08/01/2003

Spain: The television broadcasting network RTVE, which was set up in 1956, was answerable to the public sector only. This was not the case for the radio broadcasting network, which included both public and private production companies. RTVE was financially independent – it was funded by advertising revenue – but it was under the control of the Government, which appointed its executives. A law was passed on January 10th 1980, which reconfirmed the RTVE’s monopoly on Spanish broadcasting while making provisions for the creation of a third network – which was to be a regional network. Another law, which was passed on December 26th 1983, put this network into the hands of the Autonomous Regions. This strategy was in line with the policy of decentralisation which had been provided for in the Spanish Constitution in 1978. In fact, the considerable influence which the political authorities exercised over the broadcasting networks continued to prevail. Each public broadcasting network which was set up in the Autonomous Regions(1) was – just like the RTVE - managed by a Board of Directors which was appointed by the Autonomous Parliament. The relevant Regional Executive appointed the Head of the network.
In 1982, the Spanish High Court of Justice took two decisions with regard to broadcasting – one in May and one in December. The gist of these decisions was that the introduction of private commercial television stations would not be in violation of the Constitution. It was, however, stipulated that the political authorities should be responsible for organising the opening up of the sector to competition. It was not until another law was passed, on May 3rd 1988, that it was decided to create three private national television channels. In 1989 two terrestrial channels were allocated to Antena 3 and Tele Cinco and a pay TV channel was allocated to Canal+Espagne. Since then, both the backers of the two terrestrial channels and their programme content have undergone considerable changes. This has been mainly due to the same kind of serious financial difficulties which have always plagued the public television network. The latter – which has always depended exclusively on advertising revenue for its funding – has been running at a loss since 1990.
A number of factors have combined to force the RTVE to resort to borrowing money – with the authorisation of the Spanish Parliament – in order to obtain funding. These factors included: staff cuts, reductions in management budgets, sales of assets(2), strong competition and the payment of subsidies at the time when the broadcasting network was separated into a TV network (TVE) and a radio network (RNE). Finally, at the end of 2001, the RTVE was able to fulfil its obligations and maintain its viewing share – but at a cost of an accumulated debt of Euros 4 billion. At the same time, the six regional public channels – which have had to face the same kind of financial problems as the RTVE - all registered an increase in viewers. This would seem to indicate that, in general, local viewers become attached to local channels.

France: In the beginning, television broadcasting was managed by Radiodiffusion Française (French Broadcasting), which was put under the authority of the Prime Minister. This situation prevailed until a Government ruling on February 4th 1959, which created Radiodiffusion Télévision Française (French Television Broadcasting Company). This was a public State company, which was under the supervision of the Minister for Information.
The situation would not change until the reform of 1964, when a law which was passed on June 27th created the Office de la Radiodiffusion et Télévision Française (French Broadcasting and Television Corporation) and set up a second TV channel, which was to be in colour. The reform marked a turning point in the history of public broadcasting. Radio Télévision Française was transferred to the Maison de la Radio (Radio Centre), which was opened by General de Gaulle on December 14th, 1963.
The ORTF was managed by a Board of Directors with limited powers(3). The reform was only partial, and it did nothing to change the fact that broadcasting in France remained under the control of the Government.
On October 14th 1969, in the wake of May 1968, French Prime Minister Jacques Chaban Delmas ordered Lucien Paye – the Chairman of the Audit Office – to carry out a study designed to identify any possible modifications to the law concerning the status of the ORTF. The goal of these modifications was to ensure that the ORTF would fulfil its aims as a public broadcasting network.
The Paye Commission published its findings on June 30th 1970. It underlined that the State had an obligation to justify its monopoly on broadcasting. The Commission stated that this obligation should be fulfilled via the quality of the service provided and the readiness of the radio and television networks to adapt to technological advances and the needs of the public. Furthermore, the Commission recommended that the State monopoly on broadcasting should be limited to transmission and programming. This recommendation would lead to the production sector being opened up to competition.
A law was passed on July 3rd 1972, which was based on the recommendations made in the Paye Commission’s report. The law implemented four kinds of measures which gave the ORTF a greater degree of autonomy: its executives were to be more independent, the supervisory powers of the Executive were to be reduced, Parliament’s control was to be more coherent and the overall structure of the ORTF was to be modernised(4).
Two years later, a law was passed on August 7th 1974 under the auspices of French President Valery Giscard d’Estaing. This law reinforced the gradual withdrawal of the State from the management of the ORTF, which was split up into seven different companies(5) in order to introduce an element of competition – and to encourage a more dynamic internal structure in the public network.
In fact, two measures continued to limit the independence of public broadcasting in France and to maintain the State’s monopoly. The Government continued to appoint the ORTF’s executives and the seven new companies found themselves surrounded by a series of heavy restrictions and obligations. One of these was the obligation of running the Société Française de Production (French Production Company), which did not fall into the public service category.
When French broadcasting was opened up to competition, it was also enclosed inside a framework of laws and reforms that lead to the sector becoming the victim of over-regulation.
1. A law which was passed in 1982 made the operation of private radio and TV stations legal, but maintained the State monopoly on the use of radio and television frequencies.
2. The law which was passed in 1986 consolidated the freedom of communication and the separation of the State from the broadcasting sector by setting up an independent administering authority, the CNCL. The latter was responsible for managing broadcasting frequencies and for authorising the creation and use of telecommunications installations other than those of the State. This system of authorisation replaced the concession system.
3. The law which was passed in 1989 strengthened the powers of the regulating authority, the CSA, which replaced the CNCL. The “authorisations for the use of frequencies” which the CSA issued to production companies were governed by specific agreements, and the authority was also responsible for watching over the public broadcasting sector.

French broadcasting was thus encased in a framework which purported to encourage development within the sector(6); in reality, it continued to be under the eye of the public authorities.
In the face of competition from the private sector(7), the impoverished public television sector was further weakened – to the extent that it was divided into five different channels(8). A law which was passed on August 4th 1989 partially compensated for this weakness when it created a single chairmanship for Antenne 2 and FR3, which became France 2 and France 3. These channels, however, remained two separate entities with their own Boards of Directors and their own Chief Executive Officers – who were appointed by their common Chairman.
The law which was passed in August 2000 was to inject a new kind of vitality into the French public television service. It created a holding company, France Televisions, which included France 2, France 3 and France 5 – the name change imposed on La Cinquième. It also increased the Chairman’s mandate to 5 years. At the end of 2001, France Televisions and the State signed a contract stipulating aims and means, which was valid for a number of years. The fact that the contract covered advances in digital technology illustrated the new dynamics at work in the public television sector.

Italy: The Rai acquired the assets of the EIAR, the Fascist broadcasting network. On June 26th 1952 an agreement was signed, giving it a twenty year concession with an exclusive license for broadcasting radio programmes and terrestrially broadcast television programmes. The Rai was a private company, and its capital was held by the IRI (Institut de Reconstruction Industrielle – the Institute for Industrial Reconstruction); as its executives were appointed by the Italian Government, it nevertheless came under State control. When the Christian Democrats remained in power for a long time, the opposition found itself deprived of broadcasting opportunities and so resorted to the Constitutional Court in order to resolve its grievances. This move proved to be in vain, as when the Court delivered its judgement (No. 59) on July 13th, 1963 it confirmed the Rai’s monopoly on public service broadcasting.

The Rai’s concession ran out in 1972, and it was only then that the Government began to take any notice of the movement in public opinion which was running against the Christian Democrats’ broadcasting monopoly. The original agreement was renewed for a year, on the understanding that measures would be taken to change the structure of public broadcasting. In fact, the Constitutional Court itself took the initiative when it delivered two judgements (225 and 226) on July 10th 1974: these judgements, on the one hand, limited the Rai’s monopoly on terrestrially broadcast television and, on the other, condemned the Christian Democrats’ influence on public broadcasting. Furthermore, the Court highlighted the fact that the main aim of the monopoly was to provide objective programmes, detailed news and information and to make sure that everyone in Italy had access to television broadcasting. The Government was thus forced to adapt its legislation in accordance with these principles. An order in Council was passed on November 30th 1974, which transferred the supervision of the Rai to a “General Orientation Parliamentary Commission responsible for monitoring public service broadcasting”(9). This measure became law (no. 103) on April 14th 1975. The Government intended that this law should preserve the Rai’s monopoly and extend it to broadcasting via cable or any other means(10). A judgement (202) which was handed down by the Constitutional Court on July 28th 1976 limited the Rai’s monopoly to terrestrial broadcasting in Italy. In order to avoid any misunderstanding, the Court also confirmed the legal status of private local radio and television stations, regardless of the method via which they were broadcast.
Although the Constitutional Court’s judgement had stipulated that broadcasting in Italy was a public service, it fell to the legislature to regulate the allocation of frequencies and to reconcile public and private interests. Nevertheless, the number of private television stations spiralled out of control – there were 150 private television stations in 1977 and 1,208 in 1985. These stations were rapidly organised into networks – mainly on the initiative of publishing houses such as Rusconi, Mondadori and Rizzoli. The publishing houses later sold these networks when they realised that local television had its limitations. They found that it did not permit them to develop news programmes which were really in line with their own editorial policies. Silvio Berlusconi, however, had other ideas. His Telemilano became the leading private television station in the Milan area. He brought together 10 stations in north-eastern Italy to form his own network – Canale 5 – in 1980, and then did the same thing with 10 stations in central Italy to form Rete 10, his second network. His success spurred him to buy Rizzozli’s archives in 1981, then Rusconi’s Italia 1 network, with its 23 stations, in 1982 and then Mondadori’s network, with its 26 stations, in 1984.
Berlusconi, with his three networks – Canale 5, Rete 4 and Italia 1 – now felt himself in a position to compete with the Rai. As local broadcasting regulations did not permit different broadcasters(11) to air the same programmes at the same time, he started the “interconnection battle”. Benito Craxi’s Socialist government gave Berlusconi what he wanted when it passed an order of council on December 6th 1984, giving the private networks provisional authorisation to broadcast pre-recorded programmes on different stations at the same time. This measure became law (No. 10) on February 4th 1985.
The Rai was now facing strong competition from Berlusconi’s television. It had to adopt a policy which would increase its viewing share. This policy was to prove successful, (the Rai’s viewing share increased from 45.7 per cent in 1987 to 49.3 per cent in 1991) but it cost the Rai dear and put it heavily into debt – F 7.3 billion in 1989(12). Meanwhile, Berlusconi’s Fininvest went from strength to strength, reaching third position in Italy’s company hierarchy behind FIAT and Ferruzi.
All these upheavals on the broadcasting scene were illegal, due to the lack of any law governing the broadcasting system in Italy. Fourteen years after the Constitutional Court had recognised the legality of private local television stations, the Mammi Law was passed on August 6th 1990. All it did was legalise the existing illegal situation and add a few finishing touches. Although the legislature had authorised 12 national channels(13), the Rai – with its three channels - and Fininvest – with its three channels each – shared 90 per cent of the Italian viewing public and 91 per cent of television advertising revenue.
The Mammi Law had bowed to the circumstances, but it had not clarified the situation vis a vis the number of commercial television companies which had not fallen into the category of the necessary reorganisation of the Rai. The statutes pertaining to public broadcasting and its working methods ensured that the sector was supervised by both internal and external authorities, which frequently found that their areas of responsibility were overlapping(14). This situation fell a long way short of meeting the needs of a dynamic public service in a competitive market. Although a new law for the regulation of the broadcasting sector had been slated for 1998 it had been postponed several times. In the absence of such a law, the Rai was forced to adapt to market changes, which meant that it had to develop commercial activities in addition to broadcasting. A referendum in 1995 had authorised the Rai to carry out such additional activities.
The antitrust law which was passed on July 29th 1997 did not make any contribution to organising the competition. It simply stopped any Italian broadcaster from obtaining more than 20 per cent of the national frequencies or receiving more than 30 per cent of Italian television revenue – licence fees and advertising. In practice, these measures meant that the Rai and Mediaset could not have more than two national channels apiece. Rete 4, the Mediaset(15) channel – Mediaset was owned by Silvio Berlusconi - could be transferred to satellite, while Rai 3, the Rai’s third channel, could be put on a regional footing and funded by television licence fees. These projects are, to this day, still just projects. Silvio Berlusconi’s government has not yet implemented the plan aimed at reorganising the Rai which was proposed by its outgoing Chairman, Roberto Zaccaria. His mandate expired on February 15th 2002.
Pluralism in Italian broadcasting is needed now more than ever, at a time when digital television broadcasting is going to bring about considerable changes and the Italian Prime Minister controls Italy’s three main commercial networks. Can Italy satisfy the needs of pluralism in broadcasting by setting up a third broadcasting corporation(16)? It has not yet been proven that an increase in the number of commercial operators in the broadcasting sector has been a guarantee of pluralism.

Greece: ET, the first public television channel, was set up in 1966. In 1968, after the Generals had taken power, competition was provided in the form of a second channel, ET2. This channel was managed by the army’s information service.
In 1982, these two channels were brought together in a public body called the ERT. It was controlled by the Minister for Information, who had an office at the broadcasting headquarters, until 1986. It was in this year that the Greek broadcasting monopoly began to erode: as the municipal elections drew near, the opposition municipal councils in Athens, Thessalonica and Piraeus decided to launch pirate commercial radio stations.
The Government tried – in vain – to strengthen the public broadcasting monopoly with a law which it passed on October 27th 1987. This law was based on the French one concerning the ORTF: it brought together Greece’s two television channels and four radio networks within a limited public company – the ERT. This reform – as limited as it was belated – did nothing to stop the boom in “cowboy” commercial radio and television stations, which received the political support of the Opposition. In addition, Greek public broadcasting was only independent on paper: the Chairman of the ERT and the seven members of its Board of Directors were all appointed by the Government.
In 1989, when the legislature created the CNR (Conseil National pour la Radiotélévision – the National Broadcasting Council), it did not reach the point of organising the competition between public and private broadcasters due to a lack of public consensus. The situation did not change very much when a law was passed in 1993 with the aim of strengthening the CNR’s powers. It fell short of giving the CNR the means of fulfilling its responsibilities as a public broadcaster.
In 1999, there were forty television channels on the air in the Athens(17) area, and another hundred in the rest of Greece. Public broadcasting in Greece thus found itself in a market where the competition could only be described as anarchic, despite a reform in 1994 which had increased funding for the ERT(18) considerably. The level of competition meant that public television channels had been unable to maintain – or increase - their viewing shares. Another problem was that Greek viewers were wary of the public television service, which they had seen successive Governments use as a weapon in the propaganda war. In addition, despite the boom in the broadcasting sector, there was a lack of competition between the public television channels, and the commercial channels had limited budgets. This meant that there had been no corresponding expansion in the Greek television production industry.

(1). - The following Autonomous Regions set up local public broadcasting networks: the Basque Country, Catalonia, Valencia, Andalusia and Galicia.

(2). - RTVE was able to reduce its debt to F 2.8 billion during the financial year 2000 due to the sale of the 17 per cent it held in the digital platform Via Digital to Telefonica, the sale of the 30 per cent it held in the privatised Retevision and the reimbursement of excess VAT payments.

(3). - It was the responsibility of the Board of Directors to determine general policy, to guarantee the quality of the TV programmes, and to make sure that all the information broadcast via television was objective. The Board could not appoint a Chief Executive Officer and played no part in the financial management or funding of the company.

(4). - The main provisions made in the law of July 3rd 1972 were as follows: A Chief Executive Officer was to be appointed, for a renewable term of three years, by a Cabinet decree. 50 per cent of the Board of Directors was to be made up of representatives for listeners, viewers, the print media and the ORTF: the other 50 per cent was to be made up of representatives for the State. The ORTF’s independence was guaranteed.
The supervisory powers of the Executive, which approved the ORTF budget, were to be limited to ensuring that the ORTF’s obligations as a public service were met and to overseeing the use that the ORTF made of its resources. A State Controller and the Watchdog Commission for Public Company Accounts were to make sure that the ORTF budget was put to good use. Parliament, which authorised the collection of any extra-budgetary revenues on an annual basis, was to be associated with the workings of the ORTF via a Consultative Parliamentary Delegation and the fact that it took part in the appointment of the ORTF’s Board of Directors.

(5). - The 1974 law created four national broadcasting companies – the three television channels TF1, Antenne 2 and FR3 and a radio broadcasting company , Radio France. It also created two public institutions, TDF (Telediffusions de France – French Broadcasting) and INA (l’Institut National de l’Audiovisuel – National Broadcasting Corporation) and a company with public and private funding, SDF (Societe Francaise de Production - French Production Company).

(6). - Obligations regarding broadcasting and the production of films for cinema and TV which originated in France or in other EEC countries fell within this framework, as did the minimum thresholds of investment in independent productions.

(7). - Canal+, a terrestrially broadcast pay TV channel, was authorised in 1983. TF1 was privatised in April 1987. M6 and La Cinq were authorised in February 1987. The La Cinq network went bankrupt in April 1990 and was reassigned to the public channels La Cinquieme and ARTE.

(8). - France 2, a national channel. France 3, a national channel with a regional orientation. RFO for French territories overseas. Sept/ARTE, ARTE’s French partner, a cultural channel with a European orientation which was created in 1990 as a joint French-German project. It shared the fifth French terrestrial network – which had been left free when La Cinq went bankrupt – with La Cinquieme, an educational channel which was launched in December 1994.There were two other channels – TV5 and CF1 – which were responsible for broadcasting to other countries.

(9). - When the General Orientation Parliamentary Commission responsible for monitoring public service broadcasting was set up on May 15th 1975, it heralded the arrival of an “allocation” system by means of which power over the various channels was divided between the political parties. RAI 1 = Christian Democrats; RAI 2 = Socialists; RAI 3 (which was launched in 1977) = Communists.

(10). - On August 11th 1975, the Ministry of Postal Services and Telecommunications had given the Rai the exclusive concession for broadcasting services in Italy.

(11). - Several adjudications had stipulated that the law did not authorise technical interconnection; neither did it authorise the interconnection of programme content.

(12). - The Rai would not get out of debt until 1995, following a series of severe economies such as staff cuts, reductions in the budgets for radio and orchestras and restrictions in the budgets for production and the acquisition of rights.

(13). - Tele+, a terrestrial pay TV network, had three channels. On June 13th 1992 an order in Council allocated the three remaining frequencies to: RETA A (Shopping and American TV series); TMC-Italie, which was then controlled by Feruzzi (40 per cent) and TV Globo-Bresil (49 per cent); Videomusic. Since then, the last two channels have been taken over by the Cecchi Gori production group and have been renamed TMC 1 and TMC 2. The allocation of these frequencies did not prevent non-authorised channels, such as Odeon TV, EURO TV and Italia 7 to continue broadcasting. They argued that their applications for authorisation were merely in suspension.

(14).- Internal supervision concerning the RAI was the responsibility of the Trade Union Body, a Watchdog Committee made up of 41 members who duplicated the political balance of power in Parliament. The IRI, the shareholder, was also responsible for internal supervision. External supervision was the responsibility of the Ministry for Postal Services and Telecommunications, the General Orientation Parliamentary Commission responsible for monitoring public service broadcasting, and the Audit Office, as the Rai was a public company.

(15). - Mediaset gathered Fininvest’s broadcasting activities together. It included the three Italian channels Canale 5, Italia 1 and Rete 4 within the RTV (Reti Televisione Italiane – Italian Television Networks), as well as the public corporation Publitalia, the Spanish channel Telecinco and Videotime, a technical and administrative programme production centre.

(16). - In the 1980s, the Christian Democrats lost control of the Rai and found themselves under attack from Berlusconi’s networks. (Berlusconi was close to Craxi’s Socialist Party at the time). The Christian Democrats made two attempts to set up a third broadcasting corporation. First, they encouraged the Odeon TV project - which was supported by Parmalat, the huge agro-food company - then the TMC-Italy project, which was supported by Giovanni Agnelli’s FIAT.

(17). - Four channels dominated the Greek television sector: Antenna 1, which was created at the end of 1989 (22.9 per cent market share in 1998); Mega-Channel, which was set up in 1989 (19.9 per cent market share in 1998); Skai (15.1 per cent market share) and Star (14.9 per cent market share).

(18). - 90 per cent of the ERT’s budget came from debiting the public’s electricity bills for the payment of television licence fees. The amount of these debits was reassessed and advertising was removed from the first two public television channels, while it was retained on ERT 3 – a regional channel.