CONSERVATIVES have set out plans for a 'big bang' deregulation of Britain's media to encourage innovation, bolster ailing commercial broadcasters and revive regional and local newspaper groups.
'Over-paternalistic' broadcasting and media regulations designed for the pre-internet era should replaced with a 'light-touch' approach which can keep up with the pace of change in the media market, said shadow culture secretary Jeremy Hunt.
Central to reforms would be a significant relaxation of cross-media ownership rules which currently prevent groups from owning regional newspapers, radio stations and TV channels in the same area.
Far from protecting the diversity of media in the regions, the 'outdated' rules may be destroying it altogether by denying commercial companies the ability to operate profitably, warned Mr Hunt.
Previous concerns over local monopolies of news delivery were not as relevant as in the past, because the internet makes it so much easier and cheaper for new providers to get their voice heard, he said.
In a speech today to the Manchester Media Festival, Mr Hunt will say: "We need massive reform of our outdated regulatory framework.
Reform
"The start must be massive reform of the cross-media ownership rules for local media operators. We need to allow media operators more flexibility to own businesses operating on both the same and different platforms."
With advertising revenues down by 12% for TV and radio, 20% for newspapers and 40% for local newspapers, media businesses desperately need to develop new business models, but are prevented from doing so by "a level of micro-regulation that has stifled innovation and made it very difficult for independent commercial operators to make a profit", Mr Hunt will say.
He will point to the eight commercial radio licences which have been surrendered and 900 local and regional newspaper journalists' jobs lost since 2008, warning that nearly all commercial local radio stations are likely to be loss-making by the end of the year.
While consumers are receiving entertainment and news through a growing array of platforms, British commercial media companies are hampered by the regulations from taking full advantage of the new opportunities presented by the internet, he will say.
And excessive regulation in the UK is discouraging potential investors from backing innovative ideas which could change the media world in the way that firms like Spotify, eBay and Amazon have done in recent years.
"Because our regulation is stuck in the pre-internet dark ages, we have left our media industries exposed and vulnerable to huge market shocks," Mr Hunt is expected to say.
"Media businesses desperately need to be able to adapt and find new business models. If they are allowed to. But because they are not, all our major advertiser-funded broadcasters are in serious difficulty."
Flexible
Under a more flexible regulatory regime, there would be scope for big cities to have their own local news channels - either on a dedicated station or as an opt-out from an existing broadcasting "multiplex" like ITV, Channel 4 or Five - he suggested.
The Government's Digital Economy Bill, launched in the Queen's Speech yesterday, was a "colossal disappointment" because it applied "old economy solutions to new economy problems", said Mr Hunt.
Proposals to prop up commercial regional news with money top-sliced from the licence fee would simply "set in stone the current failed model" and encourage broadcasters to compete for subsidy rather than to innovate.
Mr Hunt will tell his audience of media executives: "We need you to embrace the new business models of the future to ensure that you not just survive, but thrive as well.
"And you need a government with the courage to make the reforms necessary to allow you to get on with the job."
Tweet
Tories call for media 'deregulation'
November 19, 2009
Showing comments 1 to 15 and replies | View All
Black Flag (19/11/2009 at 15:03)
If that's the case, how is GMG able to own the MEN, Channel M and Real Radio?
fed up with it, sale (19/11/2009 at 15:45)
GAS ELECTICITY, WATER, WHAT NEXT????????
Black Flag (19/11/2009 at 16:15)
Hopefully health and education, as well as cutting the excessive amounts of regulation that still exist in the other industries you mention (I'll make an exception for water, which doesn't seem to be over regulated, as far as I can tell). Getting power out of the hands of politicians and into the hands of the customer is good by me.
Unfortunately, I don't expect it to happen. I don't think the present day Tories are much less of a big government party than Labour.
It may be 33 yrs but it will never be 37yrs. (19/11/2009 at 23:24)
Black Flag (20/11/2009 at 08:55)
What do you suggest? I don't see what your objection is. I don't see petrol stations running out of fuel, so it isn't like the oil desperately needs to be brought on shore. What's the benefit of storing it on land rather than storing it at sea?
Rammylad (20/11/2009 at 09:32)
At least we are now seeing the deal which has been struck between the SUN and the Tories. The sun bigs up DC whislt DC allows the papers to screw the British Public and reduce competition. Murdoch has played another blinder, hats off to him.
citycentre, manchester (20/11/2009 at 11:00)
Mr Murdoch's goal would likely be a significantly reduced BBC, allowing him to charge more for his products, particulalry internet news provision, and has he does have soemthing to offer in return his chancea of getting it will be higher.
It may be 33 yrs but it will never be 37yrs. (20/11/2009 at 11:57)
Black Flag (20/11/2009 at 12:40)
Not it isn't. Have you never heard of supply and demand? What magical force do you think will suddenly make petrol cheaper just because it is stored on land rather than at sea?
"no other country in the world are tankers laden with oil sitting off shore."
Yes there are. Try thinking it through. We are a fairly small island country, with stringent planning restrictions and high land costs. If you had to store oil for supply to the UK, would you:
(a) Store it on land, where the costs would be high and the planning system and NIMBYs would make you jump through hoops for years before you got anywhere near building a storage facility.
or
(b) Store it at sea until it's needed, when it can very easily be brought ashore.
"There is one report that one tanker has been sat there for months the oil companies are rationing our oil need just delivering enough so the price remains high."
Rationing implies that the supply can't meet demand. I haven't been unable to fill up my car at any point and I haven't seen petrol stations running out of fuel, so that obviously isn't the case.
Of course oil companies are delivering just enough. That's the only approach that makes sense. Otherwise, they would need to buy huge amounts of storage space at high cost.
Knowall, stretford end (20/11/2009 at 12:47)
Dae, Manchester (20/11/2009 at 13:36)
fed up with it, sale 19/11/2009 at 15:45
Perhaps the Caps Lock key?
It may be 33 yrs but it will never be 37yrs. (20/11/2009 at 23:59)
This government have only ever gone with public opinion once and that was in 2001 in the oil dispute they delayed any increases, because they had to back down they have thrown democracy through the window and boy are we paying for it now. Everyone within the government have been put into positions of power and influence undemocratically no one has had to run for votes, the PM, Lord Sleeze, Baroness Scotland and the rest, this makes our country no better than Zimbabwe for democracy. So while you and I are mere minions and pawns that are put to the economic sword can do nothing, as in all undemocratic regimes you will pay one way or the other.
Horatio Dogsbody, Flixton (21/11/2009 at 09:36)
Deregulation is dangerous and has always ended in disaster except for a few fat-cats.
The Tories deregulated the City, which led to all manner of mis-selling scandals, such as pensions and endowments etc. It led to the creation of a handful of mega banks and other financial companies, which, spurred on by the 'greed is good' culture, took excessive risks with exoteric 'financial instruments' and plain gambling with virtual money, until it all collapsed around them last year and they had to be bailed out by the taxpayer. Those responsible for that disaster now have the gall to blame the current government for the results of their recklessness, when most of them are Tories to a man.
The Tories deregulated public transport, which led directly to Manchester's 'bus wars' and the complete demise of public transport outside the city regions. Now a handful of companies have an almost complete monopolly of services in their terrorities and charge accordingly.
Deregulation of the media is just an euphemism for allowing the Murdoch Empire to take over all media without opposition. Where will be the independent voice to give us the true facts when the same people own most of the national press, the local press, all commercial television and radio services, the satellite services and internet services? Look to the recent spat with Virgin over content pricing, its current fight with Google over charging for internet news services, the blatent attempts to have the BBC nobbled by shutting down some of its channels, closure of its website and online services, the hiving off other departments and services and submitting it to a death by a thousand cuts through attacking the licence fee. The evidence is there, if the Tories 'deregulate' it will leave the door wide open for monopoly to take over.
People should know by now, the Tories are dangerous, never take them at face value. Always look behind the curtains!
Black Flag (21/11/2009 at 10:32)
You are confusing two separate issues. The primary difference between countries in terms of fuel price is tax and duty. That's got nothing to do with the oil companies. In any case, direct comparisons aren't particularly valid. On the continent, toll roads are far more common, which fulfills some of the purpose of fuel duty, in New Zealand, diesel vehicles are subject to road pricing, etc.
"As I said this government want it kept as high as possible so you and I can be fleeced by way of the tax we pay on the stuff."
How? The government generally loses revenue from higher fuel prices. Fuel duty is charged per litre, so more expensive fuel means less fuel bought means less fuel duty. The only thing that increases in response to higher prices is VAT, but more money spent on fuel means less money spent on other things means less VAT from other sources, so the VAT will tend to balance out.
"The government could have relented on the 2 pence increase per litre but against public opinion they went ahead and enforced the increase."
And I applaud them for that. It was unusual piece of political courage from a government which usually just goes along with the most shrill mindless calls. They could have caved in and given the freeloaders who don't like paying their way what they want, but on this occasion, amazingly, they didn't.
citycentre, manchester (21/11/2009 at 13:42)
Certainly over the past few deacades driving has become muh cheaper while public transport costs have increased (all in real terms).