2007/258/EC: Commission Decision of 20 December 2006 on the measure No C 24/2004 ... (32007D0258)
INHALT
2007/258/EC: Commission Decision of 20 December 2006 on the measure No C 24/2004 (ex NN 35/2004) implemented by Sweden for the introduction of digital terrestrial television (notified under document number C(2006) 6923) (Text with EEA relevance )
- COMMISSION DECISION
- of 20 December 2006
- on the measure No C 24/2004 (ex NN 35/2004) implemented by Sweden for the introduction of digital terrestrial television
- (notified under document number C(2006) 6923)
- (Only the Swedish version is authentic)
- (Text with EEA relevance)
- (2007/258/EC)
- 1. PROCEDURE
- 2. BACKGROUND
- 3. RELEVANT COMPANIES
- 3.1. Companies involved in the development of the digital terrestrial platform in Sweden
- 3.1.1. Teracom
- 3.1.2. Boxer
- 3.1.3. SVT
- 3.1.4. Utbildningsradion (‘UR’)
- 3.2. Complainants
- 3.2.1. NSAB
- 3.2.2. Viasat
- 4. TELEVISION BROADCASTING
- 4.1. Television broadcasting platforms in Sweden
- Figure 1:
- Actual household TV reception in Sweden in 2006
- 4.2. The development of digital terrestrial television in Sweden
- Figure 2:
- Development of digital platforms in Sweden (2000-05)
- 4.2.1. Transmission via the digital terrestrial network in Sweden
- 4.2.2. The marketing of the digital terrestrial network to consumers
- 4.3. Swedish public service television and its funding
- 4.4. Public service broadcasting in the terrestrial network: SVT's payments to Teracom for transmission services
- 5. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE ALLEGED AID MEASURES
- 5.1. SVT's transmission fee payments to Teracom
- 5.2. The State guarantee issued in favour of Teracom
- 5.3. The capital injection
- 5.4. Reasons for initiating the formal investigation procedure
- 6. COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES
- 6.1. B2 Bredband AB (‘B2’)
- 6.2. ECCA
- 6.3. ESOA
- 6.4. NSAB
- 6.5. Telenor Broadcast
- 6.6. TeliaSonera
- 6.7. UGC
- 6.8. Viasat
- 7. COMMENTS FROM SWEDEN
- 7.1. SVT's allegedly excessive transmission fee payments to Teracom
- 7.2. The alleged credit guarantee issued in favour of Teracom
- 7.3. Capital injection
- 8. ASSESSMENT OF THE ALLEGED AID MEASURES
- 8.1 SVT's transmission fee payments to Teracom
- 8.1.1. Economic advantage
- 8.2. The State guarantee
- 8.3. The capital injection
- Figure 3:
- Development of Teracom's actual profits from 1998 to 2005
- 9. CONCLUSION
- Article 1
- Article 2
Feedback