Chapter 7: Summary of recommendations
CONTENT STANDARDS: THE CHALLENGES AHEAD
203. Broadcast licences should be amended to
ensure that standards similar to those set out in the Ofcom Broadcasting
Code, amended for the relevant environment, would apply to any
service using the same channel name or brand as a licensed broadcast
service. (Para 51)
204. Ofcom should investigate the option of non-broadcast
providers of TV-like services, such as Netflix and the content
providers mentioned in Box 1, being invited to comply with an
appropriate set of standards (the Broadcasting Code suitably amended
for their environment) in return for some form of public recognition
or kitemark. (Para 53)
A NEW CONTENT STANDARDS FRAMEWORK
205. The Government should introduce a new power
in the next communications Bill for the Secretary of State to
lay an order subject to the super-affirmative procedure which
would amend that Act by:
· establishing scope for Ofcom to introduce
a common regulatory framework for TV and TV-like content and giving
Ofcom authority to designate a co-regulator for that purpose;
· moving non-PSB broadcasters from a licence
based to a notification-based regulatory system and altering,
where appropriate, any detailed content standards requirements
set out in the Act for those non-PSB broadcasters.
In this way the Government can make good on its commitment
to develop a policy with sufficient flexibility to remain
relevant and adaptable to future advances, while being mindful
of the need for the exercise of such flexibility to be suitably
overseen by Parliament. (Para 84)
206. The Bill should establish a duty for Ofcom
to advise the Secretary of State on a regular basis (e.g. once
every four years) about the timing of laying such an order, with
the first such review to be conducted no later than 2016 (coinciding
with Charter renewal). (Para 85)
207. The Government should set out, after consultation,
clear guidance to Ofcom on the considerations for Ofcom to take
into account in giving advice regarding the establishment of a
new system of co-regulation for all (non-PSB) TV and TV-like audiovisual
services, whether broadcast or not. These considerations might,
for example, include:
· the demonstrable convergence in the markets
for TV and TV-like content;
· the extent to which disparity in the content
standards codes for each is detrimental to audiences and to innovation;
· the scope for reducing the burden of statutory
regulations which are or have become unnecessary;[98]
· the prospects of establishing adequate
alternative arrangements which would secure effective co- or self-regulation.
(Para 86)
208. On each occasion in this report where a
recommendation is made to the Government regarding the next communications
Bill, these recommendations should be taken equally to apply to
the forthcoming White Paper on communications as far as time allows.
(Para 87)
209. Once the regulatory area for TV and TV-like
content has been established, the Government should press for
provisions made in its code, as appropriate, to be incorporated
into an amended AVMS Directive or its successor. (Para 91)
210. Given the infrequency and pace of reviews
of the AVMS Directive, the Government should also press the Commission
to ensure a mechanism or forum is in place through which the relevant
national regulators and co-regulators overseeing the fusing category
of TV and TV-like content can share best practice and work towards
voluntary harmonisation of their codes as far as possible. (Para
92)
211. We urge the Government to ensure that cooperation
on the regulation of converging media content, such as the category
of TV and TV-like material, is included as part of the discussions
between the EU and the US about the establishment of a free trade
agreement. (Para 94)
212. As part of a new system of co-regulation
for all (non-PSB) TV and TV-like services, the relevant industry
players should adopt a standard age-based classification system
to be used by the content providers under the purview of the co-regulator
described above. (Para 106)
213. Further, given the pivotal role this is
likely to play under the new framework, and given that audiences
will need to adjust to this new way of prejudging (non-PSB) TV
and TV-like content, the TV and TV-like industry should introduce
a self-administered age-rating scheme sooner rather than later
across (non-PSB) broadcast and TV-like services. While it would
initially provide, to a certain degree, a redundant layer of protection
for (non-PSB) broadcast TV already subject to the watershed, this
redundancy in itself has value, as it will help to habituate audiences
to the signals they will need to rely on in the new framework
once some of the current protections they are used to, such as
the watershed, are no longer in place. (Para 107)
214. The Government should seek to influence
amendment to the AVMS Directive to ensure that such an age-rating
scheme is adopted by TV and TV-like providers across the European
Union. (Para 108)
215. While the use of an age-rating system would
be required of (non-PSB) broadcasters and TV-like providers, PSBs
could also be invited to use the new system, especially for their
on demand content, so that it is applied consistently across the
board. (Para 109)
216. As part of a proposed co-regulatory model
for TV and TV-like content providers, Ofcom and Government should
consider, in consultation with the future press regulator, the
implications of incorporating regulation of all non-PSB news and
current affairs content into its remit, and removal of the impartiality
requirement from those providers. (Para 119)
217. Ofcom should at the same time consider arrangements
for providers who combine news and general entertainment in a
single TV or TV-like service. (Para 120)
218. In establishing a co-regulator for TV and
TV-like content providers, Ofcom should investigate the option
of non-PSB providers of news services, such as Sky News, being
invited to comply with the Broadcasting Code (suitably amended
for their environment if TV-like) in return for some form of public
recognition or kitemark. (Para 122)
219. While we have made a number of specific
recommendations for action on the part of both the Government
and Ofcom, we also invite them to respond critically to the new
framework as set out above in overview. (Para 124)
A SAFER INTERNET
220. The next communications Bill should establish
a more pro-active role for Ofcom regarding the internet than has
been the case to date, to be reflected in Ofcom's general duties.
(Para 140)
221. Specifically, Ofcom should be required,
in dialogue with UK citizens and key industry players, to establish
and publish on a regular basis the UK public's expectations of
major digital intermediaries such as ISPs and other digital gateways,
specifically with regard to protecting UK audiences and their
families when accessing content through digital intermediaries'
services, covering for example:
· The scope of their responsibilities (given
they are not always in direct control of the content to which
they provide access);
· Appropriate processes for receiving complaints
and subsequent redress;
· Any specific measures, such as access
controls, content classification systems, or other actions which
the UK public might expect them to take in protecting children
from harmful material. (Para 141)
222. In publishing the UK public's expectations
of major digital intermediaries, Ofcom should also carry out periodic
reviews to establish their current performance against them. Ofcom
should have no sanction or reward for successful or insufficient
action, not least because of jurisdictional problems of enforcement.
Should these reviews reveal a major concern on the part of the
UK public, which the industry repeatedly and without reason fails
to respond to, Ofcom would then be required to advise the Secretary
of State. (Para 143)
CONTENT CREATION
223. We recommend that as preparation for the
next BBC Charter Review, the Government consider fundamental strategic
questions surrounding the PSB system as an interconnected whole
and the potential impact of convergence: what is the right scale
and scope of PSB, what purposes should it serve and how can it
be best sustained in a converged world? Such consideration could
be informed by the work of Ofcom's periodic reviews of the current
state of PSB, and should include the role not just of the BBC
but of other providers such as Channel 4. (Para 159)
224. We recommend that the Government consider
the implications of changes in the way that public service content
will be discovered and accessed by viewers on new connected TVs
and other converged devices, and specifically what interventions
on prominence and 'must carry online' obligations may be appropriate
in non-linear environments. (Para 165)
225. We recommend that existing prominence regulation
is updated, to include these new forms of access, and their electronic
guides, and to ensure in particular, as far as possible, that
the on demand services offered by PSBs gain due prominence on
any relevant "home" screen or guide used by those devices
to direct users to content. (Para 166)
226. We recommend that, as part of its current
work in re-planning the UHF spectrum, Ofcom helps secure the future
of DTT by making available sufficient spectrum to support a sustainable
DTT platform for the future, capable of delivering a sufficient
range of services to remain attractive to audiences, and provide
a competitive broadcast platform. The Government and Ofcom should
also consider how best to manage the costs of any transition to
the new spectrum, especially those costs which might be incurred
by audiences if they need to acquire new receivers and antenna
as part of the change. (Para 171)
227. While welcoming Ofcom's proposal to delay
introduction of AIP for DTT until 2020, we recommend that, following
the current consultation process and before any move is made to
full AIP, Ofcom should consider further the risks and benefits
involved in introducing AIP for DTT. As part of that analysis,
Ofcom should be asked fully to assess the impact that spectrum
pricing will have on the funding available for high quality
PSB. If any adverse effect seems likely, we recommend that
AIP is only introduced once the Government has proposed alternative
funding or other plans for offsetting that impact. (Para 177)
228. We endorse the view that the BBC should
not become a publisher broadcaster, and cannot support an arbitrary
change to the BBC's WoCC. However, given its importance to the
creative sector as a whole, we recommend that the costs and benefits
of further extending the BBC's external commissioning quota should
be assessed by the Government as part of the next Charter Review:
how large can the window of creative competition grow (how slim
can the in-house guarantee become) while retaining an optimal
and sustainable level of in house production at the BBC? (Para
182)
COMPETITION
229. We recommend that Government should, in
the forthcoming White Paper and communications Bill, consider
clarification of Ofcom's existing ex ante competition powers for
the audiovisual sector. The aim of such clarification should be
to enable Ofcom to take effective action where necessary, but
also to ensure a high hurdle before an ex ante approach can be
adopted. (Para 197)
- In the run up to the next BBC Charter Review,
we recommend that the Government invite the BBC Trust to consider
how best to make progress on two fronts: enhancing the BBC's overall
economic impact, and reassuring the market that there are effective
safeguards in place, possibly through the use of periodic and
independent market impact reviews. (Para 202)
98 This could be based on Ofcom's existing duties to
review regulatory burdens which are currently set out in section
6 of the 2003 Communications Act. Back
| 
