BECTU response to ITC consultation on the future of public service broadcasting

14 June 2000

  1. As we approach to the next round of broadcasting legislation, the ITC's consultation on public service broadcasting (PSB) might be thought of as timely. We seem in danger, however, of almost a surfeit of current consultations, especially given the DTI/DCMS pre-consultation on the Communications Reform White Paper.

  2. In the light of this, BECTU does not wish to provide a full-scale response to all the questions raised in the ITC paper. We prefer to await the debate on the White Paper and subsequent Bill. We are happy, however, to give some broad views on PSB and its future role.

    The central role of PSB

  3. Our starting point is the central role of PSB in British broadcasting, encompassing both the BBC and commercial channels, and the need to retain this into the future.

  4. The key elements of PSB, which commercially-driven broadcasting systems have never matched across the board, are in our view as follows:
    • programming for a mass audience which seeks to entertain, educate and inform
    • an emphasis on quality, diversity and creativity of programming which the market may not spontaneously provide
    • a benchmark of quality against which all broadcasters can be judged and which can therefore maintain and raise standards across the board
    • the strongest source of investment in original programme production, as opposed to excessive repeats and bought-in material
    • a counter-weight to concentration of ownership in the commercial broadcasting sector
    • a strong contribution to democracy through a pluralistic broadcasting system offering universal access at a minimum and affordable cost
    • the broad democratic, social and cultural role recognised in the EU Amsterdam Protocol

  5. Regulatory intervention to correct the markets failure to provide these elements will, in our view, continue to be essential for the foreseeable future. The ITC's approach should be governed, we suggest, by an assessment of whether the market can match PSB, rather than an adjustment of PSB to the market.

  6. Are the aims of PSB still valid? Our answer is emphatically yes - in their entirety.
    • PSB channels retain their predominant popularity even in multichannel homes with access to non-PSB satellite and cable.
    • Non-PSB broadcasters simply do not deliver sufficient diversity and quality of programming across the board as opposed to market niches such as Discovery and National Geographic.
    • Cost intensive programming outside of traditional mass market genres such as sport and features is simply not judged as necessary or convenient outside a PSB framework.
    • Political and cultural pluralism in the media does not develop naturally through the application of market forces and rests on regulatory requirements.

  7. Non-PSB broadcasters operating in the increasingly well-established digital multichannel environment can attract growing commercial revenue. Given these changing flow of resources in the broadcasting sector - with PSB an increasingly poor relation in some areas - our conclusion is not to trim PSB to the market, but to examine each and every justification for the currently lighter regulatory regimes outside of PSB. We do not expect full PSB standards to apply to the straightforwardly commercial cable and satellite sector, especially with the growth of specialist channels. However, we would expect consideration to be given to raising the requirements on non-PSB broadcasters for original programming and quality programming if their revenue flow makes this increasingly feasible.

    Premature claims

  8. Some commentators and many interested parties are making strong claims for a revolutionised broadcasting market in which a digital multichannel environment is already removing the justification for PSB based on spectrum scarcity. With so much viewer choice and the potential for niche channels for every taste and interest, why do we need to regulate for PSB?

  9. In reality, such claims are hype - with a strong sense of d�j� vu, given the wild predictions for a 'cable revolution' made in the early and mid-80's. There is a growing new multichannel environment but it is not predominant in terms of programme audience and on all currently available evidence is not likely to be so even in the medium term.

  10. We strongly believe, therefore, that some of the questions posed in the ITC paper are premature. We have a PSB system that works and which the clear majority of viewers still value. Regulators and policymakers should not act prematurely in amending or retreating from current PSB standards when the weight of change simply does not yet justify it. Technological determinism - subordinating our regulatory structures to the new digital technology rather than the technology to regulation - is precisely the wrong way to go in our view.

  11. It follows that we see a continuing strong role for PSB in the private sector, including specifically ITV, Channel Four and even (to the extent of its more limited PSB remit) Channel Five. It also follows that we see a continuing and strong role for broadcasting regulation through licensing and sanctions rather than any move away towards a fiscally-based system. Why, at this stage, should we give any serious consideration to such a proposal? If the ITC wishes to debate the circumstances of its own demise, other regulatory structures can always be established.

    Conclusion

  12. We strongly support a continuing and central role for PSB well into the digital multichannel future. For us, the most pressing current issue is how to retain and in some cases extend PSB requirements rather than how to trim them to the digital marketplace. We believe many of the questions raised in the ITC paper are premature. We therefore, look to the ITC to reconfirm itself as a strong advocate for the centrality of PSB to the future of British broadcasting.
Last updated 26 September 2000