Regulating the Retransmission Swamp

  • Tom Evens
  • Karen Donders
Part of the Palgrave Global Media Policy and Business book series (GMPB)


This chapter discusses traditional recipes that regulate the retransmission of television signals such as must-carry, copyright rules and price regulations. Policy revisions, amongst which the review of the SatCab Directive and pleas for the elaboration of the must-carry principle into a findability obligation upon distribution companies in a platform economy are addressed. The chapter assesses emerging policies including the legal protection of broadcasters’ signal and investment obligations on distribution companies. The focus is in the first instance on the fragmented European regulatory environment. Given the complexity and embeddedness of regulation, a perspective on more geographic areas is not possible. However, when relevant, reference is also made to the situation in the United States A case study sheds light on the legal and business issues of cloud recorders Aereo and Bhaalu, which were prohibited after infringing copyright regulations.


  1. Blazquez, F. J. C., Cappello, M., Grece, C., & Valais, S. (2016). VOD platforms and OTT: Which promotion obligations for European works? IRIS Plus, 3, 3–78.Google Scholar
  2. Bork, R. H., & Sidak, J. G. (2012). What does the Chicago school teach about internet search and the antitrust treatment of Google? Journal of Competition Law & Economics, 8(4), 663–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borna, J. (2015). Aereo: Cutting the cord or splitting the circuit? Commlaw Conspectus, 22, 287–316.Google Scholar
  4. Bourreau, M., Dogan, P., & Manant, M. (2010). A critical review of the ladder of investment approach. Telecommunication Policy, 34(11), 683–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brenner, D. (1988). Cable television and the freedom of expression. Duke Law Journal, 2(3), 329–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brenner, D. L., & Kay, S. H. (2012). ABC v. Aereo, Inc.: When is internet distribution a “public performance” under copyright law? Intellectual Property & Technology Law Journal, 24(11), 12–16.Google Scholar
  7. Bridy, A. (2015). Aereo: From working around copyright to thinking inside the (cable) box. Michigan State Law Review, 2, 465–483. Google Scholar
  8. Brodkin, J. (2017, July 7). Cable TV companies can charge higher prices thanks to new court ruling. Available at: (August 24, 2017).
  9. Brown, J. (2005). Digital must-carry & the case for public television. Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy, 15(1), 73–109.Google Scholar
  10. Brown, A., & Picard, R. G. (Eds.). (2008). Digital terrestrial television in Europe. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. Bruggemann, M., & Schulz-Forberg, H. (2009). Becoming pan-European? Transnational media and the European public. International Communication Gazette, 71(8), 693–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cave, M. (2006). Encouraging infrastructure competition via the ladder of investment. Telecommunications Policy, 30(3–4), 223–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chalaby, J. K. (Ed.). (2005). Transnational television worldwide: Towards a new media order. London: I.B. Tauris.Google Scholar
  14. Chalaby, J. K. (2009). Transnational television in Europe: Reconfiguring global communications networks. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  15. CNC (2017).Le Fonds de Soutien Cinéma – Audiovisuel – Multimédia du CNC en 2017. Available at: (August 13, 2017).
  16. Committee on Culture and Education. (2013, January 31). Draft report on connected TV. Brussels: European Parliament.Google Scholar
  17. Consiglio, K. (2014). Areo and FilmOn: Technology’s latest copyright war and why Aereo should survive? Washington and Lee Law Review, 71(4), 2557–2607.Google Scholar
  18. Donders, K. (2012). Public service media and policy in Europe. Bastingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Donders, K., & Lamensch, M. (2010). The introduction of a tax-and-fund system to subsidise public television in France: Cultural revolution or legal swamp? Journal of Media Law, 2(2), 227–244.Google Scholar
  20. Dumon, P., & Debackere, J. (2013, April 19). Telenet en Belgacom hebben ons weggegeven. De Morgen.Google Scholar
  21. Econopolis. (2016). Doorlichting van het Vlaams audiovisueel beleid. Brussel: Econopolis.Google Scholar
  22. European Commission (2016a). Commission staff working document: Executive summary of the evaluation of the Council Directive 93/83/EEC on the coordination of certain rules concerning copyright and rights related to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission, 14 September, SWD(2016) 309 final.Google Scholar
  23. European Commission (2016b). Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down rules on the exercise of copyright and related rights applicable to certain online transmissions of broadcasting organisations and retransmissions of television and radio programmes, 14 September, COM(2016) 594 final.Google Scholar
  24. European Parliament and Council. (2002). DIRECTIVE 2002/22/EC on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive), OJ L108/51.Google Scholar
  25. Evens, T. (2013). The political economy of retransmission payments and cable rights fees: Implications for private television companies. In K. Donders, C. Pauwels, & J. Loisen (Eds.), Private television in Western Europe: Content, markets, policies (pp. 182–196). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Evens, T., & Donders, K. (2016). Mergers and acquisitions in TV broadcasting and distribution: Challenges for competition, industrial and media policy. Telematics and Informatics, 33(2), 674–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Foong, C. (2015). Making copyright content available in the cloud vs the making of copies: Revisiting optus TV and Aereo. Monash University Law Review, 41(3), 583–617.Google Scholar
  28. Fraser, A. (2014). Television à la carte: American Broadcasting Cos. V. Aereo and how federal courts’ interpretations of copyright law are impacting the future of the medium. Boston University Journal of Science & Technology Law, 20(1), 132–158.Google Scholar
  29. Friedlaender, D. (2017). We are all in this together: Territoriality and European copyright reform. Paper presented at the Private Television Conference, June 8, Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
  30. Gakowski, T. (2016). The challenge of delocalized channels: Transfronter television in Poland (characteristics, typology and content). International Journal of Communication, 10, 1833–1859.Google Scholar
  31. Giblin, R., & Ginsbourg, J. C. (2014). We need to talk about Aereo: Copyright-avoiding business models, cloud storage and a principled reading of the “Transmit” clause. Available at:
  32. Harcourt, A. (2004). Institution-driven competition: The regulation of cross-border broadcasting in the EU (EUI Working Papers No. 2004/44). Florence.Google Scholar
  33. Haucup, J., & Heimeshoff, U. (2014). Google, Facebook, Amazon, eBay: Is the internet driving competition or market monopolization? International Economics and Economic Policy, 11(1–2), 49–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hazlett, T. W., & Spitzer, M. L. (1997). Public policy toward cable television: The economics of rate controls. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  35. Helberger, N., Pierson, J., & Poell, T. (2018). From contested to cooperative responsibility: Online platforms and public values. The Information Society, 34(1), 1–14.Google Scholar
  36. Hobbs, R. B., Jr. (1986). Cable TV’s must-carry rules: The most restrictive alternative—Quincy cable TV, Inc. v. FCC. Campbell Law Review, 8(2), 339–359.Google Scholar
  37. Hugenholtz, B. P. (2009). SatCab revisited: The past, present and future of the satellite and cable directive. IRIS Plus, 8, 7–19.Google Scholar
  38. Hugenholtz, B. P. (2015). Extending the SatCab model to the internet. Brussels: BEUC.Google Scholar
  39. Kevin, D., & Schneeberger, A. (2015). Access to TV platforms: Must-carry rules, and access to free-DTT. Strasbourg: European Audiovisual Observatory.Google Scholar
  40. Larkin, M. (2014). The demise of the copyright act in the digital realm: Re-engineering digital delivery models to circumvent copyright liability after Aereo. Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts, 37(3), 405–441.Google Scholar
  41. Leblanc, D. (2017, June 14). Liberal MPs to call for broadband internet tax to fund Canadian media. Available at: (August 30, 2017).
  42. Levine, L. S. (1978). The regulation of cable television subscriber rates by state commissions. Cambridge, MA: Kalba Bowen Associates.Google Scholar
  43. Liebesman, Y. J. (2015). When does copyright law require technology blindness? Aiken meets Aereo. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 30(2), 1383–1450.Google Scholar
  44. News, C. (2015, March 19). CRTC rules cable companies must offer pick-and-pay channels, $25 basic package. Available at: (August 26, 2017).
  45. Patel, R. (2015). The legal lag behind emerging technology: Aereo—Innovation or exploit? Available at:
  46. Pauwels, C., & Donders, K. (2013). Opening up Europe to private television—Harmonisation and liberalisation for the benefit of all? In K. Donders, C. Pauwels, & J. Loisen (Eds.), Private television in Western Europe: Content, markets, policies (pp. 30–36). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  47. Picard, R. G., Davies, C. H., Papandrea, F., & Park, S. (2016). Platform proliferation and its implications for domestic content policies. Telematics and Informatics, 33(4), 683–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pilon, R. (1994). A modest proposal on must-carry, the 1992 Cable Act, and regulation generally: Go back to basics. Communications and Entertainment Law Journal, 17, 41–63.Google Scholar
  49. Raad van State. (2012). Advies. Stuk 1703(2011–2012)—Nr. 2. Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
  50. Samuelson, P. (2014). Legally speaking: Watching TV on internet-connected devices. Communications of the ACM, 57(7), 22–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Saylor, D. J. (1986). Municipal ripoff: The unconstitutionality of cable television Franchise fees and access support payments. Catholic University Law Review, 35(3), 671–704.Google Scholar
  52. Scalia, J. (2014). Dissenting Supreme Court of the United States, no. 13–461, 573 U.S. Available at:
  53. Schildermans, L. (2013, September 4). Een nieuwe benadering van televisiekijken. Available at: (September 5, 2017).
  54. Schildermans, L. (2014, July 23). App om altijd en overal mobiel tv te kijken. Available at: (September 6, 2017).
  55. Schooneknaep, I., & Donders, K. (2016, March 30). Inside the digital single market. Available at: (August 28, 2017).
  56. Steele, E. (2014, June 29). After Supreme Court ruling, Aereo’s rivals in TV streaming seize opening. Available at: (September 4, 2017).
  57. Supreme Court of the United States. (2014). American Broadcasting Cos. V. Aereo, Inc., No. 13-461. Available at:
  58. Tibau, F. (2013, July 19). 6 miljoen voor right brain interface. Available at: (September 5, 2017).
  59. Ungerer, H. (1998). Telecoms pricing policies and their effect on the European internet. Speech delivered at the EUROISPA Conference, June 4, Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
  60. Valcke, P. (2005). The future of must carry: From must carry to a concept of universal service in the info-communications sector. IRIS Special, 15(2), 31–45.Google Scholar
  61. Van den Bulck, H., & Donders, K. (2014). Pitfalls and obstacles of media policy making in an age of digital convergence: The flemish signal integrity case. Journal of Information Policy, 4, 444–462.Google Scholar
  62. Van Leemputten, P. (2013, November 25). Cloudrecorder Bhaalu lanceert met tegenwind van zenders. Available at: (September 4, 2017).
  63. Van Leemputten, P. (2014a, November 4). Bhaalu verliest van TV-zenders. Available at:
  64. Van Leemputten, P. (2014b, July 8). Bhaalu wint rechtszaak, cloud-videorecorder blijft legaal. Available at:
  65. Vlessing, E. (2014, July 3). Netflix warns regulator not to tax Canadian streaming service. Available at: (August 26, 2017).
  66. Weiss, C. A. (2016). Available to all, produced by a few: The economic and cultural impact of Europe’s digital single market strategy within the audiovisual industry. Columbia Business Law Review, 3, 877–923.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.imec-mict, Department of Communication SciencesGhent UniversityGhentBelgium
  2. 2.imec-SMIT, Department of Communication SciencesFree University of BrusselsBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations