The communications act 2003: A new regulatory framework in the UK

Convergence

Volumn 11, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 75-94

  Doyle, Gillian ^a   Vick, Douglas W ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF STIRLING   (United Kingdom)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 58049149882     PISSN: 13548565     EISSN: 17487382     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/135485650501100306     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Doug Vick died on 1 May 2004. Analysis of subsequent events is the responsibility of the other author
2. Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) and Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), Regulating Communications: Approaching Convergence in the Information Age (1998) Cm 4022 ('Communications Green Paper'), pp. 5-6 (Executive Summary)
3. DTI and DCMS, A New Future for Communications (2000) Cm 5010 ('Communications White Paper'), p. 11. At www.communicationswhitepaper.gov.uk/ pdf/index.htm#top (accessed 18 October 2004)
4. Regulatory Impact Assessment, Setting Up OFCOM as a Single Regulator, para 10, www.communicationsbill.gov.uk/pdf/OFCOM_assessment.pdf (accessed 18 October 2004)
5. Communications White Paper, p. 77
6. See Communications Act 2003, ss 16-19; ss 12-13
7. Maggie Brown, 'Busy Body?' Guardian, Media Supplement (19 July 2004), p. 3
8. Communications Act 2003, ss 3(1)-(4), 65-72, 264-271
9. Directive 2002/19/EC on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (Access Directive), OJ 2002 L108/7; Directive 2002/20/EC on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive), OJ 2002 L108/21; Directive 2002/21/EC on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive), OJ 2002 L108/33; Directive 2002/22/EC on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive), OJ 2002 L108/51
10. Draft Regulatory Impact Assessment, para 12. www.communicationsbill.gov. uk/pdf/RIA.pdf (accessed 18 October 2004)
11. However, the Government has refused to assume an active role in regulating the content of video and audio programming disseminated over the internet or via telephony
12. Tessa Jowell, 'Act of Clarity', Financial Times, Creative Industries Supplement (2 July 2003), p. 4
13. Ofcom, Consultation on the proposed Ofcom Broadcasting Code (Ofcom, July 14 2004), p. 3
14. Communications Act, s 319 (4)
15. Consultation on the proposed Ofcom Broadcasting Code, p. 91
16. See Royal Charter for the Continuation of the British Broadcasting Corporation, www.bbc.co.uk/info/policies/charter Agreement between Secretary of State for National Heritage and the BBC (accessed 18 October 2004)
17. Ofcom will also adopt a few regulations governing the independent radio sector analogous to the quantifiable regulation characteristic of Tier 2 television regulation, even though commercial radio stations are not regarded as public service broadcasters. For example, Ofcom is responsible for assuring that the range of programming available in any locality in the UK is not narrowed and that the 'localness' of local radio is preserved, Communications Act 2003, ss 312-315, and will probably use a combination of licence conditions and co-regulation to achieve these goals
18. Proposed Amendments to the Main BBC Agreement dated 25 January 1996 (20 March 2003), cl 13D and 13E
19. See Ofcom, Phase 1 Report of the Public Service Broadcasting Review (Ofcom, 2004), p. 4
20. Hansard Parl Deb, HC, 31 Dec 2002, col 793 (comments of Culture Minister Tessa Jowell)
21. DTI and DCMS, Consultation on Media Ownership Rules (November 2001), p. 7
22. J. Harding, 'An Overhaul? Yes, but ...', Financial Times, Creative Industries supplement (12 December 2000), pp. 2-3
23. A. O'Connor, 'Blueprint for a 10-year Regime', Financial Times, Creative Industries supplement (12 December 2000), p. 3
24. Competition Commission, Carlton Communications Plc and Granada plc, A Report on the proposed merger (Cm 5952), (October 7 2003) available at www.competition-commission.org.uk/rep_pub/reports/2003/index.htm (accessed 18 October 2004). Approval for the merger was recommended subject to conditions concerning airtime sales that are intended to protect advertisers and subject to some protections for the remaining minority of small companies
25. Communications Act, s 348. Other deregulatory moves include the scrapping of rules that prevent advertising agencies from holding broadcasting licences and a scaling back of restrictions on the ownership of licences by religious organisations
26. A. O'Connor, 'Media Bill heralds TV free-for-all', Financial Times (8 May 2002), p. 1
27. Communications Act 2003, s 375, amending Enterprise Act 2002, s 58
28. Hansard Parl Deb, HC, 14 July 2003, col 54 (comments of Culture Minister Tessa Jowell)
29. Hansard Parl Deb, HC, 14 July 2003, col 44 (comments of Culture Minister Tessa Jowell)
30. Phase 1 Report of the PSB Review, pp. 71-72
31. Ofcom, Ofcom Review of Public Service Television Broadcasting, Plain English Summary (Ofcom, 2004), p. 12
32. Consultation on Media Ownership Rules, p. 6
33. Hansard Parl Deb, HL, 25 March 2003, col 666
34. I. Hargreaves, 'Why is the Sun Hot for Tony?', Financial Times, Creative Industries Supplement (20 March 2001), p. 5
35. The term 'voice', in this context, alludes to the potential to communication a particular worldview or set of values. For pluralism to exist, 'the presence of a number of different and independent voices and of differing political opinions and representations of culture within the media' is generally seen as essential - see, for example, G. Doyle, Media Ownership: The Economics and Politics of Convergence and Concentration in the UK and European Media (London: Sage, 2002), p. 11. Media markets in which there are few suppliers may not necessarily pose any concern in terms of competition. But they frequently raise concern s about pluralism. An accompanying notion - 'share of voice' - is sometimes used to denote the potential scale of influence that accompanies different levels of ownership of media
36. Independent Review Panel, Report, The Future Funding of the BBC (1999) (Davies Report), p. 10, www.culture.gov.uk/global/publications/archive_1999/ funding_bbc.htm?properties (accessed 18 October 2004
37. Communications Green Paper, paras 4.38-4.40
38. Draft Regulatory Impact Assessment, para E4
39. See Ofcom Review of Public Service Television Broadcasting, Plain English Summary (April 2004), p. 10
40. Overarching Regulatory Impact Statement, Communications Bill, para 2.5
41. Draft Regulatory Impact Assessment, para E3
42. Seymour-Ure observed that British policies concerning the media have been 'generally uncoordinated, reactive, expediential, partial and indirect; a matter of broad objectives and attitudes ("freedom of the press", "an independent British film industry", "public service broadcasting", "deregulation") rather than of detailed programmes and plans' - see Colin Seymour-Ure, The British Press and Broadcasting Since 1945 (2ed), (Oxford: Blackwell, 1996), p. 228
43. Gibbons has argued that with a single regulator disagreements over regulatory objectives could 'become a matter of office politics rather than democratic debate,' and that 'it would be much healthier to have more than one regulator, with each defending its own corner through public and Parliamentary discussion' - see Tom Gibbons, Regulating the Media (2ed), (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1998), p. 304