‘The fact that the requirement for impartiality stretches back to the beginning of broadcasting, but not into print journalism, implies that it relates to some specific characteristics of broadcasting. Of these, two are particularly important: the necessity for state intervention to secure access to spectrum and therefore audiences; and, linked to that, the potential of the medium to exert a powerful influence over public opinion.’
Suter then goes on to demonstrate that these two characteristics are now diminishing the rationale for the regulation. He continues:
‘With some 750 or so channels broadcasting under an Ofcom licence, the regulator’s ability to monitor output, even if it wished to, would be severely limited. Furthermore, that output includes a large number of channels, properly licensed by Ofcom but targeting either non-UK audiences or specific linguistic and ethnic communities within the UK.’
Everyone may recall in this respect that Ofcom once adjudicated the impartiality of a Swedish language programme!
Obviously Tim Suter is right here. Basing impartiality rules on public desire for impartial news is a bit like asking the public: Do you value the importance of stable marriages? and then — when 85% of them answer ‘yes’ — use that as support for a measure restricting the rights of women to obtain divorces.
Rules on impartiality are restrictions on the freedom of expression that foster a bland TV news and current affairs landscape. Suter rightly points out that it is nearly impossible to prove this using evidence. In my opinion these policies only increase the vocal power of the establishment.
And we saw the odd, un-converged nature of these policies just recently: In the Guardian Zoe Williams launched a vicious attack on Boris Johnson. Controversial? Sure. But most people accepted it as part of the political cut-and-thrust surrounding elections. At the same time James Whale was sacked from TalkSport radio for openly supporting Johnson. Ofcom presides over a system of rules that single out radio and TV for their influence when everyone knows it is more of a mixed bag. There was 10 times more buzz about what Zoe Williams did.
Most people think for themselves and are not influenced by either Williams or Whale…
So, Tim Suter has sketched out a very interesting argument here. I hope it will taken up by Ofcom or the government but I doubt it. It takes a brave politician like Ronald Reagan (who ended the similar U.S. rules) to jettison rules meant to protect their own interests.
]]>What is it about BT Home Hubs that drive people to violence?
]]>Yikes. No follow-up? Everyone should keep in mind the following outline of what happened:
But when Ofcom testified before Parliament on 22nd April — and was asked whether it was too soft on GMTV — two things emerged:
1. Ofcom said it would provide Parliament with the amounts refunded to victims by GMTV. (This contradicts the subsequent denial of my FOI Act request)
and
2. Ofcom stated that the maximum fine it could have levied against GMTV was 2.7 million GBP. Surely, this cannot be correct? The violations took place over multiple years. Surely Ofcom could have imposed a fine for each year of the violations? Based on my uninformed reading of the Communications Act — maybe I have it wrong — it looks like Ofcom could have fined GMTV up to 5 percent of turnover for each financial year of the violations.
I hope Ofcom correctly specify to Parliament the maximum amount it could have fined GMTV.
Ofcom still have to make a full account of their actions in this GMTV matter. It might be too harsh to say Ofcom were soft on GMTV, but it looks clear to me that Ofcom mismanaged the handling of this matter. As I have said before Ofcom should have held its fine in abeyance pending the results of GMTV’s refund efforts. Ofcom also apparently should have considered the maximum fine amount on a per-year basis instead of lumping the misdeeds and considering them as one problem.
]]>But it’s a bit much for media firms to want to reach millions of people via a satellite or cable platform, but want to do it very cheaply. You can’t do that in publishing. You can’t do that in advertising. So why do they think broadcasting is any different?
I’m a News Corp shareholder: You gotta pay full freight, people.
Anyway, we received the following comment from David Henry of Rapture:
2. Rapture submitted the Sky consumer agreements that contain the T&C’s for the Sky Set Top Box subsidy to Ofcom. These agreements show that if you don’t enter a Sky subscription agreement then you have to pay fitting and delivery. This is a Tied agreement and therefore the regulations state only Sky pays the cost of the STB. Ofcom made no reference in the Rapture dispute Determination to these documents either.So from just the above the CAT has got it very wrong. The CAT process and rules are restrictive in the terms and scope. Rapture did indeed submit an Amended Notice of Appeal which reduced the scope of the arguments but included a new economic expert and witness statement. The CAT granted part permission but refused the new expert evidence. Therefore reducing further the scope and evidence of the Appeal.
What is clear is that Ofcom is not following the EU Directives including 2002/19EC, 2002/21/EC and 2002/22/EC. Accounting seperation is an important requirement and Ofcom has failed to ensure that BSkyB follows this requirement and instead has used a ‘Sky Platform Model’ which is not audited and hadn’t been updated for several years. This shows that Ofcom failed to perform even the minimum level of investigation into to the costs of supplying the EPG. Another fact that you may not be aware of is the fact that Ofcom during a meeting held at the Ofcom offices on the 23rd of Feb’07 refused to answer the simple question on ‘Who owns the set top box?’. Even after 2 requests for an answer Ofcom simply sat in silence. The answer had been included in the Sky customer agreement handed to Ofcom a month earlier by Rapture.
No matter which way you look at this Ofcom is not acting as a regulator and is not ensuring the maximum benefit to the consumer as required by law. Ofcom claims that it is a cornerstone of the regulations to protect the investment incentives of BSkyB in the Sky platform. They seem to forget the investment incentives of everyone else.
Rapture is preparing a complaint to the EU over Ofcoms failure and the breaches of competition law by BSkyB. Perhaps the EU can solve the Murdoch problem?
***********
Now, Rapture seeks to appeal the CAT decision claiming they were unable to submit new evidence that came to light too late for the initial appeal notice (presumably the one, as amended). This is the same notice of appeal that the CAT described as lacking in `clarity, precision, and particularisation`, in a case, where it found Rapture`s claims to be `ill-founded` and `misconceived`.
According to Rapture’s website, the appeal will argue that Rapture TV believes that BSkyB is charging excessively high fees for the supply of an EPG service on the Digital Satellite platform which include costs that are nothing to do with the cost of supplying a technical service.
Rapture argues the Ofcom was wrong to base its whole dispute investigation on a confidential ‘Sky Platform Model’, which neither separates the technical costs and is not up to date and has not been independently verified. Rapture believes that this fact leaves the burden of proof on BSkyB to prove that its technical costs are economic and do not include costs for non technical services. The Rapture Appeal ruling laid the burden on Rapture to prove that the costs were too high but with out access to the Sky technical costs this was an impossible task.
The problem for Rapture is that the CAT addressed this issue in its ruling “Rapture did not apply in this Appeal for disclosure and inspection of the Sky Platform Model. It made its submissions without having seen this Model. Without having done so there is a lack of foundation for its submissions which purport to address the Sky Platform Model and the use which OFCOM made of it.”
It also pointed out that Rapture could have, but choose not to, place further evidence before Ofcom when it was conducting its original investigation “Rapture had sufficient opportunity to place before OFCOM such information as it considered relevant to OFCOM’s determination of the dispute. Rapture cannot now complain if there was further information which was relevant but which Rapture did not provide OFCOM. In any event Rapture has not sought to identify or put such information before this Tribunal or shown its relevance. Rapture’s assertions are bald and devoid of particularity.”
I do hope Rapture’s David Henry has unearthed some hidden gems in this case - I do have some sympathy with his position - but legally thus far he has failed to even land a punch, never mind a knock out blow to either the soundness of Ofcom’s decision, or as to the question of whether or not BSkyB supplies the EPG to all parties on a Fair Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory basis. In reality, I see little chance of his company coming out in top in this case.
]]>Anyway, this little video sums up what’s at stake:
High petrol prices? Groceries more expensive? At least those costs aren’t based on pure fiction…
]]>Martin Donnelly, Director General Europe and Globalisation at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, is to join Ofcom on secondment as Senior Partner responsible for Ofcom’s international work and its activities in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Donnelly replaces Ian Hargreaves, who is joining the Foreign Office as Director of Strategic Communications.
Donnelly’s responsibilities will also include Ofcom’s contribution to the switch from analogue to digital television and the regulator’s secretariat and corporate governance functions.
Ed Richards, Ofcom’s Chief Executive, said: “Ian has made a unique contribution to Ofcom, first as one of our founding non-executive board members and more recently in an executive role. We wish him well in his new role.
“Martin’s background in the Treasury, Foreign Office, Brussels and the Northern Ireland Office make him ideally qualified to lead Ofcom’s increasingly important work in Europe and in the UK nations. We are delighted to welcome someone of such high calibre to the Ofcom leadership team.”
Martin Donnelly commented: “I am delighted to be joining Ofcom’s senior management team. I know from my work in the Foreign Office that Ofcom is recognised as a global leader in communications regulation, with high quality people and a clear mission. I am looking forward to using my UK government and international experience to help Ofcom continue to deliver effectively in a rapidly changing world.”
***********
I assume this means Donnelly will also take Hargreaves’ place on the Ofcom Board.
]]>***********************
Living in the shadow of Oxford University Press and all the colleges of Oxford, you would my internet speeds would be the envy of the UK. Not true — I test my connection frequently. Despite being on an 8 Mbit/s contract, I have never received anywhere even approaching 1/2 that speed. Most times I receive less than 1 Mbit/s. Thus, my near-continual complaints that Ofcom have lazily presided over a huge consumer rip-off over the past few years.
Ofcom say they are finally looking into the issue — Godspeed…
Anyway, I also just bought an old house near Atlanta, GA. The 1930’s vintage wiring around these parts produced this result:
My tariff says ‘up to 16 Mbit/s’ so someone is under-promising and over-delivering.
The 32 HD channels aren’t bad either…
]]>
On Friday the Nigel Griffiths legislation on Junk Food advertising: the Food Products (Marketing to Children) Bill will get its second reading in Parliament. Based on my discussions with people that know U.K. politics, the bill is unlikely to go anywhere. It doesn’t have either Tory or government support, and people doubt 100 MPs will even show-up on Friday.
Let’s face it — it’s a poorly-framed, blunderbuss solution to a complex problem.
The entire junk food advertising debate — lamented by Ofcom CEO Ed Richards in an interesting Times op-ed in November 2006 — has been characterised by the marriage of two powerful political forces: (i) a media panic and (ii) gesture politics.
When they join forces: stand back…
So where does that leave Ofcom? The regulator is now way out on a limb, having made a tough policy choice in a situation where the government should have otherwise taken the lead. Now Ofcom will review its actions in July 2008, and presumably aim for the narrowest possible definition of success: Are children watching fewer junk food adverts provided for in the scope of the HFSS restrictions?
Can you blame Ofcom for avoiding the larger — and more relevant — question of childhood obesity? The evidence gathered by Ofcom in 2004 showed that television advertising had only a modest effect on children’s food choices and no evidence showed that an advertising ban had ever worked to improve children’s health. None.
Ofcom is in a bit of a trap because its advertising restrictions, adopted in February 2007, were predicated on bringing about real health benefits to society. Just read Ofcom’s impact assessment accompanying the regulations — it’s written there in black and white. But the HFSS advertising restrictions have severe type I / II errors and Ofcom imposed them without any real regard for the industry’s voluntary movement towards more responsible advertising practices.
If the Griffiths bill fails, will health campaigners then turn their attention to Ofcom’s July 2008 review? Probably; these groups will no doubt pressure Ofcom to assess whether the restrictions are delivering health benefits. Ofcom will have a difficult time facing down these campaigners a second time if it is proved they have not.
Either way — those kids will probably continue to eat junk food…
]]>