行動電視究竟是「電視」？還是「電信」？在通訊傳播法上應如何進行釋照或管制？各國莫衷一是。在行動電視發展上屬先驅者的歐盟，迄今仍有多數國家未正式核發執照，而絕大多數的國家也並未針對行動電視設有專屬的管制架構。我國的情形亦復如是，行動電視的發照及管理的政策及法制，並未定案。故本文即以行動電視服務的法律管制為主題。 就傳輸技術觀點，本文以為「電視」或「非電視」有本質上的不同。不過，各國的通訊傳播法律並不然以此特徵來區別兩者。「電視」與「非電視」之區別應屬功能上的區分，得由各國依其管制之政策目標，做出合目的性的法制設計。 研究外國對於行動電視之法制，大約分為「電視制」（全面電視制、放寬電視制）與「非電視制」（電視豁免制、電信制），本文建議我國採取「低管制電視制」或「非電視制」。

Is mobile TV “mobile” or “TV”? To make the question more precise, under which regulatory regime should mobile TV service be licensed (or regulated)? Television regime or telecommunications regime? Well, the answer all depends on which country where mobile TV service is licensed. However, as a matter of fact, a vast majority of countries in the world still do not have a comprehensive regulatory framework for mobile TV service. In the article, the author searches for the best answer for Taiwan. A study of the regulatory regime for mobile TV service in Italy, Finland, Canada and Hong Kong indicates four models: “total broadcaster”, “relaxed broadcaster”, “TV exemption” and “telecommunications” model, respectively. It is recommended that we adopt “deregulated broadcaster” model or “telecommunications” model for mobile TV service in Taiwan. The “total broadcaster” model is utterly unfit.