The European Commissioner Viviane Reding has been attacked over her draft proposals for reform of the Television Without Frontiers Directive and accused of wanting in effect to extend elements of broadcasting regulation to the Internet but, at a conference earlier this week, she came out fighting. At the ” Audiovisual Conference - Between Culture and Commerce” held in Liverpool, she said:

” I am determined to find the best possible, future-proof balance between a light burden on industry, in order to boost Europe’s competitiveness and to encourage successful cross border services on the one hand, and on the other hand the pursuit of undisputed public policy objectives, such as protection of minors or the fight against racial hatred. I have heard and read here and there, that Brussels intends to regulate the Internet, to introduce new red tape. Frankly, this is nonsense! Never ever has the Commission had such a foolish idea!
But let me ask you some questions: who in this room is in favour of child-pornography on the new media? Who stands for the freedom to spread incitement to racial hatred on the new media? If one of the service providers present here in this room considers that these abuses are just business-as-usual, he should stand up and take the floor. It is the duty of the Commission to propose a framework under which these shared European values are protected. But I have no intention to “regulate the Internet”! On the scope of the future legal framework for audiovisual services, nearly everyone agrees that ensuring a level playing field among platforms delivering similar audiovisual content falls into the remit of the European lawmaker. In any case, technological change and convergence lead to a multiplication of services. It is necessary to have a technologically neutral regulatory approach, taking into account the degree of choice and control of the consumer. That is why we make a clear distinction between linear and non-linear services.”

At the Liverpool conference, Ofcom Chairman Lord Currie summarized the British regulator’s view:

“We in Ofcom start from the position that is doubtful whether the best way to promote such new content and new business models in Europe is through more regulation. So, a first request on our part has been for the Commission to assess carefully the costs and benefits of regulating content delivered over non-broadcast platforms � looking at the full range of services potentially affected, and at both the indirect and direct compliance costs of new regulation. I was interested to hear Senor Balsemao make a similar point in his thoughtful speech last night.
And in addressing the costs and benefits, we would urge the Commission to consider the extent to which harmonisation of regulation is a real as opposed to theoretical benefit, particularly given that this is a minimum harmonisation measure which leaves Member States free to impose additional rules on service providers located in their territory. This issue needs careful empirical examination.”

As always, the devil is in the detail and critics of Commissioner Reding’s approach would do welcome to develop credible counter proposals, such as those outlined by Ofcom’s Deputy Chairman Richard Hooper in his Hong Kong speech of 29 August.