The digital transformation has set in motion far-reaching processes of change in society and has also brought fundamental changes to the media and communication sector. With the internet and the principles of networking, a new digital infrastructure developed which created a paradigmatic new ecosystem for social as well as individual information and communication processes. In this global network, which promised egalitarian communication and interaction for all, new players have since emerged as dominant platforms that dominate the game of power and have become central hubs not only of communication but also of its economization and marketing. The large social media platforms in particular set new communication and interaction processes in motion that enable changed forms of participation and create new public spheres, as well as driving forward tendencies of polarization and radicalization. Dynamics of datafication, a newly developing "surveillance capitalism" (cf. Zuboff) or, more recently, the integration of AI for searching, controlling, and also producing content represent additional challenges of development. Classical media are now faced with the challenge of having to adapt to the new framework conditions and implement sensible transformation processes

in line with their mandate. For public service broadcasting, this means that it

must develop from a one-to-many medium of classical character (in the sense

of a "broadcaster") to a platform of digital information and communication

offerings (in the sense of a network).
The central idea is to create a "Public Value" for society in the digital network

as well. The further development of the added value of public broadcasters

for the network society (cf. Castells) could consequently be described as the

"public network value", within the framework of which not only the recognized,

previously valid quality features represent the basis for all offers, but new quality

features - adapted to the changing framework conditions - must be developed

based on them (cf. Steinmaurer/Wenzel 2015).

In view of the fact that communication processes in digital networks are

becoming increasingly opaque and unclear and manipulation and falsification

of content are constantly on the rise, there is a need to secure quality providers

in the network who not only stand for reliable content but can also develop new

digital formats at a technically high-quality level. They should therefore be able

to offer innovative digital services that are clearly distinguishable from purely

economically oriented applications and create added value for society. For it

is precisely in the digital ecosystem that public service providers must aim to

distinguish themselves not only through the quality of their content offerings,

but also through their network innovations. The Public Network Value to be

achieved should be oriented towards the ratio of social participation, digital

inclusion, and social integration in the sense of establishing a public open space.

Based on the idea of the digital commons, the goal of the development of new network offerings must logically be oriented towards the vanishing point of a

public (network) value and not - as is the case with large platforms worldwide -

a shareholder value.
Regarding the design of digital innovations, which in sum could constitute

a Public Network Value, it should be about creating forms of easy access to

offers, improving the visibility of services and using central functions of the

digital networks. This addresses potentials that aim at intensifying interactive

communication and interaction with the audience. In order to achieve such

network qualities, corresponding efforts are required on the part of providers

in order to make quality-driven content offers for the context of digital ecosystems.

Especially in times of uncertain information quality on the net, in

which fake news and conspiracy theories can quickly spread, it is crucial that

quality-oriented media platforms (can) become fact-oriented clearing houses

for "digital content". This includes tasks such as the increasingly necessary

validation and contextualization of content on a journalistic level. But it also

includes cooperation with other quality providers from the field of traditional

media, as has already been realized in the first steps in the case of research

networks. On a structural-technical level, quality-driven providers and platforms

should be established in the network, as well as networks and links that create

added value for public network values. This could include links, for example

to platforms of the EBU or public archives as well as information hubs from

libraries or web providers such as Wikipedia. These forms of active networking

could strengthen public broadcasters in consolidating their identity as quality

nodes in the network. And one of the quality features of PSM should be to make

their archives accessible in an advanced, i. e., journalistically curated form,

since this often makes it possible to access culturally and socially relevant

content. Other dimensions of Public Network Value also include aspects that

aim to develop appropriate formats that inform the public about the possibilities

and opportunities, but also the risks and dangers of using digital services

and the significance of digitalisation for society in general. Just as innovative

offers need to be developed on the provider side, it must also be ensured that

the users of digital infrastructures also have the corresponding competences

and "digital skills" to be able to move around the internet not only as passive

consumers, but as actively participating citizens (cf. Digital Skills). In sum,

the concept of Public Network Value is characterised by proposing a model

for the further development of the classic Public Value Model for the further

development of PSM for its digital transformation. The center of both innovation

directions must be the claim for public service providers to secure and

guarantee the quality standards defined for them. For it is precisely because of

the challenges currently presented in the digital networks that it is to be seen

as a democratic task for society to afford the development of quality-driven

network platforms in the sense of "public service networks". In this way, an

alternative and a counterpart to globally operating platforms can be created,

which is based on the target values of the social common good and the safeguarding of a democratic public sphere. The conceptual lines of development

thus addressed are to be seen against the background of a respective national

media policy, which is called upon to meet the challenges of digitalisation. The aim should be to secure structures of diversity and a plural public sphere, as

well as to strengthen providers who focus on the creation of information and

communication qualities that are necessary for democratic policy as well as

network innovations that are oriented towards the common good.

In addition to market-oriented considerations, media policy must therefore

also be concerned with the quality assurance of social communication

infrastructures, especially in the context of digital framework conditions. In

view of the perspectives mentioned above, which must be considered for the

development of a quality and democracy-oriented media and communication

infrastructure, the protection of a public service provider per se can be considered

a measure of quality assurance in the context of a diverse provider

structure. Especially in the context of digitalisation and the associated "new

structural change of the public sphere" (cf. Habermas), the idea of establishing

more "public service" network providers - however these may be designed - is

therefore discussed and demanded (cf. Internet Manifesto), and not without

good reason, against the backdrop of a commercialisation and economisation

of the internet that is taking hold worldwide. In this context, it is not only important

to constantly check the quality of their journalistic productions from

different perspectives - also in the sense of regulated self-regulation - and to

correct them if necessary. In the future, it will also be necessary to evaluate

and assess the quality of their digital innovation and development perspectives

under the aspect of their contribution to a democratic communication culture.

This will also have to be done in accordance with the currently (respectively)

valid European legal provisions on state aid, which also focus on the need for

public service providers to comply with a genuine public service mandate.

Against this background, it will be crucial to consider which digital services or

forms of offerings of a meritocratic nature are required to create an explicit

democratic added value.

Regarding possible paths of further development from Public Service Media

to public service networks or digital platforms for society, it will also be

necessary to define which quality features are (or can be) expected or must be

provided from such a newly defined provider. What forms of networking and

cooperation with other quality providers or non-commercial platforms on the

net should be developed, both nationally and at the European or international

level? With which activities can Public Service Media providers in the digital

network succeed in ensuring their public network value as a "return on society"?

And when it comes to thinking about how to implement quality assurance

measures for the further development of the digital transformation, there are

different approaches to choose from. In addition to the instruments that have

already been tried and tested, it will be important to find forms of flexible

and adaptive quality assurance, as specific needs always arise anew. While

problems caused by fake news, deep fakes or conspiracy theories were and

are still being addressed by certain measures - such as fact checking - new

challenges arise very quickly because of digital innovation cycles, as we are

currently observing in the field of artificial intelligence. Quality-driven providers

also must react to this with their possibilities and find answers to any critical

or questionable developments. In this respect, quality development for the context of digital framework conditions must therefore also be understood as a flexible development path. If one finally understands the development steps of the digital transformation through PSM as dimensions within the framework of the creation of a public network value, such a model can generally be understood as a Quality Assurance System for digital ecosystems. For it has the goal - following the model

of the "digital commons" - to create social added value within digital networks,

to develop qualities as an alternative to purely data-economic models and to

aim at strengthening "digital citizenship". It is not without reason that we are

already finding various concepts and initiatives at the European level to build

alternatives to globally active players. Even if such efforts are very belated

and, precisely because of their non-commercial orientation, cannot in any way

contest the position of the large global platforms, it is necessary in terms of

democratic policy to create quality nodes and quality-driven networks with

added value for society. For the safeguarding of a communicative infrastructure

that is committed to the target values of a functioning democratic public

sphere and can make an important contribution to the quality assurance of

information and communication is to be regarded as a central task for the

network society in terms of democratic policy.