So what is Public Service Broadcasting, anyway?

By Ofcom

How to define Public Service Broadcasting? On one hand, it's a system, a set of government policies which have evolved over the past half century. In essence these policies have sought to ensure that the UK makes the most out of the magic of television - magic which has until recently been heavily constrained by shortage of broadcast spectrum. 

On the other hand, some would say public service broadcasting refers to a certain kind of programme; high quality, original, innovative, widely-available, challenging and engaging television which informs, educates and entertains. In our last review, Ofcom suggested a set of purposes and characteristics which we use to define PSB. The BBC's latest Royal Charter demands that the corporation follows broadly similar purposes.

Additionally, some say that PSB is defined by particular channel, and the main terrestrial channels are blessed with special 'PSB' status in the 2003 Communications Act. This grants them some rights (access to spectrum, for example), in exchange for obligations about how much PSB programming they broadcast, and of what type. These channels include all the BBC channels, ITV 1, Channel 4, Five, Teletext and S4C in Wales

Perhaps though it's easier to think about what PSB looks like in practice. Looking through today's TV schedule, for the kids, there's Newsround and Smalltalk Diaries. For the grown-ups, Channel 4 is showing Cutting Edge: Cotton Wool Kids, which looks into parents' reluctance to let their kids take risks. And then there's assorted national and regional news programmes on BBC, ITV1, Channel 4 or Five.

Broadly speaking, PSB refers to high-quality, engaging programmes,  made to reflect the needs of people in the UK.

But the rise of multichannel digital TV means there is now a wide range of public service broadcasting on 'non-PSB' channels such as More 4, Sky Arts and UKTV History. Given this trend, our current review has sought to guage the impact of PSB regardless of channel. We argue that it's the purpose and impact of each programme that matters, rather than the channel on which it's broadcast.

Not everyone agrees with our stance.

We'd love to hear what you think.

Comments

[Vinod Popat]

I own and run a local RSL TV Station called MATV serving Leicester.Though we are a commercial service as such the Leicester people percieve our service as a public broadcaster and expect a lot of community based programmes.We also have a local news programme called Leicestershire in Focus where in we report on events and happennings of Leicester and Leicestershire we also we produce and broadcast local community programmes and as we rely only on advertising revenues and what with a low powered transmitter and small reach we ask for help for all rsl to get approximately 500k to help in the running costs.A point to note is that we are also a platform for giving training to people in media

[P.G.Young]

From your comments it's clear that commercial broadcasting has failed.
It has failed as a true alternative to the public broadcasting of the BBC who’s monopoly it was meant to break.

The revenue from commercial broadcasting can no longer sustain quality programming, as shown by the request for more and longer advertising - meaning more money for the shareholders and the real lack of classical music in all it's forms, orchestral, opera, ballet, piano and organ. I do not believe that this lapse would be corrected with more money. The will to broadcast these items is not there.
The commercial channels have led the way with cheap poor quality American rubbish. Usually showing intimacy in close detail like a sniggering school boy and swearing (that they can't even call by it's name, it uses the euphemism of 'strong language') suggesting the programme or channel is it self embarrassed at the filth.

Because of all this dumbing down of standards in the name of profit the BBC, who have been the envy of viewers throughout the world are now having this poor standard (with poor quality acting being made up for by keeping the camera on the move, instead of the actors acting out the part and new technology sound recording techniques being used to try and grab the mumbling of people that can neither annunciate or articulate in a professional manner) forced upon them partly by the political interference of government who’s reasons are questionable.

Why aren’t the commercial channels requested to show classical music items and raise the quality of programmes in general to the previous standard of the BBC? So making a level playing field for the BBC to be compared with.

Why is the BBC being forced to give away part of it’s reduced funding to profit making companies? This is public money, our money, not state funds. I think a close look at the list of shareholders and their involvement in politics is called for to stop the transfer of our money to commercial companies. If the commercial companies are failing, that is either because of bad management or excessive payment to shareholders. If they fail they should go bust. There is no reason to prop up failing companies with public money that should be going to the BBC .

Why is the world renowned BBC being slowly pressured (or perhaps strangled) to give way to the standards of what used to be called 'B films’.?

[Russ]

Fantastic that Ofcom have started a blog!

Ofcom are 100% correct that the notion of PSB should be de-linked from the channel on which it is aired.

Keep it up -- I'm looking forward to reading more... I hope Ofcom continue this type of more informal engagement with the public.

-Russ

[John Smith]

PSB is meant to provide a certain type of broadcasting. The BBC does this (with neither fear nor favour) funded by the licence fee. The commercial sector does it funded by advertising. C4 started out getting a subsidy from the other ITV firms, in addition to its own advertising revenue. That creates variety. It is monstrous (and smacks of political interference) to take funds from the BBC and give them to the profit seeking commercial sector, so subsidising profits; at least the Beeb doesn't seek a profit from its mainstream broadcasting activities. So the BBC will have less money to invest in quality programming. This seems consistent with this government's fear and loathing of the BBC. Beeb bashing started in the 60s with Wilson, was enthusiastically embraced by Thatcher and has been taken to new heights by Blair and Brown. The peak of this philistine artistic vandalism came with the appointment of John Birt, of course. Ofcom (prop: Ed Richards, ex-No10 policy wonk; replaced Stephen Carter, current No10 Gauleiter and ex-No11 policy wonk under Brown), simply does its political masters’ bidding and, by weakening the BBC's position, succeeds only in undermining another beacon of quality in the otherwise mediocre society that the same governments have allowed to evolve. For this review strikes at the heart of UK society. Its implications for the UK at home and its image abroad are huge. Let us not simply follow the Americans yet again. Let us instead recognise the social, cultural and artistic value of the BBC. Let us recognise that ITV et al only do what their advertisers will tolerate (wall-to-wall trash, mostly) and so let us leave ITV, C4 and 5 to compete with the other commercial broadcasters on cable and satellite. The BBC must be allowed to continue - at its current level of funding or more - to produce quality programming.

[Russ]

@John Smith at 1:17pm

'Let us not simply follow the Americans yet again.'

Why do UK policy debates always involve a US-straw man argument?

American TV is fantastic: coast-to-coast. It might not work for the UK in all respects, but it's not really fair to say that Ofcom are either simply following an American model or doing the work of politicians.

I think you have not engaged with Ofcom's basic point: that much of the current system is unsustainable.

'Change gonna come' as the song says...

Russ

[Antonio]

@Russ

UK policy debates will always involve a US-straw man argument because of fear we may end up floating in the same debris of nonsense programming.

Some US TV can be interesting but these are also attached to a huge volume of flotsam programming.

I agree that the current system is unsustainable, so stop taking public money and pushing it towards 'hamburger' orientated TV channels.
How can a subsidised n’th version of ‘Big Brother’ or ‘Big Brother USA’ be considered PSB?

Antonio

[Russ]

Antonio,

The U.S. market is so large it has everything:

-- publicly-funded arts and culture, docs and news

-- subscription cable / satellite

-- free-to-air, advertiser supported

-- broadband: hulu, itunes... (both ad supported and subscription or pay-per-view)

There's really something for everyone, despite what you probably rightly call a large amount of flotsam.

As long as you are free to choose, and you are not paying for the flotsam, well then it's like not deciding to read the Indy or the Telegraph - a matter of personal choice.

Ofcom seem to be suggesting something different. Rather than a problem of too much flotsam, Ofcom seem to be pointing to the dim prospects for future PSB programming.

In that case, I think the U.S. is probably not a relevant model -- we have very low levels of state subsidy and ownership and there is a huge abundance of privately-provided programming that meets the PSB definition.

But I agree Big Brother is probably not PSB!

Russ

[John Smith]

Russ,

The ITV companies are the first to cry 'foul', when the BBC does anything even remotely commercial-looking, saying that it should stick to its pubic service remit. Does anyone seriously believe that the ITV companies will do the same if given a share of the licence fee? They will be the first to exploit the commercial opportunities. On one level, that appears legitimate, as they are the Bishop of Southwark - it's what they do but they may not run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. Either they run a PSB operation without commercialising it, thus justifying a share of the pot or they are pure commercial.

In fact, I think that the answer is to require the commercial broadcasters to transmit x hours of PSB material per week and they can jolly well fund it from their profits. Alternatively, Ofcom could establish a fund, paid for from the licence fees paid to Ofcom by all of the commercial broadcasters (including satellite and cable). This fund could pay for the commercial broadcasters' PSB. If it's seen as a windfall tax, so be it.

Otherwise, we have the same distinctly unsatisfactory situation that we find with the railways. ATOC members make sizable profits, get a subsidy from the taxpayer anyway and get extra subsidy for the Cinderellla lines, the railway equivalent of PSB.

Words such as 'Thomson', 'licence', 'print' and 'money come to mind.

[Bill]

For my money the BBC is worth every single penny.

The license fee is about 130 quid or so.. (my wife pays it from our JA , so I know little ).

The value, is fantastic, I have radio 4 and two on demand, my radio one days are long gone, The quality of programmes on BBC 1 and 2 are superb. Three and four are ok from time to time, clearly aimed at another generation !

Then look at the compeition SKY is 360 quid a year to include their films, and I never (rarely) found anything worth watching & gave up. I now use BT INTERNET, if I want to buy a film .No monthly charge.

The commercial companies itv 4 and 5 are driving me mad, with the increase in advertising, Yet looking at ITV's revenue , they have a turnover of about 2 billion , which is not so far away from the BBC's income is it ? ITV is just one station , Chnl four and five also have an income, does that exceed BBC's income ? I suggest the commerical companies may be squandering their money. Actually they are squandering our money as we pay for the advertising thru the cost on the products we buy..

KEEP the BBC, , keep it well funded, Let the beeb keep the 150 million , they are excellent value for money and from time to time they may up set the government of the day , and I see no harm in that. I only object when a government then threatens the Beeb with this that or another cut.

Cut the beeb free to make money on their world wide ventures, Don't allow these ventures to be sold off..

Excellent value long live the beeb

[Mark]

A couple of points raised above. Firstly, in the battle between art & commerce, unfortunately, commerce almost always wins.

The reason that there are not classical concerts on the commercial channels is that it would be difficult to sell advertising space. If they could get 5 million viewers every time they showed one, the advertisers would be all over it like a shot.

The same applies to the dumbing down of television. There are more channels to choose from. This will become more pronounced in the next couple of decades. People of 30 or older, who have grown up with the standard terrestrial channels are more likely to watch these, even with another 30 or so to choose from, but, when todays children, who will have grown up with mulit-channel television may well be less inclined.

More channels means that the advertisers increasingly call the shots, which, in turn puts pressure on the television companies to show programmes with the widest possible audience. This means that anything even remotely outside the mainstream has less chance of getting shown.

The way that Channel 4 has deteriorated from being a cutting edge alternative channel is a perfect example of this.

In my mind, the only way to ensure that there is at least some quality television is the BBC and the retention of the license fee. The only thing that I would change is to make it a progressive fee, so that each would pay according to ability, rather than the flat tax that it is now.

[Tony]

Tessa Jowell, Secretary of State
Oral statement to the House of Commons on the Licence Fee 18th January 2007:-

“In particular the licence fee settlement will fund the £600m scheme we are putting in place to help elderly and disabled people make the switch and as part of our commitment to the universal broadcasting ensure that no-one is left behind.”

“The BBC will also pay for the £200m public communications campaign being run by Digital UK to ensure people are prepared properly and informed properly for switch over.”

“We are giving the BBC a 12.5% increase in its borrowing capacity to help deliver this commitment.”
http://www.culture.gov.uk/Reference_library/Minister_Speeches/Ministers_Speech_Archive/Tessa_Jowell/dcmstjspeech_18jan07.htm

There is no mention in the parliamentary debate following this statement that this £600m ‘diversion’ of Fee revenue would continue beyond this ‘one off’ use.

There was, however criticism of Government’s decision to put this cost, in pursuance of a Government policy, on the Licence Fee payer, rather than on the general tax payer.

Jowell was asked how she came to the perverse decision that the means-tested, targeted support to be provided for poorer, disadvantaged groups when switch over happened should be paid for by the licence fee payer rather than by the Treasury.

Her answer was that she came to decision because, as a broadcasting cost, it is legitimately paid for by broadcasting income.

‘Broadcasting income’ is much wider than the licence Fee.
The VAT on ‘Sky’ subscriptions (based on 8 million subscribers with an ARPU of £400) alone raises some £480m for the Treasury each year.
The £800m above is spread over the 5 years of ‘DSO’, so the Treasury is in receipt of three times this amount from the VAT on ‘Sky’ subscriptions annually.

Why didn’t Ms Jowell equally consider this to be ‘broadcasting income’?
Was it because her announcement had ‘Treasury stamped all over it’?

But the ‘spin’ about this ‘excess’ income raised through the Licence Fee has already begun - Ed Richards, Ofcom, the ‘Today’ programme 10th April 2008:-

“At the moment, for example, a portion of the Licence fee is actually being used to fund digital switch over. That excess Licence Fee could be used in the future, when it’s no longer necessary to fund digital switch over from 2012 and beyond, that could be used for alternative public service broadcasting, public service content, without in any way affecting any of the BBC’s services.”

Ofcom’s regulatory ‘light touch’ and its belief that the ‘market’ will always produce the best outcome for the ‘consumer / citizen’ has led directly to this decline in public service broadcasting by the commercial sector.

Let the Government remedy this by using the taxes it already levies on these broadcasters and leave the one to one relationship between the Licence payer and the BBC intact.

[Brian Butterworth]

There is a PSB funding option that no-one seems to be considering. It's a really, really, simple obvious one. It re-distributive, simple to implement, almost a no brainer, logical, doesn't hurt the BBC, no selling off of Chris Moyles and Terry Wogan. And here it is:

ADD A 3% TAX TO SUBSCRIPTION TELEVISION

Sky subscribers: Q4 2007, 8,297,000 Annual revenue per unit: £421

Total Sky subscription revenues: £3493.037m

Virgin subscribers: Q4 2007, 3,478,100 Annual revenue per unit: £507

Total Sky subscription income: £1763.346m

Total income from television subscriptions: £5256.383m

Revenue required to support Channel 4 or PSB Publisher etc: £150m

Tax on subscriptions would be: 150/5256.383 = 2.85%

What do you think?