ECREA16-Abstract_book

152 / 658

150
Saturday, November 120 9 : 0 0 – 1 0 : 3 0
CLP08 The Future of EUMedia Policy
PP 521 Online Platforms, the Country of Origin Principle, and the Future of European Audiovisual Policy
M. Michalis1
1 University of Westminster, Journalism & Mass Communication, London, United Kingdom
Over the last decade or so, changes in media and communication markets (the transition from analogue to digital television, the rise of broadband Internet
supporting IP delivery of audio-visual content, and the popularity of connected and portable consumer devices) have impacted upon the structure and
competitive dynamics of television and associated markets. ‘Online platforms’(in simple words: digital intermediaries) have emerged as central players in
the new media ecology. The paper uses Kingdon’s ‘multiple streams’ framework of public policy-making to explain the recent interest in online platforms
and its relevance to the future European audiovisual policy. Academics talk about a ‘platforms society’ (van Dijck, 2013) and ‘platform imperialism’ (Jin,
2013). Given their power in the evolving digital media environment (Mansell 2015), platforms have also attracted exploratory policy attention at European
and national levels (e.g. HoL) though it is not yet clear whether a regulatory response is needed. Platforms are one issue in the debate on the future Europe‑
an audiovisual policy linked closely to the country of origin (CoO) principle. The CoO is the fundamental principle of EU audiovisual policy originally adopted
in 1989 establishing who regulates European audiovisual service providers. Indeed, it is the cornerstone of all internal market legislation, which makes as
a result any qualifications or derogations far more challenging. The legal jurisdiction over audiovisual media service providers is an old issue. The paper
examines the issues surrounding the CoO, the tensions, and the arising questions about material jurisdiction (e.g. should platform operators come under
the CoO?) and territorial jurisdiction (e.g. should we revert to the country of destination in some cases at least?), the relevance (or not) of CoO to today’s con‑
vergent and globalising media environment and implications for freedom of expression and the funding of original European content. The paper assesses
whether a revision of the EU regulatory framework is likely and how far-reaching or not it might be in relation to the issues covered. In terms of methods,
the paper is also based on extensive documentary analysis of EU policy documents and submissions to relevant consultations as well as participation in
relevant policy fora and informal discussions with policy actors. References: HoL [House of Lords, UK] (2015) Online platforms and the EU Digital Single
Market, Jin, DL (2015) Digital Platforms, Imperialism and Political Culture, Routledge. Kingdon, J. (1985).
Agendas, alternatives, and public policy (2nd ed.). New York: Harper Collins. Mansell, R. (2015) ‘Platforms of Power,’ Intermedia, March. Van Dijck, J. (2013)
The Culture of Connectivity, OUP.
PP 522 Who’s Afraid of Pan-European Spectrum Policy?
M. Ala-Fossi1, M. Bonet Bagant2
1 University of Tampere, School of Communication- Media and Theatre, Tampere, Finland
2 Autonomous University of Barcelona, Department of Audiovisual Communication and Advertising, Barcelona, Spain
The fifth generation (5G) mobile technology is argued to become much more than just an evolution of mobile broadband like its name would suggest.
According to the EU Commission, it will be 'the backbone of the digital future” and the foundation of a vast market in the Internet of Things. As the radio
spectrum is the basis of all mobile connectivity, the availability of spectrum for these new mobile services has become a key factor for the future economic
growth in Europe. While the European broadcast industry has been one of the most influential interest groups in national spectrum policy, the global influ‑
ence and growing economic importance of mobile industry have already challenged the broadcasters, despite its social and political importance. TheWorld
Radiocommunication Conference (WRC-15) recently confirmed that European broadcasting will lose about 30 percent of its spectrum resources for terrestri‑
al digital television and over 40 percent of the spectrum allocated for digital radio broadcasting. Radio spectrum use and management has become a disput‑
ed policy issue between the EU Commission and the member states.While the Commission has promoted a harmonised spectrum planning for a true Digital
Single Market, the member states have declined every single proposal, which they have interpreted as a threat to their national competence on spectrum
policy. By emphasizing mainly the value and importance of the spectrum as a key resource for economic growth, the EU tends to underestimate those uses
that may seem less innovative or productive. Other European stakeholders like the mobile operators and telecommunication equipment manufacturers
have also divided opinions on European spectrum management depending on their size and primary markets. Small and new mobile operators are gener‑
ally against any such reform, which would allow Europe-wide auctions or aim at consolidation of the mobile industry, while equipment manufacturers like
Nokia tend to support increased coordination but oppose (expensive) auctions. The less the operators spend on the spectrum the more they can invest in
the networks. This paper aims to analyse the debate on European spectrum policy by focusing on the discussion on the future of the UHF frequency band.
UHF spectrum is in many ways the centrepiece of the ongoing dispute as the first part of it has been reallocated from broadcast use to mobile use on coor‑
dinated decisions on the EU level (800 MHz band) and a second part on national decisions by separate member states (700 MHz band). Our study examines
a large body of public documents as well as 80 stakeholder interviews from eight European countries (Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Norway,
Spain and the UK) from a theoretical perspective, which combines political economy and new institutionalism. We argue that even if the EU member states
would have a strong economic incentive to abandon their national spectrum policies for a pan-European spectrum management to ensure the future eco‑
nomic growth in Europe, this is unlikely because of several socio-political and economic reasons, which are dependent on each national context.