The debate over the audiovisual market has returned to the spotlight after the Audiovisual Media Authority publicly rejected the Democratic Party’s accusations of pressure on cable operators and distortion of competition. In AMA’s official version, the problem does not affect dozens of operators, but only five entities that have still not finalized commercial agreements with the rights holders.
AMA-PD clash over the cable market
The Democratic Party had raised concerns over what it described as monopolization of the audiovisual market through changes to contractual terms, price increases and signal cutoffs for cable operators.
AMA responded by rejecting that interpretation, saying the figures presented by the opposition do not reflect the full situation in the market. According to the institution, of the 84 entities authorized for the retransmission of audiovisual services, 79 have reached agreements with DigitAlb and Tring, while five others have not.
What AMA claims about the five entities without agreements
In its statement, AMA argues that the lack of agreements for these five entities proves neither institutional inaction nor restriction of competition.
The institution adds that three of these five entities were found and fined for television piracy, while another, according to the statement, is administered by the Agency for the Administration of Seized and Confiscated Assets. These are the elements on which AMA bases its defense against the political accusations.
Competition or piracy?
AMA insists that protecting competition cannot, in its view, be used to relativize piracy. This is the core of the institution’s response to the opposition, which had denounced pressure on operators.
However, the official reaction mainly defends the way the institution has handled the issue and does not necessarily provide a full answer to the political concern over market concentration and the weight carried by the main rights holders in relation to smaller operators.
Extended deadlines and the official market version
According to AMA, communications with DigitAlb and Tring show that the deadline for commercial agreements with retransmission entities has been extended until July 31, 2026.
Under the same official version, the agreement with 79 entities shows that there is not a sufficient basis to prove restriction of competition. In essence, the institution seeks to present the debate as an issue of respecting broadcasting rights rather than a problem with how the market functions.
At the end of its response, AMA shifts the focus to the consumer, arguing that competition should also be measured by the quality of the product, choice and the legality of the content offered to the public.
But beyond this argument, the question remains open as to whether the audiovisual market operates under equal rules for all operators, or whether the debate over piracy is also being used as a shield to avoid discussion of real market concentration.