TH
I think it's more a case where the ORTF breakup was a necessity back in the 70s but that the market changed over the next few years (launch of new channels, sale of TF1) so that it made sense to merge Antenne 2 and FR3 again.
Imagine if back in the 70s there had never been an ITV, only BBC 1, 2 and 3. The existence of ITV was a huge factor in the BBC becoming as great as it was. Without it, the BBC could have grown dull and complacent after decades without competition. In France, there was also a problem where the ORTF was seen as speaking as one voice, more state broadcaster than journalism, and that the institution was marinated in gaullism, like all other aspects of the French government.
If the BBC was a monopoly in the 70s, there would have been (stronger) calls to break it up (like France or Germany) or make arrangements for pluralism within the BBC (like Sweden or Italy). In the 80s, the BBC would probably have had one of its three channels revoked and sold to the highest bidder.
The sale of TF1 and the launches of Canal+, La Cinq and M6 changed the market completely so that the viewing share for government-owned channels shrunk from almost 100 percent in 1975 to about 35 percent in 1989. They were no longer as dominant as they once were and a merger was less problematic.
Channel 4's ad funding predates the TV2 state aid rulings, so they are unlikely to be related. Channel 4 is funded by ads because they can operate sufficiently with that as their main revenue stream and subsequent governments have been satisfied with that.
The entire state aid thing for TV2 makes little sense to me and there have apparently been some rulings in favour of TV2. There have also been multiple charges and multiple cases, possibly being decided in different directions, so its hard to get an overview of the matter.
European Equivalents of Legacy (ex-analogue) UK channels
Re France, it’s the one of the only countries I think in the western world to privatise a major PSB (TF1) Also one of the few to have a terrestrial pay-TV broadcaster in the analogue era. I think we’ve said before about how breaking up ORTF seems to have been something they regretted ever since which is why France Televisions came about.
I think it's more a case where the ORTF breakup was a necessity back in the 70s but that the market changed over the next few years (launch of new channels, sale of TF1) so that it made sense to merge Antenne 2 and FR3 again.
Imagine if back in the 70s there had never been an ITV, only BBC 1, 2 and 3. The existence of ITV was a huge factor in the BBC becoming as great as it was. Without it, the BBC could have grown dull and complacent after decades without competition. In France, there was also a problem where the ORTF was seen as speaking as one voice, more state broadcaster than journalism, and that the institution was marinated in gaullism, like all other aspects of the French government.
If the BBC was a monopoly in the 70s, there would have been (stronger) calls to break it up (like France or Germany) or make arrangements for pluralism within the BBC (like Sweden or Italy). In the 80s, the BBC would probably have had one of its three channels revoked and sold to the highest bidder.
The sale of TF1 and the launches of Canal+, La Cinq and M6 changed the market completely so that the viewing share for government-owned channels shrunk from almost 100 percent in 1975 to about 35 percent in 1989. They were no longer as dominant as they once were and a merger was less problematic.
Is this illegal state aid thing why Channel 4 is funded entirely by ads?
Channel 4's ad funding predates the TV2 state aid rulings, so they are unlikely to be related. Channel 4 is funded by ads because they can operate sufficiently with that as their main revenue stream and subsequent governments have been satisfied with that.
The entire state aid thing for TV2 makes little sense to me and there have apparently been some rulings in favour of TV2. There have also been multiple charges and multiple cases, possibly being decided in different directions, so its hard to get an overview of the matter.