08/01/2003 - The evolution of TV broadcasting in Europe. It shows how the institutional framework has developed after World War II in several major European countries as Spain, France, Italy, Greece, Germany, Belgium, Austria, Ireland, Portugal, The Netherlands, Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Great Britain.

European Union member countries were to gradually adapt the structure and funding of their radio and television networks on the basis of a variety of factors.

Public service TV broadcasting in Europe: a guarantee of cultural diversity and pluralism

The impact that communications technology has had on society in general cannot be disputed. In July 1969, more than a billion television viewers watched Neil Armstrong make a thousand year old dream come true when he walked on the surface of the moon. On September 11 2001, billions of stunned viewers watched in disbelief as the Twin Towers at the World Trade Centre in New York crumbled before their eyes on live TV.
The increase in the use of digital technology, the growth of the multimedia and the Internet boom have shattered the established order in the world of telecommunications. These factors have combined to provide multilateral passive communication and have lead to the consolidation of interactive bilateral communication and broadcasting. Broadcasting has become interactive and telecommunications have been opened up to multilateral exchanges. This situation, in turn, has created a new social, political and economic order – the Information Society. It is now a major priority for public authorities, TV production companies and industrial companies alike to be able to forecast the shape of things to come in this new society, so that they can develop a suitable framework for working within it. In order to prepare for the future, however, it is necessary to cast an eye over the path which the television phenomenon has taken in the past.

In Europe and the USA, the development of broadcasting between the two World Wars took place within different legal frameworks. In Europe, public and private radio stations existed side by side in a competitive environment – with the exception of countries under totalitarian regimes. These regimes had quickly come to understand how useful radio was as an instrument of propaganda. In the United States, radio broadcasting was governed by the commercial sector: this was due to the application of the First Amendment to the Constitution(1). The commercial sector would not have allowed the public authorities to regulate broadcasting if two other factors had not arisen. These factors were: the technical restrictions relating to the necessity of managing radio frequencies and the antitrust legislation embodied in the Sherman Act(2), which guaranteed that the market would operate correctly and in the interests of both production companies and consumers. As a result of this legislation, the regulating authority (the Federal Commission for Communication) was responsible for licensing radio stations and regulating the technical aspects of broadcasting. It was also responsible for implementing measures with regard to pluralism, market flow and the respect of personal rights.
After the Second World War the majority of Europe needed rebuilding. Radio networks had been used by the occupying forces for propaganda, and now many of them were nationalised in order to respond to economic and political requirements(3). With the exception of Great Britain, the public broadcasting monopolies which were set up at this time – and within which television broadcasting was to develop – were to last until the 1980s. These monopolies were to evolve under the combined effect of social, economic and political changes as well as the demands imposed in terms of pluralism of information. European Union member countries were to gradually adapt the structure and funding of their radio and television networks on the basis of a variety of factors. In Great Britain and France the deciding factor was political choice; in Italy, Germany and Spain it was the decisions taken within the framework of constitutional law, while in Belgium and Scandinavia it was market pressure.

1 - To the effect that Congress could not implement any law with regard to the foundation of a religion or the free practice of such a religion, nor could it implement any law which would result in the restriction of the freedom of speech or of the press or which would impinge upon the right of American citizens to gather peacefully and to petition the Government to redress their grievances.

2 - In 1968 the Supreme Court delivered the “Red Lion” judgement, which confirmed that the Sherman Act had been legitimately applied to the media. The judgement stated that the Supreme Court had decided that the First Amendment was intended as a means of maintaining a free market in terms of publicising the truth and protecting freedom of speech. Thus, the Supreme Court decided that access to the media should be facilitated in order to protect the interests of the public in general as well as the rights of individuals, particularly those of minorities.

3 - Commercial radio was not nationalised in either Spain or Portugal, which had not been occupied during the Second World War.

How the institutional framework evolved in Europe

Three distinct phases can be seen in the evolution of the institutional framework with regard to television broadcasting in Europe. At first, the public broadcasting monopolies were under the direct control of the governments. They were then granted statutes which gave them greater independence vis a vis the political authorities. Later, the sector was opened up to competition within the framework of a dual broadcasting system which included public and private operators. This meant that the public channels fulfilled their vocation as providers of public service broadcasting. These three phases may be clearly distinguished in Spain, France, Italy and Greece.
In some other European countries, the television monopolies were to benefit from measures which made them independent from the political authorities right from the beginning. This was the case in Germany and Belgium, as a result of their federalist structure, and in Portugal, where broadcasting was in the hands of a private production company. It was also the case in Austria and Ireland, as a result of the competition they had to face from British and German television services – respectively – whose broadcasts could be picked up within their territories. When television networks were first set up in Holland, structures were put into place with a view to making it easier to take the expectations of the public into account. This also happened, to a certain extent, in Sweden,Finland and Denmark - and in Great Britain from 1954, when a duopoly was introduced.Three distinct phases can be seen in the evolution of the institutional framework with regard to television broadcasting in Europe. At first, the public broadcasting monopolies were under the direct control of the governments. They were then granted statutes which gave them greater independence vis a vis the political authorities. Later, the sector was opened up to competition within the framework of a dual broadcasting system which included public and private operators. This meant that the public channels fulfilled their vocation as providers of public service broadcasting. These three phases may be clearly distinguished in Spain, France, Italy and Greece.
In some other European countries, the television monopolies were to benefit from measures which made them independent from the political authorities right from the beginning. This was the case in Germany and Belgium, as a result of their federalist structure, and in Portugal, where broadcasting was in the hands of a private production company. It was also the case in Austria and Ireland, as a result of the competition they had to face from British and German television services – respectively – whose broadcasts could be picked up within their territories. When television networks were first set up in Holland, structures were put into place with a view to making it easier to take the expectations of the public into account. This also happened, to a certain extent, in Sweden,Finland and Denmark - and in Great Britain from 1954, when a duopoly was introduced.Three distinct phases can be seen in the evolution of the institutional framework with regard to television broadcasting in Europe. At first, the public broadcasting monopolies were under the direct control of the governments. They were then granted statutes which gave them greater independence vis a vis the political authorities. Later, the sector was opened up to competition within the framework of a dual broadcasting system which included public and private operators. This meant that the public channels fulfilled their vocation as providers of public service broadcasting. These three phases may be clearly distinguished in Spain, France, Italy and Greece.
In some other European countries, the television monopolies were to benefit from measures which made them independent from the political authorities right from the beginning. This was the case in Germany and Belgium, as a result of their federalist structure, and in Portugal, where broadcasting was in the hands of a private production company. It was also the case in Austria and Ireland, as a result of the competition they had to face from British and German television services – respectively – whose broadcasts could be picked up within their territories. When television networks were first set up in Holland, structures were put into place with a view to making it easier to take the expectations of the public into account. This also happened, to a certain extent, in Sweden,Finland and Denmark - and in Great Britain from 1954, when a duopoly was introduced.

From Government-controlled television networks to dual systems

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.

From State television networks to dual systems

Germany: The press came under the private sector and broadcasting came under the public sector, according to the principle of “publizistische gewaltenteilung” and as a result of the federalist system which had been set up in Germany as a reaction to the totalitarian Fascism regime. The Constitution thus made the individual States in the Federation responsible for regulating their own broadcasting systems(1). State conventions or treaties were used to implement a minimum of general measures, which were necessary to ensure that the broadcasting system functioned adequately throughout the whole of Germany. Any eventual power struggles between the States themselves - or between the States and the Federal Government, which held overall responsibility for telecommunications – were arbitrated by the Federal Constitutional Tribunal, whose decisions carried legal weight.
The “first judgement on broadcasting”, which was called the “TV Adenauer” judgement, was handed down on February 27th 1961. It upheld the institutional freedom of broadcasting in Germany and annulled the Federal Government’s previous decision regarding the foundation of a second television channel as being contrary to the principles of the Basic Law. When the second German channel, ZDF, was created in 1962 it was only on the basis of a convention which had been signed by all the States.
The introduction of private television channels in Germany originated as a direct result of judgements from the Federal Constitutional Tribunal. The “third judgement on broadcasting”, which was handed down on June 16th 1981, raised the question of the validity of the public service broadcasting monopoly - but without authorising private broadcasting. The dearth of frequencies for terrestrial broadcasting meant that it was impossible to meet the needs of the basic principle of pluralism. The consequence of this judgement was the development of cable TV in Germany.
On November 4th 1986 the “fourth judgement on broadcasting” authorised the coexistence of public and private broadcasting. This judgement also put an end to the division – press in the private sector, broadcasting in the public- which had hitherto existed regarding the control of the media.
The States then had to adapt their own legislation to the fact that broadcasting had now been opened up to the private sector. As the broadcasting legislation in each State had been relatively similar, it did not prove too difficult for them to adopt an overall system of regulations – first at regional level, then at national level. In 1987, the State Convention on the new broadcasting order instituted a dual structure for the broadcast media in the Federal Republic of Germany.
Private and public operators adopted two different approaches to respecting the basic principle of pluralism. The public sector, which provided a “basic service”, maintained “internal pluralism” in terms of the programme planning it carried out for each television channel.
The private sector, which provided a “standard service”, maintained “external pluralism”. This meant that pluralism arose from a competitive situation which resulted in a minimum of three channels broadcasting in the same area at the same time. The public sector was under the control of integrated committees, while private television stations were controlled by regulating authorities in the States which granted them their licences(2). These procedures should have lead to the creation of a considerable number of television stations, but this did not happen due to a combination of pragmatism, technical requirements and lack of financing. The technical problem was that there were few terrestrial frequencies available and that the space on cable was limited – these factors kept the number of broadcasting authorisations down. The financial problem was that a considerable level of investment was needed to finance a new television channel – which meant that only a small number of new ones were set up(3).
German legislators wanted to ensure that the public television sector(4) was in the best possible position to compete in the broadcasting market. They wanted to make sure that public television did not fall prey to the financial problems which were so common in the broadcasting sector so, under the terms of the German Constitution, the main source of funding for public broadcasting had always been television licence fees. This meant that the public television channels in Germany were stable and well-financed, so that they were able to maintain high viewing shares – a situation which, in turn, forced the private sector to improve the quality of its programmes. Two factors enabled the public German television channels to face up to the competition offered by the commercial channels: the overall confidence of the public that the public channels would provide them with programmes which interested them and which reflected their own culture(5), and the efforts made by the federal and regional authorities to ensure that the public channels received sufficient financing to meet their obligations.

Belgium: The Institut National de Radiodiffusion (National broadcasting Corporation) was created in 1945. It enjoyed a certain amount of independence from the government due to the fact that its internal structure was, to a large part, dictated by the multi-lingual nature of Belgium.
The constitutional reform which took place in 1975 transferred full powers to the speech communities in terms of cultural matters. Public broadcasting was to evolve differently in the French-speaking and Flemish-speaking areas.
The French-speaking community: The membership of the Board of Directors for the RTBF, the public broadcasting body, had to reflect the political affinity of the community’s elected Assembly. Nevertheless, the Executive appointed the RTBF’s controller, on the basis of recommendations from the Board of Directors.
The RTBF’s monopoly, however, was only theoretical, as there was considerable competition from Tele-Luxembourg - which had been authorised to set up a permanent frequency band between Luxembourg and its Brussels studios in 1983.dual system official. Tele-Luxembourg became a Belgian company, RTL TVI, which was granted the television advertising monopoly.
A decree which was issued on July 4th 1989 put an end to RTL TVI’s advertising monopoly when the RTBF – which had hitherto been financed by public funding only – was authorised to broadcast advertising. Despite this reform the RTBF was in serious financial difficulties. Advertising revenue was not an enormous source of income in a community where almost half of the television viewers spent their time watching foreign – mainly French - cable channels.
The Flemish-speaking community: On December 28th 1979 the BRTN, the public radio and television broadcasting body, was granted a statute along the lines of Dutch public broadcasting. The main feature of this statute was that half of all airtime should be allocated to cultural or social associations. Unlike the RTBF, the BRT had never had to compete with Tele-Luxembourg and its monopoly was to last until 1989 – when VTM, the first private television channel, was set up.

Austria: The 1966 law on broadcasting was adopted following a referendum. It set up the ORF, a public corporation which was responsible for radio broadcasting and two television channels. The ORF’s monopoly was extended to cable by a constitutional law in 1974.
Most households in Austria had access to German television channels, and it would take legal measures to open the broadcasting sector up to competition. A legal judgement was handed down on November 24th 1993, which declared that the ORF’s monopoly was in violation of the right to freedom of expression as defined in Clause 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Private radio stations were therefore authorised, with effect from January 1st 1994. As far as the television broadcasting sector was concerned, no action was taken on this judgement until 1999 – when the first commercial television channel in Austria was created. It should be pointed out that German cable and satellite channels, which were received by about 60 per cent of Austrian households, had always been a source of strong competition. The high viewing share that they had enjoyed meant that German advertisers had been able to gain a strong foothold in the Austrian market.

Ireland: RTE, the public broadcasting corporation, was established in 1961. Ireland’s public broadcasting service, however, faced strong competition from British television channels – so there was not a lot of room for the commercial channel which was authorised by the Irish Parliament in 1988.
In 1995, a Green Paper on broadcasting was published. It recommended the following: the creation of a Gaelic channel; the establishment of a regulating authority for the public and private broadcasting sectors; the separation, in the public sector, of radio and television broadcasting – which should receive public funding to the tune of 50 per cent.

Portugal: A limited liability company, Radio-Televisao Portuguesa (RTP) was set up in 1956, with the responsibility of overseeing broadcasting in Portugal. Its monopoly was institutionalised in the Portuguese Constitution when RTP was nationalised after the revolution in April 1974.
A law which was passed on September 7th 1990 put an end to RTP’s broadcasting monopoly by setting up two commercial television channels. On February 22nd 1992 the Cabinet allocated these channels to SIC and TVI. The Government had satisfied political requirements, but had not taken into account the real potential of the advertising market: it was unlikely that a country with a population of only 9.8 million would be able to finance four national television channels. In fact, the RTP – whose main source of funding was advertising revenue – soon found itself in serious financial difficulties, as did the private television sector. SIC was more successful than TVI, which was relaunched by “Real TV” in 2001 after its shareholding structure had undergone considerable changes.

(1). - Public service broadcasting was provided via nine regional public broadcasting departments. This division was based on the authorisations which had been issued by the occupying forces. In 1950 these departments set up the ARD, a working community for the regulation of mutual technical, legal and commercial issues and for contributing to ARD1, their common broadcasting programme. In 1961, the States approved the creation of a second public channel, ZDF. This channel broadcast from Mainz throughout the Federal Republic of Germany.

(2). - Although any broadcasting authorisation issued by any State was valid for the whole of the Federal Republic of Germany, all broadcasting companies had to apply to the individual States where they intended broadcasting for a position on cable or the allocation of a terrestrial frequency. If they wished to extend their coverage, it was their responsibility to apply to different States for the relevant licences.

(3). - At the end of 1997, twenty-one private television stations with partial national coverage and forty-five local or regional private television stations were authorised in Germany. This was due to the freeing of terrestrial frequencies, the expansion of the cable network and the development of satellite broadcasting .

(4). - Public broadcasting in Germany was shared between ten State public broadcasting institutions, which together formed the ARD. The public television service provided national programming and eight regional programmes, as well as the ZDF, which broadcast national television programming from Mainz: ARTE, a national French-German channel; 3-SAT, a satellite channel; Phoenix and KinderKanal, two free access specialist channels.

(5). - ARD1 provided a uniform image of Germany as a whole, while reflecting the political pluralism in the country. The ARD 3 channels provided contrasting views of the country.

From public TV broadcasting monopolies to dual systems

The Netherlands: Public broadcasting service was created in 1919 by a group of enthusiasts. This phenomenon resulted in an original system: the State took charge of the network and airtime was shared between listeners’ associations, which used their members’ contributions to finance their programmes.
This format continued after the end of the Second World War and was also adopted for television broadcasting in 1953. The NOS, a public company, provided news broadcasts, sport and educational programmes. It shared the programme schedule with viewers’ associations which received concessions for blocks of airtime. The NOB was responsible for running the broadcasting network.
At the end of 1989, when the Television Sans Frontières directive was implemented, the Commissariat aux Medias (the Media Commission) authorised the first commercial television channel, which was to be broadcast on the Dutch cable network. This channel was RTL-Veronique, which was transmitted to Luxembourg via satellite and then rebroadcast via cable. It later became RTL-4.
The Dutch broadcasting market has since become – along with the German market – one of the most competitive in Europe. There are ten national television channels, of which three are public. They compete with each other in a country which has 6.3 million households – and these households have access to about twenty cable channels, about twelve of which are foreign channels watched by 18 per cent of Dutch viewers. Viewing share and advertising revenue in the public sector are gradually shrinking in the face of strong competition from the private channels, which have the advantage of a high performance production industry to back them up.
In spring 1994, a law on the media was passed with the aim of improving the competitiveness of the public television sector, without raising the question of the orientation of the programme content of the individual channels(1). In January 1996 there had been an amendment to the law authorising sponsorship, so the public channels had benefited from extra revenue: despite this, they did not stand up to the competition very well. The Dutch Government wanted to strengthen the public television service, which it saw as an important factor for social cohesion and an equally important source of information. It thus decided to alter the structure of the public television broadcasting sector by appointing a single Board of Directors(2), which would be responsible for developing additional programmes for the three public channels according to the recommendations of the Ververs Commission.
In 2000 the public television service lost the right to use television license fees as a means of funding, and its financing became a matter for the State budget. When the time came to renew the concessions in the public television sector, the associative system was abandoned in favour of making the NOS the single operator in the sector.

Denmark: In 1988 the Government put and end to the monopoly held by the first channel, Danemark Radio, and created a public duopoly. The second channel, TV 2(3), was run by an independent public company which derived the majority of its financing from advertising. In addition to the terrestrial television broadcasting duopoly, a number of private cable channels were authorised.

Finland: YLE 1, the first television channel, began broadcasting in 1957. It was run by “Suomen Yleisrado” (YLE), a public broadcasting company. YLE 1 shared airtime with MTV, a commercial channel which leased blocks of airtime and which depended on advertising revenue for funding. This arrangement continued when a second public channel was set up in 1964 and a third in 1987.
By 1993 MTV was using 38 per cent of the airtime on the three public channels. The Government privatised the third channel to the benefit of MTV 3, which had 42 per cent of the Finnish viewing share in 1998. A second commercial channel, Kanal 4, was authorised in 1997.
The Finnish broadcasting scene underwent considerable upheaval due to advances in technology and mergers between operators in the sector. The public television service needed to be repositioned due to the event of the “Information Society”, so in 1994 the Government changed its legal structure so that its capital could be opened up. State financing was reduced to 70 per cent.

Sweden: Until 1990, Swedish broadcasting was run by Sveriges Radio AB, a holding company with the status of a Foundation. Its capital was divided between private shareholders, industrial groups (20 per cent), press bodies (20 per cent) and the public sector (60 per cent) - primarily popular national movements in the latter case. The public broadcasting service in Sweden was financed by television licence fees and subsidies. In 1991 three Foundations were set up to take control of the sector: SVT was responsible for the two television channels; SR, Sveriges Radio, was responsible for radio broadcasting and Severige UtbidningsRadio was responsible for educational radio and television. Broadcasting services were provided by three wholly-owned limited companies which were affiliated to each of the Foundations(4).
The Swedish Government was finally forced to to the State broadcasting monopoly due to the considerable influence of imported commercial satellite and cable channels. A law which was passed on March 28th 1991 authorised the creation of TV 4, a private national channel which was financed by advertising revenue(5). In order to compete with the imported channels(6), TV 4 built up a national and regional identity. This had a detrimental effect on the two public channels, which saw their viewing share fall by 50 per cent.
In 1995 Parliament ordered the SVT to reduce its budget by 11 per cent over three years. Then a law which was passed in June 1996 forced it to increase the ten regional television stations’ own programmes from 40 per cent to 55 per cent and to commission more programmes from independent production companies. This measure lead to a reduction of 10 per cent in personnel and to a restructuring of the organisation, which was designed to strengthen its competitiveness.

Great Britain: The BBC was allocated the broadcasting monopoly in Britain in 1936. In 1943, Lord Hankey was told that he would be responsible for organising the relaunch of television services after the Second World War was over. He raised the question of prolonging the BBC’s monopoly – which was provisionally renewed in 1946, with a licence to run until 1951. This licence, along with the BBC’s Charter, was renewed in 1952. The Conservative Party, however, and decided to make provisions for setting up a regional television service. Subsequently, the 1954 Television Act created the Independent Television Authority, which put an end to the BBC’s monopoly.
This meant that a duopoly had been created for public service television in Britain(7), in line with the functional criteria for a public service. Consequently, the working structures of the BBC and the ITA were quite similar: they both had a Board of Directors made up of twelve Governors, who appointed the Chief Executive Officer. The ITA, however, proved to be flexible in its task of providing a public service. This flexibility was designed to allow the new Independent Television (ITV) companies to establish themselves and to develop popular programmes. Although the BBC adapted itself in the face of competition, by 1960 it had only a 35 per cent viewing share. The Government was worried about this situation, so in 1962 it appointed Lord Pilkington – the head of the Bank of England - to carry out a study of commercial television and provide guidelines for the future of television in Britain. Lord Pilkington criticised the laxity of the ITA, holding up the BBC as an example. He recommended that the ITA should be responsible for organising commercial television(8) and that the BBC should set up a second television channel. His recommendations lead to the creation of BBC 2 in 1964, which left BBC 1 free to concentrate on more popular programmes.
Thus began the golden age of television in Britain. At the beginning of the 1970s, the BBC and ITV split the viewing population equally between them. (BBC 1 = 40 per cent, BBC 2 = 10 per cent). Yet it was difficult to maintain this steady equilibrium, as ITV had much greater resources at its disposal than did the BBC(9).
Margaret Thatcher’s government saw the BBC as the incarnation of the values of the British Establishment – and they were not very happy with its performance. Consequently, in 1986, economist Alan Peacock was asked to compile a study of the future of television in Britain. He published his report in 1987 and confounded the Government’s expectations by taking sides with the BBC and criticising the independent television network. Peacock was totally against the idea that the BBC should be financed by advertising revenue. He recommended that the licence fee should be index-linked to the price index – which took effect from 1988 – and suggested introducing pay-TV services on the BBC’s two channels(10).
Peacock’s report was as critical of the practices of independent television as it had been vis a vis ITV. The main issue was that the independent companies were abusing their control of the television advertising market by charging incredibly high rates to their advertisers. Peacock recommended introducing an element of competition in order to break this advertising monopoly. He suggested breaking the links between ITV and Channel 4 and putting ITV’s regional concessions out to tender in order to open up the broadcasting market to new operators. He also advocated that 25 per cent of the airtime on both ITV and the BBC’s two channels should be given to broadcasting independent productions, as this would encourage the growth of the production industry in Britain.
The 1990 Broadcasting Act implemented most of Peacock’s recommendations. The legislature put an end to the broadcasting duopoly by depriving ITV of its monopoly on commercial television – which it shared between three national terrestrially broadcast channels. These were: Channel 3, which included morning television and the 14 companies which held the regional television concessions; Channel 4, an independent public trust, and Channel 5. The commercial television regulating authority was relieved of its responsibilities for network management, provided by the IBA(11). A new regulating authority, the ITC(12), was given responsibility for the entire private television service in Britain – whatever the means of broadcasting might be. All private stations had to obtain a broadcasting licence or an authorisation to broadcast.
Although the BBC’s licence and royal Charter were renewed in 1996, the Corporation was suffering from the effect of upheavals on the British broadcasting scene. As underlined in a Green Paper on the public television service, which was published on November 25th 1992, it had to adapt in order to face new challenges and increase efficiency. This recommendation lead to profound changes within the BBC, which meant that it was in a position to face up to growing competition and develop new services aimed at fulfilling its obligations as a public service in the digital age.
At the beginning of the 1980s the dual system, which meant that public and private broadcasters worked side by side, had become the general rule in Europe. The way in which the structures of the various public television services had evolved within this system had had some repercussions for how these services were financed.

(1). - Each of the three public channels broadcast specific types of programmes: Nederland 1 concentrated on ethics and morals, Nederland 2 on the family, Nederland 3 on culture and information. The NOS’s broadcasts, sport and educational programmes were broadcast on all three channels.

(2). - The Board of Directors was made up of three members, who were responsible for developing strategy and planning programmes for the three public channels - each of which was headed by a coordinator. A watchdog committee represented the associations which were responsible for the programme schedules.

(3). - The Minister for Communications appointed five of the eight members of the Board of Directors. The task of the Board was to produce and broadcast regional television programmes and to set up regional bodies, each of which had its own Board of Directors.

(4). - Two mutual subsidiary companies completed the scenario: RIKAB was responsible for collecting the license fees to be credited to the “Broadcasting Fund Service” at the Ministry of Finance; SRF was responsible for mutual services and was organised into three departments: RTH (health and industrial medicine); SRTVF (buildings) and SRFA (enterprise committee).

(5). - The commercial channel was allocated to Nordic TV/TV 4 in November 1991. It had to broadcast “a considerable proportion of Swedish programmes” and be representative “of the various sectors in Swedish society”.

(6). - The Kinnevic Group’s TV 3, SBS’s Kanal 5 and two pay-TV channels, TV 1000 and Canal+Nordic.

(7). - The task of the Independent Television Authority (ITA) was to provide television programmes in the form of a public service, which would cover news, education and entertainment. The ITA was replaced by the Independent Broadcasting Authority (IBA) in 1974, following the authorisation of private radio stations.

(8). - Great Britain was divided into 14 regions, which corresponded roughly to the BBC’s broadcasting regions. The ITC allocated television broadcasting licences in each of these regions, apart from London – where two companies provided broadcasting services, one during the week and one at the weekend. The broadcasting licences were accompanied by detailed guidelines which were designed to ensure that ITV fulfilled its task as a public service provider and that its production was in brought in line with that of the BBC.

(9). - In 1968 the BBC’s budget was Pounds 54 million, while ITV’s budget was Pounds 100 million.

(10). - In the autumn of 1998, the BBC began broadcasting encrypted programmes/a pay TV service at night for doctors, paramedics and medical students.

(11). - The ITC was financed by independent television companies and employed about two hundred people in London and its regional offices. Unlike the IBA, it did not take part in the operation of Channel 3 – nor did it play any part in its programme schedule. Its role was to make sure that television programmes conformed to the relevant legislation and to the television broadcasting licences, as well as to an ethical code for broadcasting which had been established by the Broadcasting Standard Council (BSC). The technical infrastructure for broadcasting and transmission, which had previously been run by the IBA, was allocated to a private company – National Transcommunication Limited (NTL). NTL was created in 1991, with a capital of Pounds 70 million, in order to provide private radio broadcasting and the transmission and broadcasting of terrestrial television.

(12). - The role of the ITC was to authorise and control all the private television services which were broadcast in or to Great Britain (terrestrially, by cable or via satellite) even if these services did not use any of the frequencies allocated by the British authorities. All satellite channels which were broadcast in Britain via non-domestic satellites (NDS) – such as BskyB, which was broadcast via ASTRA, the Luxembourg satellite – had to obtain authorisation from the ITC, using a simplified procedure called “licence for non domestic satellite”. Any television stations which broadcast to Britain from abroad had to apply for authorisation – Licensable Programme Service (LPS) from the ITC. If this licence were not obtained, the ITC could ban the sale of the necessary decoding systems in Britain. The ITC could also ban British cable companies from picking up programmes broadcast by non-licensed companies, as well as the sale of advertising time in Britain.

The evolution of financing for public service broadcasting in Europe

In the majority of European countries, public service broadcasting was originally financed by TV license fees. The cost of these license fees became more expensive as more channels came into being. However there was a problem. When the number of TV sets installed exceeded a given number - and given that just one licence was required per household, no matter how many TV sets were installed there - this source of income became static. An additional licence fee was introduced for colour television sets as a way of creating revenue that would help to finance the growth of the public television service. That notwithstanding, the majority of European governments concluded that advertising would provide a good source of funding since it would obviate the need to increase the cost of TV licences. Each of the countries in the European Union, however, had to come up with a way of financing their TV broadcasting services.
Great Britain and Sweden refused to allow advertising on their public TV channels unlike the majority of the other countries where advertising was allowed under strict limits and controls set up to safeguard the interests of print media and ensure that advertisers could not effectively end up controlling public television.
Austria, France, Ireland, Italy and Belgium’s French-speaking community all settled on mixed funding, using a combination of television licence fees and advertising.
Although both Germany and Holland were attached to the principle of public funding, they saw that advertising revenue was a necessary adjunct to it.
After the privatisation of its third channel, Finland has recently joined Great Britain, Sweden and the French-speaking community in Belgium in banning advertising on its public television channels. Greece has also done the same thing, as a result of the evolution of its television broadcasting market.
Denmark adopted a novel approach by giving the responsibility for its two public channels to two separate bodies. One channel was financed by television licence fees, and the other by advertising revenue.
Spain has never had television licence fees, and they were abandoned in Portugal at the end of the 1980s. These countries have been trying in vain to use advertising revenue to finance their public television services in an increasingly competitive environment.
The various methods of financing public service broadcasting in Europe have evolved as a result of political choices which have been adapted to fit specific cultural and economic requirements. Nevertheless, these methods should conform to EU law. This is why the Amsterdam Protocol has obliged the EU member countries to ensure that their public service broadcasting fulfils its obligations in terms of providing programmes of general, cultural and social interest. The Protocol made clear that it was also the responsibility of each EU member country to define, allocate and organise the aim of its public service broadcasting, and to make provisions for its financing.
The dual broadcasting system is extremely competitive and public broadcasting must respond to the needs of pluralism – particularly within the context of information. This competitive environment means that it is impossible to ignore that an economic equilibrium between public and private operators is necessary. The limits fixed on the extent to which advertising revenue can be used to finance public broadcasting are a result of this logic. It must also be taken into account that, while the output of a public broadcasting service is general, the nature of its activity is specific. This means that it cannot offer a random panorama of different programmes, but that it must provide a range of programmes and broadcasts which are organised in a similar manner in order to satisfy the cultural and social aims pertaining to its task of providing a public service. The EU member countries have taken all this in consideration in order to set up measures to ensure the following:
a. openness in financial dealings with the public authorities, including the direct or indirect allocation of public funds as a result of clear-cut procedures;
b. openness of financial controls and inspections, ensured at national level by measures designed to make sure that the public broadcasting service is fulfilling its obligations and using its resources correctly.

The European Commission, in accordance with the principal of proportionality which has to be applied within the European Union and the aims of the Amsterdam Protocol, has to ensure that the financing of public service broadcasting does not have an adverse effect on the conditions for exchange. With this aim in mind, and taking into account the nature of the obligations of a public broadcasting service, the Commission must be sure that the procedures in place in each EU member country result in total openness concerning matters of financing.
At the end of the 1980s, the EEC countries had set up broadcasting systems in which the balance between public and commercial broadcasting would satisfy the expectations of the “citizen viewer” and the “consumer viewer” – i.e., all viewers.
In the age of analogical broadcasting this equilibrium ensured a degree of novelty, as well as cultural diversity and the pluralism of opinions – all of which formed the basis of one of Europe’s most precious resources. It is now the duty of public and private broadcasters, as well the authorities in EU member countries and the EU as a whole, to use what has been learnt in the past in order to plan for their digital future. This will be the subject of my next article “Digital broadcasting: building the future”.