In "Television: Technology and Cultural Form," Williams describes and critics, historically, the ambiguous role of the State in capitalist societies, in matters of communication systems. He also reveals the complicated relationship between the State and the corporate and economic interests. Comparing the history of British and American broadcasting systems, Williams points out the problems of controlling and financing the production and distribution of technology (apparatus for transmission and reception) and content (programs). Initially, since the State could not deal with all the material costs, the commercial and industrial powers (manufacturers, corporations, networks, advertising) ended having more power for determining the shape of broadcasting institutions. In a second stage, after 1950s, the USA government gained power by joining a complex military, political, and industrial communication system that operated globally and was able to "penetrate the broadcasting systems of all other available states."(34) This power, facilitated the expansion of the broadcasted corporations and the international commercial advertising. As a result, there has been a global commercialization of television. Although Williams is aware of the confusing role of the State in capitalist societies representing the "public interest" and avoiding interfering in the market, he also seems to claim, towards the end of his book, for a more democratic, autonomous, and truly independent role. Almost in a utopian way, Williams imagines a different kind of broadcasting, more democratic and local, more interactive and creative, where public and community service replace the capitalist commercial interest. Perhaps we can say that the appropriate role of the State will be to foster this kind of alternative communication systems. Since the State does not have the economic power to finance and control Capital accumulation ends limiting the power of the State for explains the limits of the power of the State with respect to broadcasting. For h