The draft Audiovisual Media Services (AMS) Directive, published in December 2005, was met with some alarm. It sought to extend the existing 'Television without Frontiers' Directive to new services which were seen to be competing for audience and revenue. In doing so it would have introduced inappropriate regulation on the new media sector. There have now been some changes to the original draft and a tightening of the definition of "television like" services. Although an improvement, the Committee is concerned that there is still not enough legal certainty. They are also worried about the need to defend the 'Country of Origin' approach to single market legislation and reject the idea that regulators should act to preserve the market dominance of existing players from new entrants. They are also unconvinced of the need for any quantitative restriction on advertising.

The current ongoing revision of the EC's Television without Frontiers (TVwF) Directive clearly raises major questions for the future of the regulation of linear and non-linear services. However, it also gives rise to reflection concerning the Council of Europe's European Convention on Transfrontier Television (ECTT), a parallel regulatory instrument concerning cross-border broadcasting. At a time of major transformation of the European legal instruments which are applied to broadcasting and new audiovisual services, this new report from the European Audiovisual Observatory takes stock of recent and current problem areas in broadcasting regulation in the light of the challenges these will raise for the new extended regulation. The report analyses issues of the practical application of the TVwF Directive and the ECTT in their current form. It also raises the question of the future cohabitation of the two instruments following the completed revision of the TVwF Directive, not forgetting that there will clearly be a period where the two instruments will be "out of phase" with each other.

This paper presents a critical analysis of the proposal for the amended Television without Frontiers Directive (the draft Audiovisual Media Services Directive). The following is argued in the paper: a) The revision lacks consistency from a regulatory point of view by using the artificial distinction between 'linear' and 'non-linear' services. Although based on jurisprudence from the European Court of Justice, there is no need to convert this jurisprudence into regulation. b) The directive introduces a wide range of new rules which are applicable to audiovisual services on the internet. It's not less regulation, but more. c) The proposed harmonisation of the content regulation seriously conflicts with standard jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. In its jurisprudence, the Court gives a substantial margin of appreciation to member states for the regulation of content (limiting the possibilities for fully-fledged harmonisation). d) The introduction of new regulation for non-linear services cannot be based on the lack of a transfrontier market. It's an attempt to regulate the internet (aka 'nonlinear' services) and will have an adverse effect on the creation of a common market. The paper is still a draft. Certain topics raised require additional research and are not discussed in full detail. The notes and references also need to be supplemented further.

Since 1982 the European Parliament has been urging the European Commission to introduce a discussion paper on the creation of a common market in radio and TV in the Community that meets the new functions of direct broadcasting by satellite (DBS) and cable television.