Who is afraid of public service broadcasting? The digital future of an age-old institution under threat

Article


Katsirea, I. 2012. Who is afraid of public service broadcasting? The digital future of an age-old institution under threat. Yearbook of European Law. 31 (1), pp. 416-451. https://doi.org/10.1093/yel/yes005
TypeArticle
TitleWho is afraid of public service broadcasting? The digital future of an age-old institution under threat
AuthorsKatsirea, I.
Abstract

Introduction: Public service broadcasting (PSB) finds itself currently in the eye of the storm. It has been for some time now the target of sustained criticism on the grounds that it is a relic from the age of spectrum scarcity, a paternalistic curb on viewer sovereignty and consumer choice, an unjustified intervention in an increasingly competitive marketplace. The amount of funding it receives, its governance, and also, more and more, the extent of its remit are under close scrutiny.
Since the beginning of the nineties, public service broadcasters (PSBs) across Europe have been faced with a cascade of appeals at European Union level against the allegedly anti-competitive nature of the licence fee and other forms of state support received by them. Initially these attacks were spearheaded by commercial operators claiming that the state financing of PSBs constituted unlawful state aid under Article 107 TFEU (ex Article 87(1) EC). The first complaint was filed in 1992 by two Spanish commercial broadcasters regarding the public funding of regional broadcasting channels and of the national broadcaster TVE. It was followed by numerous other complaints against the PSBs of almost all the Member States of the European Union of the Fifteen. In a nutshell, Private broadcasters alleged that the public service remit was not defined in a sufficiently precise manner, that there was no adequate independent supervision, that the licence fee was excessive, and that it distorted competition in advertising and other commercial markets.
The 1997 Amsterdam Protocol has not shielded Member States’ institutional and regulatory arrangements for organizing and funding PSB from scrutiny. It clarified that it is for the Member States to define the remit, but preserved the Commission’s competence to assess the effect of national funding mechanisms on trade and competition. However, financial and content-related supervision are intertwined.

Research GroupLaw and Politics
PublisherOxford University Press (OUP)
JournalYearbook of European Law
ISSN0263-3264
Electronic2045-0044
Publication dates
Print01 Jan 2012
Online24 Jul 2012
Publication process dates
Deposited17 Jul 2013
Output statusPublished
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)https://doi.org/10.1093/yel/yes005
LanguageEnglish
Permalink -

https://repository.mdx.ac.uk/item/84296

  • 30
    total views
  • 0
    total downloads
  • 2
    views this month
  • 0
    downloads this month

Export as

Related outputs

Commercial influences on programme content: the German and UK approaches to transposing EU rules on product placement
Gibbons, T. and Katsirea, I. 2012. Commercial influences on programme content: the German and UK approaches to transposing EU rules on product placement. The Journal of Media Law. 4 (2), pp. 159-188. https://doi.org/10.5235/Jml.4.2.159
Judicial review of party broadcasts in Germany and the United Kingdom.
Katsirea, I. 2009. Judicial review of party broadcasts in Germany and the United Kingdom. The Journal of Media Law. 1 (2), pp. 269-287.
How far are national broadcasting orders converging as a consequence of European media law and policy?
Katsirea, I. 2012. How far are national broadcasting orders converging as a consequence of European media law and policy? in: Andenas, M. and Andersen, C. (ed.) Theory and practice of harmonisation Cheltenham, UK Edward Elgar Publishing . pp. 220-230
Culture: cornerstone of the European Union edifice?
Katsirea, I. 2006. Culture: cornerstone of the European Union edifice? Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law. 13 (2), pp. 239-258.
The circumvention principle: an effective defence of national broadcasting systems against abuse?
Katsirea, I. 2005. The circumvention principle: an effective defence of national broadcasting systems against abuse? Communications law. 10 (4), pp. 130-134.
European Citizenship and post-national ideal in the light of the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice.
Katsirea, I. 2004. European Citizenship and post-national ideal in the light of the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice. Helliniki Epitheorissis Evropaikou Dikaiou. 24 (3), pp. 479-496.
Public broadcasting and European law: a comparative examination of public service obligations in six member states
Katsirea, I. 2008. Public broadcasting and European law: a comparative examination of public service obligations in six member states. Netherlands Kluwer.
Cultural diversity in broadcasting.
Katsirea, I. 2009. Cultural diversity in broadcasting. in: Goldberg, D., Sutter, G. and Walden, I. (ed.) Media law and practice. Oxford University Press (OUP). pp. 463-499
Cultural diversity and European integration in conflict and in harmony.
Katsirea, I. 2001. Cultural diversity and European integration in conflict and in harmony. Athens Ant. N. Sakkoulas.
Free movement of law students and lawyers in the EU: a comparison of English, German and Greek legislation
Katsirea, I. and Ruff, A. 2001. Free movement of law students and lawyers in the EU: a comparison of English, German and Greek legislation. International Journal of the Legal Profession. 12 (3), pp. 367-406. https://doi.org/10.1080/09695950500480741
The transmission state principle: the end of the broadcasting sovereignty of the member states.
Katsirea, I. 2005. The transmission state principle: the end of the broadcasting sovereignty of the member states. in: Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies. Cambridge Centre for European Legal Studies.
Why the European broadcasting quota should be abolished?
Katsirea, I. 2003. Why the European broadcasting quota should be abolished? European Law Review. 28 (2), pp. 190-209.