficient and whether it harmed viewer interests, and to mandate changes or re-notification if necessary.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.