-------- Original Message --------
Subject: CPBF response - Ofcom second PSB Review
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 10:52:42 -0000
From: Thomas Patrick O'Malley [tpo] <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: Thomas Patrick O'Malley [tpo] <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
*_The Response of the Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom to
‘Ofcom’s Second Public Service Broadcasting Review Phase Two: Preparing
for the digital future’ published: September 2008. _*
_ _
1. The Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom is an independent
organisation funded by its membership which links people working inside
and outside the media. It works to improve diversity and accountability
in the media and has campaigned since 1979 on a range of issues
including ownership and control, censorship, public service broadcasting
and media standards. For further details: www.cpbf.org.uk
<http://www.cpbf.org.uk>
*_The Ofcom Review_.*
2. We welcome the opportunity to respond to the Ofcom document. In
particular we reiterate our agreement with Ofcom’s recognition that
there is a case for continued and increased public intervention to
sustain and develop public service content across existing and
developing forms of delivery. This is a position that the Campaign has
argued for many years.
3. We also welcome the fact that Ofcom has published evidence of
substantial public support for public service broadcasting. For example
Ofcom’s research continues to show the depth of public support for the
maintenance of public service broadcasting[1] <#_ftn1>. This response is
organised around the consultation questions which Ofcom has raised.
_ _
*_Consultation questions_*
*4. Do you agree that public service provision and funding beyond the
BBC is an*
*important part of any future system?*
* *
4[a] Public service broadcasting has, since the introduction of
commercial television in 1954, always extended beyond the BBC to include
commercial provision of public service broadcasting. We consider that
one purpose of policy should be to extend the amount, range and quality
of public service communications across the sector, including the BBC
and all major providers of commercial communications services.
4[b] Consequently, one function Ofcom is to consider measures which can
both sustain existing provision and extend it to major players in
digital broadcasting and on the internet. Currently Ofcom is overseeing
a strategy which points in the opposite direction. That is, Ofcom is
allowing ITV plc to retreat from significant elements of its public
service remit, and is also not developing policies to ensure that major
providers like Sky, have to spend significant amounts of money on
original production. In so far as Ofcom has limited powers in this area
it should be pressing the government to devise instruments that would
allow it to take a more pro-active role in promoting public service
broadcasting across all sectors.
* *
* *
* *
*5*. *Which of the three refined models do you think is most appropriate?*
5[a] The Campaign considers that the current array of commercial and
non-commercial broadcasters should remain in place. ITVplc should be
required to restore the cuts it has made in key areas, such as news and
current affairs, children’s programmes, drama, and non-news programmes
for the nations and regions. If it is reluctant to do this, then steps
should be taken by Ofcom to penalise it. It is important to recognise
that ITV is positioning itself to make a considerable amount of money
using its brand in the new age of digital broadcasting. Ofcom should not
be in the business of allowing ITV to ditch its obligations in a manner
which suggests the regulator is keen to aid the board room strategy of
one of companies it is meant to supervise.
5[b] A whole raft of measures can be used, many of which are outlined in
this Ofcom document, to sustain and bolster public service commercial
communications. Where public money is needed to sustain particular
services, such as Channel 4, or additional services for the nations and
regions, then this should come in the form of loans repayable out of
revenues over a long period. This could take the form of loans being
subject to repayment once the company receiving the loans have achieved
an agreed level of profitability or of income, which ever is deemed the
most appropriate. In the case of Channel 4 this would be similar to the
system of funding which supported it in its early years.
5[c] There should be no spectrum sales. Leasing spectrum is one option
as long as the money is used to fund public service broadcasting content.
5[d] There should not be any top slicing of the BBC. The recent debates
about using the digital dividend, delivered in the BBC licence fee
settlement of 2006, for the future funding of commercial broadcasters is
misguided. It will open the door to more demands on the licence fee from
the commercial sector. Leaving that sum with the BBC would enable the
licence fee to be kept at a lower level than it might otherwise be.
5[e] If the government wishes to fund the expansion of public service
broadcasting beyond the BBC it can begin to look at measures to make the
companies that own satellite and cable channels pay for the production
of public service content. Once companies reach a certain level of
audience and profitability, and given that that success is built on the
loose regulatory framework gifted by the government as well as access to
homes in the UK, then the government should insist that commercial
satellite and cable companies fund high quality public service provision
across all platforms. Ofcom’s focus on the BBC and existing commercial
public service broadcasters has always been too narrow.
5[f] Levies are another option. In one form or another they have always
played a part in developing UK broadcasting. The Independent
Broadcasting Authority which ran commercial radio in the UK in its early
years used a system of ‘secondary rental’, which was in effect a levy on
successful radio contractors, to fund developments of public service
commercial radio. Channel 4 was originally funded by a levy on ITV
contractors, repaid by allowing ITV companies to sell advertising. So,
using a levy, properly structured, is a tried and tested method of
ensuring the development of public service broadcasting in the UK and
should now be given serious consideration by the government.
5[g] In practical terms we recommend that Ofcom takes a far more robust
attitude to the failures of ITV; that there be government funds made
available to fund and support Channels 4 and 5; that there be no top
slicing; and that the legislation be altered to allow change in the
nature of Ofcom so that it has the remit to promote public service
across the communications sector, pro-actively, by having powers to make
commercial contractors spend on public service broadcasting and where
appropriate, to use levies to promote that end.
*6. Do you agree that in any future model Channel 4 should have an
extended remit to innovate and provide distinctive UK content across
platforms? If so,*
*should it receive additional funding directly, or should it have to
compete for*
*funding?*
6[a] Yes, Channel 4 should have funding, directly from the government to
innovate and provide distinctive UK content across all platforms. But it
should not have to get this through competitive funding. In the public
sector it is arguable that competitive funding has proven wasteful of
public resources and has shifted money from where it should be, in the
service of the public, to the accounts of private shareholders. It is a
wasteful and time-consuming activity and is not a fair or appropriate
way of disposing of public funds. A loan system, as outlined in 5[b] or
the use of a levy 5[f], are ways of aiding Channel 4 through its current
difficulties.
*7. Do you think ITV1, Five and Teletext should continue to have public
service*
*obligations after 2014? *
* *
7 [a] Yes. If these companies cannot pay for these out of revenue, then
there could be limited loans to aid them do this. But if this is not
possible, they should relinquish their contracts and these should be
re-advertised.
* *
*8. Where ITV1 has an ongoing role, do you agree that the Channel 3
licensing structure should be simplified, if so what form of licensing
would be most appropriate?*
* *
8[a] ITV is, in effect, one network in England and Wales. There would no
harm in restructuring the licence in the future to acknowledge this, but
it should go hand in hand with a strengthening of the obligations of the
contractor to provide a range of programmes calculated to appeal to the
tastes and interests of people in different areas of the UK. It is not
the structure of the licence that is the issue; it is the obligations
that the licence imposes, the willingness of the holders to adhere to
those obligations, and the independence and robustness of the regulator.
At present all three of these conditions are not properly operational.
*9. What role should competition for funding play in future? In which
areas of*
*content? What comments do you have on our description of how this might*
*work in practice?*
* *
9[a] Although the arrival of the independent sector ( a form of
competition for funding ) after the changes of the mid-1980s led to some
diversity in terms of the production base and programming, this
situation has rapidly changed. As many predicted in the 1980s the
pressures exerted by the growth of independents would be to push down
standards of employment and training and lead to concentration in the
sector. The competitive ethos that has driven this change and the
general changes in UK TV has led to the stripping away of key elements
from UK TV (original prime time drama, current affairs at prime time,
children’s programmes). It has stripped the BBC of key resources and
personnel, and seen the transfer of public money to individuals who have
become very rich as a result.
9[b] It seems odd then that given the dire consequences that have flowed
from the increase in competition for funding that Ofcom should be
pushing this. We do not need more competitive funding; we need Ofcom to
take stock of just how damaging competition in public services has been
to date.
* *
*10.* *Do you agree with our findings that nations and regions news
continues to*
*have an important role and that additional funding should be provided to*
*sustain it*?
10[a] It has long been known that programming in the nations and regions
(non-news as well as news) is important. This kind of programming will
only continue if Ofcom takes a much more robust and independently minded
approach to the regulation of ITV. The problem has, of course, economic
dimensions. But these are negligible compared with the problem of
Ofcom’s role in overseeing ITV’s retreat from these areas. Additional
funding should be provided if needs be, but only in the form of loans to
ITV in the short term.
*11. Which of the three refined models do you think is most appropriate
in the*
*devolved nations?*
* *
11[a] Existing support for programming in these areas must continue.
This means ensuring that the BBC is able to deliver as well as the ITV
companies. S4C and Gaelic TV need to be supported.
11[b] Our recommendations in section 5 above apply here. In addition we
consider that the recent interventions by the Scottish Parliament and
the National Assembly for Wales, point to the need for greater
devolution of powers over broadcasting and communications to the elected
assemblies.
*12. Do you agree with our assessment of each possible funding source,
in terms*
*of its scale, advantages and disadvantages?*
* *
12[a] Our concern is that the /direction/ of Ofcom’s approach is to let
the main commercial providers (ITV, Sky etc) off the hook, whilst
putting pressure on the licence fee.
12[b] Public service communications needs to be funded out of public
funds, licence fees, regulatory assets, spectrum leasing and the
revenues of commercial operators. The question of whether public funding
will have a detrimental effect on editorial independence is to some
extent misplaced. It ignores the extent to which private funding
influences editorial choices (we have seen this amply with the reduction
of children’s TV programmes). It also downplays the way existing
mechanisms do foster editorial independence in S4C and the BBC, and the
ways they can be improved.
*_Conclusion_*
13. We are concerned that the changes in ITV’s provision of news and
other services, have occurred in the way and at the pace they have,
because Ofcom has allowed this to happen. If we see a weakening of the
BBC, it will be, we believe, because Ofcom has fashioned a policy
consultation environment where the issue of the BBC is constantly
returned to as if the fact that it is a successful /public/ body is a
problem. In one sense this reflects the way Ofcom views the world of
communications; for Ofcom’s purposes and powers were shaped in the
framework of the economic orthodoxies of the last thirty years, which
have, since the onset of the global recession in 2008, been shown to be
woefully inadequate ways of conceptualising how economies and public
services work.. In another sense it is because the Communications Act of
2003 did not give Ofcom enough responsibilities and powers to develop
public service broadcasting.
14. The government therefore needs to re-think its policy in the area of
communications. We recognise the limitations of Ofcom’s powers and urge
that new legislation should re-design Ofcom as a body geared towards
sustaining public service values across all platforms. It needs not only
the powers to do this, but the will to effect changes that will protect
and enhance public service values in communications.
3 December 2008
Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom
23 Orford Road
Walthamstow
London E17 9NL
0208 521 5932.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] <#_ftnref1> Ofcom, (2008) to Ofcom’s Second Public Service
Broadcasting Review. Phase One: The Digital Opportunity (London, CPBF,
May) paras. 3.44-3.45
-------------------------------------------------
MeCCSA Policy mailing list
W: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/meccsa-policy.html
Please visit this page to browse list's archives, or to join or leave the list.
|
