UK Industry Opposes EU Regulations
By Neil Dodds
20 April, 2006
Britain's telecommunications industry has come out fighting against European Union plans to extend television regulations into online broadcasting.
Both Intellect, the trade association for the high-tech industry and the Broadband Stakeholder Group, the British government's key advisory group on broadband, oppose the latest EU audiovisual directive on the grounds that it will confuse business, let down consumers and add to the ever growing heap of regulations broadcasters face.
The Audiovisual Media Service (AVMS) directive that is currently under discussion in Brussels includes some major alterations to the current Television WIthout Frontiers directive that has governed broadcasting in the EU since 1989.
The old directive regime applies to broadcasting and cinema production. It guarantees movement of television programmes in the single European Market and obliges broadcasters to dedicate at least half their broadcasts to European product. Additionally, it makes provisions to ensure that major sporting events are for public rather than pay-per-view access, that "cultural diversity" is safeguarded and promoted, that advertising volume remains within strict guidelines and that violent or pornographic broadcasts are kept to late-night-only and/or under parental control.
Additionally, it protects public service broadcasting, allowing governments to support PBS financially. It also allows for the notorious "cultural exception" - the right of certain countries (ie, France) to restrict imports of cultural goods in order to protect home industries. The EU's Audiovisual policy also funds and trains European media creators.
The new directive plans to bring internet broadcasts under EU supervision. While the British trade bodies welcome plans to liberalise some advertising regulations, they fear that bringing internet services under EU regulation will subject online content producers to the same advertising and production requirements as broadcasters.
"At the heart of the problem is the proposal to extend regulation designed for traditional scheduled broadcast television to a new and as yet unformed 'on-demand' market, despite the fact that there is already adequate EU level regulation and self-regulation," said Intellect's statement on the proposals. "On-demand" describes the emerging market in downloadable television shows - viewers can buy programmes directly over the internet and watch them when they like, breaking the current scheduling regime. Any legislation governing on-demand downloads - where the viewer choses what is broadcast into his home, rather than broadcasters or legislators, might affect the market. What if viewers chose to download only US programmes or north African broadcasts? Would legislation oblige them to take EU-made programmes as part of the deal?
The British groups fear that increased regulations will drive away investors and break up existing legislation and the largely self-regulating schemes that broadcasters have used up to now.
The Guardian reports that broadcasters and web content companies fear that websites and even blogs could become subject to EU scrutiny.
This isn't the first time that EU meddling in internet affairs has drawn fire from industry insiders. Last year, the EU came under fire for backing China-Iran proposals to take the internet's naming controls out of private US jurisdiction at ICANN and placing it under international control. Some commentators complained that China, Iran and their allies had political motivation for removing internet signalling from US control - namely, that these countries hoped to censor critical sites at home and abroad. An international body would be more receptive to their demands, being itself populated by other censorious governments, than the freedom-of-speech worshipping Americans.
It's not clear why the Europeans supported the proposals, which were roundly criticised in industry and press freedom bodies.
Some EU states hope that Europe can create internet champions to rival America's. It would be a shame if any such companies were weighed down with unworkable and consumer-unfriendly regulations.
|
 Printer friendly version
 Email this article to a friend
Related articles:
|
