Carsten Brosda and Wolfgang Schulz presented in this paper a proposal for a communication policy Agenda. They describe the fundamental changes in the formation of public opinion and the resulting challenges to the regulation of the media. They represent the weaknesses of the currently decentralized work structures, both in the countries as well as the media institutions. A consequence of the requirement for a new regulator, without the “the smartest state contracts comparatively little benefit is”. A concrete proposal you will not make.
A media Institute of the Länder is required for a long time, so far without success. You would also be useless, if you would be built after the model of the previous land media authorities, with a decision-making body of volunteers and a single governing Administration. The model dates back to the eighties of the last century and a very different media landscape.
not, it would be difficult to develop an Alternative that could play in the challenges by Intermediaries like Google and Facebook have an important role. One of the main operating decision-making body, with a quorum as in the case of the decision chambers of the Federal cartel office, but also in most of the international media regulators, could be officially by the Central working structures are supported. In the part-time and part-time use, as is currently the case for countries and broadcasters to develop no counter-weight to the actors of the Internet age. Also in the case of part-time experts occupied concentration control Commission, it is no wonder that the media landscape would look different if it had never existed. If the monopolies Commission, individual antitrust cases would have to decide, would not work.
it is To be hoped that the countries agree on the location and occupation of the College to the new Institution. You might even call it a media Agency, in order to make the departure from the previous institution model. The civil society could be involved, using the experience of the Internet, but not in the forms of the classical broadcasting world, in the bodies of the media organisations once had the task to promote the acceptance of private broadcasting and to limit the direct state influence.
The previous media institutions may perceive regional tasks still. But there is now a clean separation between regulation and promotion, as is the case with other regulators a long time, of course. That the regulator promotes the monitored industry, with pecuniary advantages, was due to the site policy in the initial phase of private radio, as frequencies had a value, and the digitisation of broadcasting transmission paths, which are now being replaced more and more by the Internet. The promotion of regional providers, and the media literacy also has a lot of sense, but look at the new Institution.
The lion’s share of the approximately 150 million euros, which will be diverted from the broadcasting contribution fee for the media companies, could remain with the regional institutions and for the promotion of the tasks related to the developed countries. For an efficient regulation and an accompanying basis of research, ten to twenty percent range, so one to two per thousand of the total radio contribution.
