TEMPLATE

CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY

SOUTH AFRICA 2000

XXIII General Conference of the Commonwealth Broadcasting Association

MAJOR REGULATORY CHANGES IN THE UK

Tony Stoller, Chief Executive, The Radio Authority

The UK Government is currently planning major changes in the way in which broadcasting is regarded, organised and regulated. As I speak, civil servants are putting the final touches to a policy statement, a White Paper, which is intended to pave the way for major new legislation in the next UK Parliament, probably in a year or two's time. One of the most significant features of this policy document is its draft title: the "Communications White Paper". Not just broadcasting, communications as a whole, thus including all telephony-delivered services including the Internet.

We are not first into this field, by any means. You have already heard about the Australian experience. But what is striking is that in the UK of all places, with its broadcasting heritage and history, new structures for broadcasting are being looked at in the same landscape as those for telecommunications. The likely outcome is going to be legislation which, in one way or another, seeks to equate those two hitherto distinct fields. All this arises out of the concept of 'convergence'. That takes several forms. There is, supposedly, 'industry convergence'. But there are suprisingly few examples of corporate convergence. Media companies may well take Internet interests, but acquiring major telephony companies is rare and risky. And vice versa. The fall of the chairman of Telefonica has been attributed by the UK's Financial Times to mistakes which included "the costly acquisition of a stable of media companies".

Then there is 'technical convergence', which is defined as the ability of all networks to carry all services. That is certainly on its way, but ability will not necessarily mean that it will happen. The most striking thing about the current technological revolution is that the technologists propose, but the consumer disposes. Think how many wonderful new inventions have failed to survive the test of the market. Speculate on how many, many more never made it beyond the design prototype, however good the design concept. And then judge how many of our listeners and viewers will discard the - highly effective - current forms of distribution, for the multi-platform future. Of course they can; but, in practice, will they?

Giving one of this year's BBC Reith Lectures, Dr. Gro Haarlem Bruntland claimed that "the Internet will be a great equaliser. Everybody will have the same access to information about health care." Yet in the same speech she said that, of the world's 6 billion people, 3 billion survive on less than $2 a day, and 1.3 billion on less than $1. Given that 70% of the world's population have never used a telephone, and 95% have never used a computer, the Internet revolution may be a little while in coming.

Politicians are all too easily attracted by the excitement of the concept of bringing together all electronic communications into a single structure. It seems tidy, and it seems 'modern'. Worst of all, it meets that most dangerous of ambitions that 'something must be done' about an issue which only a few people think is a problem. Broadcasters need to be both clear in understanding, and vociferous in asserting, that broadcasting and telecommunications are fundamentally different.

It is not just the economics that are different. One radio or television transmitter broadcasts to (at least in theory) an infinite number of people. It doesn't matter therefore whether you are reaching one person or a million, the costs are the same. This is true broad-casting. In telecommunications, every time you add even a single extra listener or viewer, there is an added cost. This is narrow-casting, or one-to-one. We use the broadcasting method where a single output is desired by a substantial number of people. It is a better use of resources, both technical and financial. It is not the same as a telephone call or an Internet hook-up.

It is not just that broadcasting people and telecommunications people are fundamentally different from each other. There is in practice very little cross-over between these two industries, as attendance at any conference - including this one - will testify.

It is not just that the regulators are different. Telecoms regulators believe that they can ensure that the public interest is served through competition policy alone. Media regulators are more sceptical that the operation of the market alone will deliver what listeners and viewers are entitled to expect. This is at the heart of the debate over whether and how far you can bring together all communications regulation.

The essential point is that broadcasting has always had a different social purpose than telecommunications. It need not be grand, or high-flown. But it espouses values and aims which are not merely industrial or commercial, which deploy a public good (in both the technical and vernacular sense of the word) for the broad benefit of listeners and viewers, and of the society they inhabit. Sarah Thane, and Richard Holme, who are speaking next, will be addressing two crucial aspects of that aim: achieving public service through broadcasting; and the maintenance of community standards.

The point I want to make is simply this. They will tell you, and those who make policy in your country just as in ours, that the technologies for delivering broadcasting and telecommunications are converging, and will overlap more and more in future years. They may well be right. They will also tell you that the Internet is a major new means of disseminating what has previously been largely broadcast material. That is undeniable.

But what they are not going to say is that the economics of broadcasting make it just as relevant in the Internet age as before; that in practice the striking thing about convergence is how slowly it is happening, not how quickly; and, most crucially, that there is a qualitative difference between what broadcasting is obligated to provide for society and what the telecommunications industry offers.

All of us in broadcasting right across the Commonwealth need to believe this. We need to keep faith when the preachers climb onto the back of their wagons to sell us the latest gospel. And we need to make sure that what we know and believe is understood by politicians and law-makers. Like all of us, they are attracted by the new. They need to be reminded constantly of the virtues of what broadcasting already offers and will continue to do into the new century.

Tony Stoller

The Radio Authority

12 October 2000