Public services

There are discussions going on at the moment with a view to releasing ITV from its public service obligations. Greg Dyke, interestingly, is supporting the idea... apparently, fulfilling them (ie, creating half-watchable programming) takes up half of ITV's budget). Of course, most of this would be accomplished by getting rid of regional programming, which ITV seems to now think is "wasteful duplication" rather than "providing programmes which some people, heaven forbid, might find interesting or relevant to their lives".

Well, let 'em do it. The BBC has shown that it is more committed to the regions than ITV is, even if all we get is news programmes, "Inside Out", some old regional programming repackages as "Homeground" and opt-outs from The Politics Show.

I think C4 would lose out if it shed its public service obligations, though. Mind you, it's already slipping.

I thought it was an international body that paid for it. Can anyone confirm it?

The government pays for the World Service radio operation ... I can't remember if it's the home office or foriegn office who pays ... but it is a direct government funded station

The Foreign Office is the one that funds the World Service.

This Sunday, on Channel 4:
21:00 Snorting Coke with the BBC
A wry look at some of the most highly publicised cases of BBC TV celebrities caught using drugs, examining the attitude of the media towards their fall from grace.

Why did they not do a programme on television celebrities caught using drugs from all television channels, and not just the BBC?

Erm, not exactly government controlled, it's state owned but in the day to day the government have no control over it.

The BBC is also state owned, but not state or government controlled. 'State/Government Controlled' invokes connotations of stations in some countries which are really state controlled - totally diffrent to the free broadcasting we have here

I'm getting really confused now!!! Euhmm... I thought we in the Netherlands had a complex public broadcasting system! But it seems like in Britain it's even worse!

Now what is the difference between BBC 1 and 2 on one hand, and Channel 4 on the other hand? And what about Channel 5?

Do you in Britain have commercial channels AT ALL!?

BBC One and Two carry no advertising whatsoever. It is funded directly by the licence fee - which is paid by all TV owners in the UK. Whilst the BBC is effectively state-owned, it is governed by a Royal Charter, renewed every 10 years or so, and the funding formula for the TV licence is set by parliament/government over the long term. The BBC is regulated on a day-to-day basis by a board of governors. These figures are, to a degree, politically appointed, but serve long terms. This insulates the BBC from direct, editorial government control...

ITV1 and Channel 5 (now called just Five) carry advertising and are commercially owned companies, with shareholders. They have varying public service remits (i.e. they are regulated to provide minimum levels of science, arts, religion, regional productions etc.) but are commercial companies, making their money through advertising (and to a degree sponsorship) ITV1 and Five exist to make a profit for their shareholders - and so are pretty commercial. However given that they have access to large amounts of the "public airwaves" they have a degree of public service responsibility. They are both regulated by the ITC.

Channel Four is a slightly odder set-up. It carries commercial advertising, and is funded via this means. However, it is a wholly state-owned corporation, and like the BBC is not a profit-making entity. (Any profits go back into production - not shareholders pockets) It has a remit to cater for areas of production that the free-market, and to a degree the BBC, would not otherwise cater for. It also has minimal production facilities of its own - so buys in most of its programmes from other broadcasters (like the ITV1 companies production arms) or independent production companies. It too is regulated by the ITC.

(Other commercial cable and satellite broadcasters are also ITC regulated - however the regulations they have to adhere to are far looser than those of the terrestrial stations)

Well, thank you very, very much noggin for your explaination!

what is it with moron Tory policies trying to knack up the whole of the media? tsk.

No worries - I appreciate that our model of TV funding, ownership and regulation is pretty odd to the outsider. However the UK TV service launched almost 70 years ago, with a full, single BBC 405-line channel launching in 1936, followed by the commercial 405-line ITV service in 1955 (operating on a different VHF frequency band). The fact that we were effectively the first TV broadcasting nation with a full-time service has meant that our TV model may seem somewhat odd to others - but on the other hand they do seem to actually work.

BBC Two launched in 625-lines (in yet another frequency band, UHF) in 1964. BBC One and Two moved to 625-lines UHF, and colour between 1967 and 1969, and then Channel Four launched in 1982, followed by Channel 5 (now Five) in 1997.

The differing circumstances of each services' launch has meant a differing reason for the services' existence, and a differing funding and regulatory framework.

Whilst the BBC and ITV funding models may seem opposed - the strong duopoly that they created generated high levels of competition and high quality original programmes from both sides.

It is the UK tax payer who funds BBC World Service.

Her Majesty's Office of Foreign Affairs is merely a conduit.