Information society : agenda for action in the UK : evidence received after 31 March 1996 / Select Committee on Science and Technology.
- Great Britain. Parliament. House of Lords. Science and Technology Committee.
- Date:
- 1996
Licence: Open Government Licence
Credit: Information society : agenda for action in the UK : evidence received after 31 March 1996 / Select Committee on Science and Technology. Source: Wellcome Collection.
41/324 page 343
![23 April 1996] [Continued Lord Haskel contd.] terms but clearly we have to pay for that transponder or we would have to pay for the decryption. The real question I think is one of access. Lord Craig of Radley 474. Mr Phillis, in your written evidence you draw attention to householders choosing a single delivery system for all services. This is talking about the digital terrestrial transmissions when they replace analogues and I think this follows on from what we have just been saying. You make reference also to the fact many of the conventional television aerials have fallen into disuse in Germany already. What lessons do you draw from this, particularly in relation to your point about the importance of the public accessibility being guaranteed through the other providers, whether it is cable or satellite? (Mr Phillis) The evidence we have from Germany, where there is a much more developed cable distribution system as well as an emerging satellite delivery is that now less than half of homes in Germany rely on the traditional terrestrial aerial to receive their signal. The lesson I think we draw from that is that here is very clear evidence of the more complicated digital age with a mixture of distribution systems. As you have outlined yourself, the requirement for “must carry” in terms of the cable or “must offer” in terms of satellite are the means by which one can ensure that the free to air services, and obviously our interest is the BBC, are made available. It is that sort of evidence which underlies our position as far as that is concerned. I think also if there is a “must offer must carry” guarantee provided for in the legislation then not only is it more likely that individual citizens and consumers will avail themselves of one or other of the new technologies but I think it will speed up the move from analogue to digital systems which ultimately as a matter of policy may allow a Government at some future date—because obviously this is going to take a long period of time—if they so wish to consider moving from a mixed economy of analogue and digital to a totally digital broadcast system. 475. Do you think it is going to be possible by legislation to make it absolutely clear what must be offered and what must be guaranteed? (Mr Phillis) 1 do if the regulatory framework is so provided. We are encouraged that the Government has taken account of the “must carry” requirement as far as cable operators are required and, as you know, in that context under the various copyright legislation the free to air services are provided free of charge. I think that is right and proper in order to stimulate the growth of the cable industry. Equally, I think it is a reasonable quid pro quo to expect in return for that provision of services without charge that the cable operator should be required to carry them as a matter of course. I think as far as satellite delivered systems are concerned—and there I draw the distinction between “must carry” on cable and “must offer” on satellite—the requirement I believe should be only to make available on non- discriminatory terms access to the public service or free to air providers but obviously we would have to pay the proper and fair commercial charges to secure such carriage. We would want to ensure as a matter of policy the BBC services are available across all three means of delivery: cable, satellite and terrestrial delivery services. Lord Butterworth 476. This theme you helped us over quite rightly from your introductory remarks onwards about the existence of public service being a consequence really of the licence. Because of this I understand your position to be that on any of the channels you would wish to see the BBC public service put out because as we go to digital transmission households may well choose a single method which would cause you to be excluded in a sense. Well now I would like to try and help you if I can, you have painted one logical conclusion but of course there would be another, would there not, and that would be to say: “Let us abandon the concept of the licence fee altogether”. I wonder whether you would like to elaborate what you were saying in your introductory remarks having that point in mind? (Mr Phillis) Thank you very much indeed for the question. I think there are two points I would like to make and I am sure Jane would like to add to them. The first is that as a public service broadcaster it is our responsibility and obligation to make programmes across the whole range of output to appeal to all ages, to all classes, to all interests, whether they are extremely popular or only mildly popular or appeal to a particular audience. One of the responsibilities we have as a broadcaster and programme maker is to ensure that the range of programmes we make, appealing to all of our licence fee payers, is at the top of our requirements. That is a mission and a purpose that we believe very strongly an organisation like the BBC has to adhere to. Secondly, it is not simply the provision of programmes on those distribution channels, it is maintaining the programme production base within Britain and making our contribution to the maintenance of the very high level of skill and creative ability that British broadcasting I think is rightly renowned for. It is only, we believe, through a publicly funded BBC, through the licence fee, which creates that stable source of income allowing us to fulfil those two purposes. We do not believe that without proper and adequate funding either the range or the quality or most importantly the maintenance of a British production base, as opposed to simply filling this multiplicity of new channels by imported and bought in programmes, is something which we could adhere to. The production base and range and quality is fundamental to that concept of public service funding and also the ability to provide those services without being driven simply by the maximisation of audience ratings. That means making those programmes available at times and in ways which perhaps other differently funded broadcasters are unable to do. 477. What you are saying is the base and the range of programmes could not be guaranteed save through the funding of a licence fee? (Mr Phillis) Yes, my Lord Chairman, that is precisely what I am saying.](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b32218631_0041.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
