The Relationship between the BBC and Public Broadcasting Corporation and the Commercial Sectors - Essay Example

?What is the Relationship between the BBC as a Public Broadcasting Corporation and the Commercial Sectors? Should the Nature of Public Service Broadcasting Remain the same or be changed? Critically Analyse. What are the Alternatives. Meaning of Public Service Broadcasting First, before going into BBC’s relationship as a public broadcasting corporation with the commercial sectors, it is helpful to identify first what is meant by public service broadcasting. The Communications Act 2003 (CA 2003) sets a duty on the Office of Communications (Ofcom) to obtain accessibility of a broad range of both “television and radio services” all over the United Kingdom that is of high quality and considered to draw diverse “tastes and interests” (Communications Act 2003 s. 264); and to keep an adequate number of providers for various “television and radio services” (Ridgway 48). While the Communications Act has not defined what comprises “public service programming”, the Office of Communications (“Ofcom”) characterized this kind of programming by setting forth “its purposes and characteristics.”  Ridgway in his article “All change for public service broadcasting in the UK?” enumerates the following purposes and characteristics of public service broadcasting: Purposes: • Informing our understanding of the world --to inform ourselves and others, and to increase our understanding of the world through news, information and analysis of current events and ideas. • Stimulating knowledge and learning --to stimulate our interest in and knowledge of arts, science, history and other topics, through content that is accessible and can encourage informal learning. • Reflecting UK cultural identity --to reflect and strengthen our cultural identity through original programming in the United Kingdom, at both national and regional levels, on occasion bringing audiences together for shared experiences. • Representing diversity and alternative viewpoints --to make us aware of different cultures and alternative viewpoints through programmes that reflect the lives of other people and other communities, both within the United Kingdom and elsewhere. Characteristics: • High quality --well funded and well produced. • Original --new UK content rather than repeats or acquisitions. • Innovative --breaking new ideas or reinventing exciting approaches, rather than copying old ones. • Challenging --making viewers think. • Engaging --remaining accessible and attractive to viewers. • Widely available --if content is publicly funded, a large majority of citizens need the chance to watch it. (48) McGonagle on the other hand, defines public service broadcasting (PSB) as those broadcasted TV programs which are for the benefit of the public instead of solely for commercial ends (235). These programs consist of “local news coverage, arts programs, religious broadcasts, and augmented broadcasts featuring (for example) subtitling, visual signing and audio description” (McGonagle 235). It may also include “original drama, documentaries and children's programming” (Ridgway 49). A particular quota on “public service broadcasts” is also required in their “license to broadcast,” in accordance with Ofcom’s regulations (Ridgway 49). The objectives on the other hand for the so-called “plural public service broadcast provision” are the following: “Sources of high quality impartial news at local, regional as well as national level, including the nations as well as the United Kingdom as a whole;” high level “original British content”; a broad range of both “voices and talent from across the whole United Kingdom,” to guarantee “continuation and development of creative talent clusters in the regions and nations,” currently assured “through regional production quotas on some public service broadcasters”; “guaranteed levels of investment in independent production” in order to ensure the supply of “the best creative ideas and the healthy development of this vital creative sector,” also “secured through quotas”; “a range of commissioning sources for innovative original production”; “original children's production for all ages but especially for over 10s”; and the advancement “of plural sources of commissioning for current affairs, international issues and serious factual programmes” (Durie N109). Structure of BBC as a public broadcasting corporation and its relation to the Commercial Sector The British Broadcasting Corporation which is a distinct public service broadcasting company in the United Kingdom, is composed of the BBC Trust and the Executive Board (s.1(2) of BBC Charter 2006). The Trust serves as the licence fee and public interest guardian, and has the following responsibilities “(a) the BBC’s stewardship of the licence fee revenue and its other resources; (b) upholding the public interest within the BBC, particularly the interests of licence fee payers; and (c) securing the effective promotion of the public purposes” (s.22 of BBC Charter 2006). Its general duties on the other hand include, (a) representing the licence fee payers’ interests; (b) assuring the continued “independence of the BBC”; (c) cautiously and properly examining the licence fee payers’ views; (d) applying thorough “stewardship of public money”; (e) considering “the competitive impact of the BBC’s activities on the wider market”; and (f) ensuring the BBC’s observance of “high standards of openness and transparency” (s.23 of BBC Charter 2006). The responsibilities of the Executive Board on the other hand, is responsible for the following: “(a) the delivery of the BBC’s services in accordance with the priorities set by purpose remits and the framework set by service licences and any other strategies; (b) the direction of the BBC’s editorial and creative output; (c) the operational management of the BBC (except the BBC Trust Unit); (d) ensuring compliance with all legal and regulatory requirements placed upon the BBC (including the initial handling of complaints about the BBC) except to the extent that they relate to the affairs of the Trust or the BBC Trust Unit; (e) ensuring compliance with requirements placed upon the Executive Board by the Trust (for example, through Protocols or the Trust’s statement of policy on fair trading); (f) making proposals to the Trust for anything which is for the Trust to approve under article 24(2)(a), (d) or (e); (g) appointing, and holding to account, the management of the BBC and its subsidiaries; (h) the conduct of the BBC’s operational financial affairs (except those relating directly to the affairs of the Trust and the BBC Trust Unit) in a manner best designed to ensure value for money; and (i) accounting to the Trust for its own performance and the performance of the BBC and its subsidiaries” (s.38 of the BBC Charter 2006). As a distinct public service broadcasting company in the United Kingdom, the BBC is mostly regulated by Ofcom, “the competition authorities and the National Audit Office,” thus considered “a self-regulating institution” (Sandelson & Smith 139). The self-regulatory structure of the Corporation is set forth in the New Agreement (Dept for Culture, Media & Sport 20). The New Agreement also provides for the requisite compliance of BBC with the powers of Ofcom and to take into consideration Ofcom's guidance with regard to particular matters (Dept for Culture, Media & Sport 9). The list of requirements include: observance of the Fairness Code (s.107 Broadcasting Act 1996); observance of the standards code provided “under s.108 of the Broadcasting Act 1996”; setting up of “Statements of Programme Policy” (s.266 Communications Act 2003) taking into account Ofcom's guidance; “number of hours and program scheduling of news and current affairs programs”; observance of requirements on the “original and regional productions and regional programme-making”; “quotas on independent production”; the required setting up and compliance with “a code on program commissioning” in keeping with Ofcom's guidance; and a broad “duty to cooperate with Ofcom” as regards “its powers under the Communications Act” (s.198 Communications Act 2003) (Sandelson & Smith 140). Despite having the authority to impose certain conditions on BBC’s content, Ofcom however cannot enforce BBC’s performance of “its public service remit” unlike for “channels 3, 4 and 5 and the public teletext provider” (s.270 Communications Act 2003) (Sandelson & Smith 140). Aside from the above-mentioned Ofcom can also enforce remedial action on BBC in case it contravenes any enforceable requirement by entailing it to broadcast a correction or an account of results in the service it made, and if needed, instruct not to re-broadcast in the future (Dept for Culture, Media & Sport 51). Ofcom can also impose fines on BBC (s.94 of The New Agreement) up to ?250,000 (s.198(5) Communications Act 2003) in every occurrence of breach of the mandatory requirements also provided for in the New Agreement (Dept for Culture, Media & Sport 52). It is also clear that the Government’s policy on the manner by which public service broadcasting are controlled and carried out, must consider advancements “across the wider communications sector” (Didizian & Romer 96-97). Stephen Whitter in his speech, emphasizes the BBC’s role being the “central place in people's sense of reality and value,” and offering “a sense of direction” to the people (Didizian & Romer 97). He stresses the importance of television which continues to be the “source of news” with a great population tuned in “to BBC TV News” (Didizian & Romer 97). The BBC is also a major publicly funded institution which is just one of those corporations that comprises the public service broadcasting landscape (Ridgway 49). The British Broadcasting Company (BBC), is financed “by the universal license fee” paid by every household having their own television set, and is the biggest public service broadcaster (PSB) having comprehensive obligations to provide “public service programming” (Ridgway 49). The BBC is differentiated from Channel 3 presently known as ITV and Five, channels which are considered “commercial PSB channels” organized “for profit” but with “public service broadcasting” responsibilities (Ridgway 49). There has been a comprehensible and sustainable standard in providing “public service content” in the United Kingdom for the past 30 years (Ridgway 49). The model or standard works through the following: a license fee used to finance BBC’s activities and market conditions sustaining the “advertiser-funded public service broadcasters’” capability to maintain high amounts of “investment in public service content alongside the BBC” (Ridgway 49). The advantageous “access to analogue broadcast spectrum,” the “near monopoly on television advertising” as well as this model in providing public service content, has been increasingly threatened because of the revolutionized broadcast/media market (Ridgway 49). The development of “digital multi-channel TV” has divided the audiences and has taken viewers as well as “advertising revenue away from” commercial PSB channels (Ridgway 49). Advertising moneys are diverted now “from television to the internet” because the channels have been increasing in number and because of the development of “digital/online platforms” (Ridgway 49). These structural alterations have little effect on the BBC because of the funds it has from licence fees that protect it from those confronting commercial operators (Ridgway 49). Because of this, the BBC has been criticized by James Murdoch, chairman of BSkyB, in a publicized speech in the “Edinburgh International Television Festival in August 2009” (Ridgway 49). In the said speech, Murdoch assailed BBC’s role particularly “within the UK media environment” especially since it is maintained “by the universal licence fee” (Murdoch 14-15). He charged BBC of dominating the commercial players’ activities, specifically in the area of “online news market,” stating that BBC abuses the guaranteed funding it has “through the licence fee” and offering a very wide “range of free services” (Ridgway 49). The BBC's strategy in developing “public service content” intended for those who felt excluded before from the “mainstream public service broadcasting” through the expansion of its scope to offer a broader audience, may be demanded by the industry as well as politicians and legislators to be aligned “with other commercial broadcasters” and deter it from heavily distorting the market, while still recognizing BBC’s separate feature “as a public service broadcaster (Didizian & Romer 97). Another issue which greatly bothers commercial broadcasters is that between “competition law and the BBC” more than the corporate governance issues (Sandelson & Smith 142). The BBC must also comply with the “general competition law powers,” presently exercised concurrently by Ofcom and the Office of Fair Trading (“OFT”) on the broadcasting sector (Sandelson & Smith 142). In practice, OFT and Ofcom’s concurrency arrangements signifies that Ofcom would deal with every “competition law investigations” on the broadcasting sector (Sandelson & Smith 142). The BBC for the past 2 years has been criticized by some sectors for having activities that were anti-competitive, including that which launched BBC3 channel as well as its existence on the online internet (Sandelson & Smith 142). Research Machines plc which is a chief “provider of electronic educational resources to schools in the United Kingdom,” filed a complaint with OFT in 2002 against the BBC claiming that the latter, in producing a service offering “online educational content to schools” for free, contravened the Competition Act 1998, in particular, c.II thereof (Sandelson & Smith 142). A similar complaint was also filed by the British Educational Suppliers Association in October 2002 (Sandelson & Smith 142). In its decision, the OFT held that BBC’s announcement of its resolve “to enter the sector with a licence fee-funded service,” resulted in a considerable “adverse effect on competition” regarding the provision of educational software” (OFT website 6). However, the said decision also held that the BBC's resolve “to enter the sector was not, in itself, capable of constituting an abuse” contrary to that provided under the Competition Act 1998, thus did not uphold the complaint (Sandelson & Smith 142). The general view that BBC’s offering for free the services authorized under its Charter and obtaining “licence-fee funding” for that matter, is not in itself an abuse under the Competition Act 1998 and which was the basis for OFT’s decision (OFT 6; Sandelson & Smith 142). The decision also stated that “there was no per se prohibition” on this leading undertaking which has become operational in the adjoining market (OFT 6; Sandelson & Smith 142). It also explained that because the BBC was unauthorized to obtain payment from users of the “Digital Curriculum service,” and because the said service was precisely “funded by licence-fee payers” and not from commercial income, the OFT found the inapplicability of the “standard predatory pricing analysis”37 (OFT 6; Sandelson & Smith 142). This decision was said to create doubts if the BBC in its operations could still be subject to that provided under the Competition Act (Sandelson & Smith 142). Likewise, the judgment of the European Court of First Instance in the case of Fenin (Eur-Lex I-6319-I6329) creates a doubt if the BBC’s activities can be deemed as an “undertaking” when applying sanctions under the competition law (Sandelson & Smith 142). The case of Fenin involves claims of the Spanish health care trusts’ anti-competitive behavior, where the Court affirmed the European Commission’s earlier decision in finding that an organization that purchases goods to use for a different acitivty which is solely social in nature and not for providing the said “goods and services as part of an economic activity,” is not an undertaking just “because it is a purchaser in a given market” (Sandelson & Smith 142). The above decision is different with that held by Competition Commission Appeals Tribunal (“CCAT”) in the case Bettercare, 39 where it held that NHS trust’s act maybe considered as an undertaking under the Competition Act 1998 (Better Care Group Ltd v DGFT [2002]). Despite the differing decisions, the BBC’s offer of public service broadcasting for free under its Charter and Licence could still be understood to mean that its service is not an “economic activity” under the Competition Act and under Arts. 81 and 82 EC (Sandelson & Smith 143). As commented by Cushion and Lewis in the article “Towards a Foxification of 24-hour News Channels in Britain,” because of the “overarching PSB regulatory framework” providing the journalistic standard, the BBC has functioned “as a restraint” or has made a “‘Foxification’ of news,” (Cushion & Lewis 149). Digital Britain Report Lord Stephen Carter produced his report entitled, “Digital Britain, Final Report” wherein Chapter 5 thereof suggested the amendment to the restricted role of Ofcom in reviewing the health or the public service broadcasting in general in the United Kingdom (Ridgway 50). It stressed that Ofcom in its yearly review, should consider the broader distribution “of public service content” not only on television but also on “new media platforms” (Ridgway 50). The Report also explains that the existence of the license fee will continue to be the most important public interference “in the UK content market” in order to protect public objectives, and “a well-funded and independent BBC” should continue to be the foundation in producing and distributing “high-quality programming” (Ridgway 50). It however suggests that Ofcom should also realize the need for “plurality” in providing “public service programming” (Ridgway 50). The significant proposal in the Report was the “‘top-slicing’ of 3.5 per cent of the licence fee” in order to generate “a ‘contestable’ fund,” that could later on be utilized to finance “public service content” (Ridgway 50). The most important utilization for this money is to finance “the provision of regional news services on ITV” which, is said to be increasingly undelivered by the “market” (Ridgway 50-51). The top-slicing would include “local newspaper groups” which would could now bid for financing in producing “regional news programming” (Ridgway 51). The Report also points out BBC’s “potentially disruptive effect on developing media markets,” especially “for online news” because of the popularity of its website (Ridgway 51). As mentioned in the Report “Free is very difficult for any paid-for business models to compete with” (Ridgway 51). The Report emphasized that BBC Trust which is BBC's regulator, would have to “scrutinize any plans for new BBC services” and use “the Public Value Test” in making sure that they don’t negatively affect the commercial sector’s ability “to monetize similar services” (Ridgway 51). The Report also sets forth the significant civil elements it aims to pursue: 1) Assessing BBC’s role, its use of “commercial derived revenues” and finding out what comprises “proper use of the licence fee”; 2) Maintaining the provision regarding the “non-BBC supplied local and regional news” in the pursuit of “public service pluralism” requiring some form of financial aid, such as part of it to be taken from BBC’s licence fee; 3) Acknowledging that Channel 4 should continue to be BBC’s counterpoint, but which may lead to a “partnership with BBC Worldwide”; 4) Utilizing “BBC’s licence fee ‘digital surplus’” in order to assist in the funding for the supply of “2Mbps broadband universal service commitment by 2012”(Harrison 113). The Alternatives In January 2006, the Office of Communications (“Ofcom”) published a report entitled “Digital Local Options for the Future of Local Video Content and Interactive Services” stressing their two fold remit. The first is their duty to take into account their desire to promote the accomplishment of the goal of “public service television broadcasting” (PSB) (Harrison 3). In this, they have discovered that local TV being a possible significant element for the prospective PSB mix, which would serve audience needs not fulfilled by the present “blend of national and regional broadcasting” (Ofcom 2006a, 1). They have also recognized the non-establishment of the local services’ economic viability and the inadequate assessment of the audience’s request for them (Ofcom 2006a, 1). The second duty on the other hand is Ofcom’s responsibility in case another licensing regime is necessary “for digital local TV services,” to improve and apply the same, as ordered by the Secretary of State for Culture and Sport (Ofcom 2006a, 1). They stated that it is upon them to recognize the possible “future market for digital local services and the viability of alternative models,” for the planning to be notified of such regime (Ofcom 2006a, 1). Ofcom also lists in the report the public purposes which should be assumed by local TV (Ofcom 2006a, 2). However, Harrison notes that despite such clear statement of the public purposes, it is startling why they urgently juxtaposed such with a declaration that the commercial viability of local TV would only be in big metropolitan places and “only if the local TV supplier uses all the major distribution platforms to maximise reach” (Harrison 3). Hence, they conclude that “local TV may not be commercially viable at all” in other areas2 (Ofcom 2006a, 47). With this, Ofcom is aware of the real reliance on affiliations “with public agencies and community organizations” in order that local TV supplier may be supported (Harrison 3). The relation between public purposes and provisional market clarification leads Ofcom as regards “the BBC and its role in local TV (Harrison 3). Ofcom explores the ways to support the advancement of local TV by asking “BBC to support it” (Harrison 3). The difficulty however is that BBC is considered as a “big professional player which “could ‘crowd out’ other potential providers” (Harrison 3). The possible providers are likely to be smaller and not as professional as the established BBC, either because these are new participants to the local broadcasting such as those local citizens groups using digital cameras, or those news organizations branching out to local broadcasting such as “local newspaper groups” which might be attracted to “the benefits and economies of scale” formed “by converged journalism” (Harrison 3). Essentially, Ofcom in saying local TV serving public purposes does not necessarily mean to preserve BBC, thus, “local TV should not be seen as an automatic extension of the BBC bailiwick” (Harrison 3). Ofcom thus presents a list of alternatives for BBC: 1. restricting BBC’s participation in order to allot the highest opportunity to both the “commercial and community alternatives”; 2. Transferring some of BBC’s public funds alloted “for its local services to other providers”, perhaps through “a contestable fund”; 3. Requesting BBC to expound partnerships, like providing accessibility for “content and training” “to independent providers, or commissioning” and giving out “more content and services from independent providers”; 4. Offering central funding to those services which have achieved public purposes, such as “a Community Media Fund or Public Service Publisher”; 5. “Local funding, by local authorities, RDAs or national development bodies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland”; 6. Proposing to give license benefits for operators which qualifying like obliging cable operators to bear licensed services, or guaranteeing distinction “on electronic program guides”; 7. Giving “planned access to spectrum for digital terrestrial services” (Ofcom 2006a: 3-4). Aside from the above-mentioned, Ofcom stressed the importance of knowing “how to secure PSB in the digital environment” which requires a more understandable and “consistent competition framework” particularly in examining the BBC’s actions and its effect “on the market (Perry N157). Hence, Ofcom recommends the “review of PSB funding” by the government, initiate “steps to help pilot schemes for new forms of PSB”, and taking actions in connecting “the BBC more closely into the broadcasting sector as a whole” (Perry N157). In terms of the “effectiveness of competition law” on the BBC, Ofcom proposes that there be “changes to the BBC Fair Trading Commitment,” for it to be applicable on “both licence fee funded and commercial services” and “subject to independent approval and oversight”; changes in the BBC’s Charter and Agreement, to require BBC to take into account its impact on competition; and changes as to the “market impact assessments” on both new and existing services of the BBC (Perry N157-N158). Ofcom’s other comments include the necessity for a more understandable and coherence in the content regulation and roles of both the BBC and Ofcom; the need for a new standard if the PSB funding will be appropriated to various broadcasters aside from BBC and the need for BBC Trust to transform “into an external” and independent body to indicate a greater “public interest role”; and lastly the need for both Ofcom and the BBC to work together to create a coherent definition of PSB’s objectives and characteristics applicable “across the broadcasting sector as a whole” (Perry N158). Lesley Hitchens’ in her study entitled “Broadcasting Pluralism and Diversity: A Comparative Study of Policy and Regulation,” suggests that one should be cautious in presupposing “that we now have access to an abundant media environment,” where state regulation can be set aside and depend entirely on the market discipline (Smith 406). The Report of the Digital Britain also suggests the following: ‘As media markets converge further and user demands change, public service broadcasters should diversify their services through thematic channels, on-demand media, recorded media and Internet-based media services in order to offer a comprehensive and competitive range of media services for the public at large in accordance with their public service mission. Technological progress in the field of audiovisual media and electronic communications requires from public service broadcasters to make use of new technologies’ (Recommendation 1878 (2009) on the funding of public service broadcasting) (Harrison 113). Digital Britain also posits that BBC could not anymore “justify its role as a pluralistic organisation serving all tastes and interests” in order to continue publicly funding it and on the other hand claims that the private sector must be “publicly funded or subsidized with the BBC's licence fee money” to address the market failures of the BBC's in terms of “public service content” (Harrison 114). Digital Britain also advocates that Channel 4 should operate as the “second commercial public service digital content supplier” which is a “counterpoint to the BBC”  (Lloyd 59), and for Channel 3 to offer only local news by “opening up of their assets to independently financed news consortia funded by public money” (Digital Britain Final Report 18 & 136), reasoning that it would guarantee a “competitive environment” especially in providing “public service content” (Harrison 114). These suggestions were designed to guarantee “public service media pluralism” by offering “better quality news” (Harrison 114). Aside from this, partnerships by BBC have also been encouraged, but cautions that BBC cannot on its own be insufficient to meet the challenges confronting the “public service provision” specifically “in Nations, regional and local news where rival news agendas and journalistic inquiry are central to pluralism” (Digital Britain Final Report 19). Analysis and Conclusion The BBC has indeed performs the role in providing public service broadcasting and has been subject largely to regulation by the Ofcom. And as stated by Harrison, the BBC subsists in “a complex of media issues” persistently intensified “by the changing media environment,” alongside its duty to offer “value for money” broadcasts, its need to be aware of “the corporate fortunes of smaller organizations” and the necessity of developing and remaining significant and self-critical “to retain its privileged funding status” (115). There has been studies as well that local news had been reduced which, may be a significant concern (Harrison 115). One suggestion of Digital Britain, Final Report is BBC being assumed as the provider of funds instead of the important transfer of public service broadcasting values through “partnership arrangements or even by sharing its content with other media organizations” (Harrison 115). Provision of funds is not simple as it must still be thoroughly studied by identifying organizations that needs the funds and how much such funds will be given, and at the same time, assurance that the funds will be used for public service broadcasting by the concerned organizations. Further, the public service broadcasting journalism values have developed through the years not because of any legislation but because of a “direct response to a need to justify the licence fee” by producing quality journalism (Harrison 115). This has been the commitment of BBC and other public service broadcasting companies which guides the “continuous evolution of the output” (Born & Prosser 14). The said principles may not be easily reproduced in the way Digital Britain in its report expects it to be (Harrison 115). As commented by Harrison, the ability to successfully have an impact and reach, have high levels of production as well as editorial standards in maintaining precision and impartiality, and finally having “the financial stamina to sustain the service and quality” all necessitates “complex value judgments” may probably be questioned in the future (Harrison 115). Digital Britain’s Report in suggesting “the need for evolution and reduction of the BBC's PSB remit” to respond to claims that BBC threatens news pluralism is not entirely correct in the sense that even if “the size and scope of the BBC” may sometimes inhibit others to enter “the media market place,” BBC Trust also had efficiently operated in its remit specially since it is regulatory, undertakes research and investigation on BBC”s performance through Public Value Assessment Tests (Harrison 115). The Digital Britain Final Report is also more concerned the “market driven industrial activism” which endeavors to fix market failures by using “public money in areas of investment” and aimed at supporting “digital media companies” which would want to benefit “expanding new markets” (Harrison 115). Such actions would need to be studied further as one should determine its sustainability and at the same time examine if the public aims are still served. The structure of BBC being publicly funded through licence fees and the compulsory nature of the licence fee has also been criticized by most sectors. Further, having been an established public broadcasting company, has been subject to criticisms and charged as being anti-competitive. Despite such criticisms, BBC should nevertheless retain its nature of being a public service broadcasting company catered to address public needs and separately distinguished from companies operating for profit, as it has effectively functioned as such and has also been regulated by relevant government bodies. However, the anti-competition criticisms against BBC should also be addressed in order not to dissuade other new entrants to the media market. Suggestions as to the transfer of BBC’s funding to a contestable fund should also be thoroughly studied, identifying whether there is a need for such and the requirements in selecting the particular recipient of the funds as well as the obligation it has in return for the said funds. Works Cited Better Care Group Ltd v DGFT [2002]. Born, G and Prosser, T. “Culture and Consumerism: Citizenship, Public Service Broadcasting and the BBC's Fair Trading Obligations.” Modern Law Review 64(5): 657-87, p 14. Broadcasting Act 1996, s. 107 Communications Act 2003, s. 198, 198(5), 264, 266, 270. Cushion, Stephen and Lewis, Justin. “Towards a Foxification of 24-hour News Channels in Britain? An Analysis of Market Driven and Publicly Funded News Coverage.” Journalism: Theory, Practice and Criticism 10(2), 131-153. Department for Culture, Media and Sport. “Broadcasting: An Agreement Between Her Majesty’s Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and the British Broadcasting Corporation.” July 2006. Web. 12 December 2012. . Department for Culture, Media and Sport. “Broadcasting: Copy of Royal Charter for the continuance of the British Broadcasting Corporation.” October 2006. Web. 12 December 2012. Department for Culture, Media and Sport & Department of Business, Innovation and Skills. “Digital Britain: Final Report. June 2009. Web. 12 December 2012. . Durie, Robyn. “United Kingdom: telecommunications – regulation.” Computer and Telecommunications Law Review 2009, 15(4), N106-110. Didizian, Marly and Jason Romer. “The Communications Bill - the place of the BBC.” Computer and Telecommunications Law Review 2003, 9(4), 95-99. Eur-Lex. Fenin v. Commission. 11 July 2006. Web. 12 December 2012. . Harrison, Jackie. “Digital Britain: civil aims and the BBC.” Communications Law 2009, 14(4), 112-117. Harrison, Jackie. “Ofcom, local TV and public purpose.” Communications Law 2008, 13(1), 3-8. Laughton, Roger. “The BBC’s Local Television Pilot In The West Midlands: An Independent Assessment by Roger Laughton.” November 2006. Web. 12 December 2012. . Lloyd, J. “Digital Licence.” Prospect Magazine. July 2009. McGonagle, John D. “The future of public service broadcasting.” Entertainment Law Review 2012, 23(8), 235-237. Murdoch, James. “The Absence of Trust.” 2009 Edinburg International Television Festival. 28 August 2009. Web. 12 December 2012. . Office of Fair Trading (OFT). “BBC’s Digital Curriculum Service.” 29 May 2003. Web. 12 December 2012. . Ridgway, Stephen. “All change for public service broadcasting in the UK?” Entertainment Law Review 2010, 21(2), 48-51. Print. Office of Communications. “Digital Local - Options for the future of local video content and interactive service.” 19 January 2006. Web. 12 December 2012. . Perry, Caroline. “General: BBC.” European Competition Law Review 2005, 26(10), N157-158. Sandelson, Daniel, and Gavin Smith. “The future shape of the BBC: the Hutton inquiry, charter review and the challenges facing the BBC and the Government.” Entertainment Law Review 2004, 15(5), 137-146. Print. Smith, Rachael Craufurd. “Broadcasting Pluralism and Diversity: A Comparative Study of Policy and Regulation by Lesley Hitchens.” Public Law 2008, Sum, 404-406. Read More