Evidence to Inquiry into the Future of Public Service Broadcasting held by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, House of Commons Select Committee

• The time is ripe for a proper debate about the meaning of “public service broadcasting”. • The nature of the broadcast market has changed to such a degree that public service broadcasting (insofar as it can be defined) should no longer be delivered largely by one institution. Indeed, we should go further: there is no need for specific policy in relation to public service broadcasting. Analogies with the development of publishing in the 19th century are especially pertinent. • This does not mean that governmental bodies and other organisations should not seek to achieve legitimate public policy aims by subsidising broadcasting or streamed content – but broadcasting or content provision would be an instrument rather than a target of policy. • Niche providers are often better than the BBC at ensuring the broadcasting of good quality content to meet minority tastes. The BBC is clearly most attractive to higher-income white audiences, despite the impression it tries to convey in its marketing. • The fact that the market for broadcasting is now international and not limited to those who can watch at a given time means that much artistic, educational and cultural programming, which might not have been economic in the past, can now be economic and not need subsidy. • Changes in technology mean that the current approach to financing, owning and regulating the BBC is no longer tenable. The BBC should be financed by subscription and owned by its subscribers. It could then determine different subscription models for different markets (including online and overseas). This model has a number of advantages over alternative models of reform. • The BBC should lose its legal privileges and be treated in the same way as all other news and media organisations for competition and other purposes.