Ofcom should be the BBC's ultimate overlord, UK.gov told Telcomms regulator Ofcom should also regulate the BBC, a review for the Ministry of Fun has found. An independent review into the governance and regulation of BBC governance by Sir David Clementi, commissioned by DCMS, reported back yesterday. Astonishingly, Clementi came up with the result that the government had wanted in …
Early on the BBC Trust indicated it was ready to intervene and kill off empire-building schemes
So what would that make this then? Ofcom is just another empire building scheme, no different from so many Government QUANGOs. This is just an excuse to build over the Trust which in itself was an attempt to build over the prior BBC setup, all of which was done to try to take away the editorial autonomy of the BBC just as Thatcher and her cronies did with ITV years before.
The BBC isn't squeaky clean, but putting a huge QUANGO like Ofcom in charge of them will change nothing other than make them more accountable to the very people that they need to be independent of.
> Ofcom is just another empire building scheme,
Ah, but then it would be "independent" (well, under different control) and would provide an excuse to start cutting BBC services and selling them off to the highest bidder such that eventually we'd have *no* broadcaster which isn't sucking the Corporate Tit*
* Mentioning no names as to *who* the Corporate Tit may be...
I'm torn with the BBC. On one hand, it is a venerable institution with lots of decent programming that it has made and continues to make. On the other hand, you've got this (subjectively) biased organisation that lacks accountability and fights tooth and nail against any attempt at transparency. With a private outfit (Sky, for example) if they feck you off, you just stop buying. No such luck with the BBC. So, I cautiously welcome an external regulator, but am concerned over how much government meddling this could entail.
Tough one to figure out where I stand on this...
AKAIK most of its 'good programs' are made by external companies.
Its news (hahaha) is abysmal, for example...
BREAKING NEWS we interrupt this interesting piece to show you..
The PM leaving Downing Street in his CAR WTF!! get a grip.
As for the rest of the news (hahahah) its Ground Hog Day.
The solution, more quality, less quantity and lower telly tax.
"AKAIK most of its 'good programs' are made by external companies."
Possibly true, but those external companies wouldn't have a customer for their programs without the BBC's "telly tax".
Maybe telly doesn't matter anymore, what with infinite YouTube videos on every possible subject, but if you actually want quality programs then the only proven method for producing them on a large scale over a prolonged period is to force everyone to help pay for them.
This is so you don't find out its secretly the BBC that have been pushing for all the new housing and pulling in immigrants with false promises on their world service. They do this so that they can generate more TV license fee's !!! Soon they are going to take over and mindwipe everyone in their own homes !!!
Well, you CAN stop buying BBC services. I did 30 years ago when my last telly broke. Of course "Auntie" doesn't believe me and her stooges are threatening me constantly with legal action and search warrents because I won't communicate with them and they can't believe that after decades of telling them I don't and won't have a shit pump in my home. I don't have a car, light aircraft, dangerous animal etc. etc. No other licensing authority sends stooges visiting ad-hoc trying to get entry into your house "just to check". The mysterious Detector Vans have supposedly been able to find out license evaders for half a century but Auntie prefers to send greasy creeps from TV Licencing and Capita etc. to rattle our letter boxes and try to get entry. The BBC are a bunch of pedophile sheltering thugs.
could not organize a pissup in a brewery.
Their indecision over BT/Openreach has been well documented here.
Giving them the responsibility over the Beeb is sheer lunacy. Even the most minor action on their part will take months if not years.
See icon.
Offcom are a useless, toothless QUANGO and the BBC are above the law. I'd love to see someone hold the BBC to account for their blatant political correct and left wing agenda but I can't see that happening any time soon. Some of their PC must have someone from every background and gender in every programme is embarrassing to watch.
Best thing that could happen is that the BBC go self funded (subscription) and we'd see how long they'd last then. They are the only company (but still called a corporation) that gets paid by everyone irrespective of their performance and unless that changes it will be business as usual.
P.S. Their Pro America Donald Trump coverage can take a hike too.
From wikipedia (as good as anything for a quick look)
former Deputy Governor of the Bank of England
Chairman of International Payments business World First
Vice Chairman of Investment Manager Ruffer Group.
former Chairman of Prudential
(former) non-executive director Rio Tinto Group
former Chairman of Virgin Money
I'm not seeing a lot of experience in telecoms, media, provision of information....etc
Now whether that's a good thing or not, I leave to others.
Yes, however bad the BBC Trust was, handing it over to Ofcomm is even worse. Quite a bit that is going wrong with the BBC now (channel & budget reductions, licence money stealing) is down to government bullying. A wee bit more independence would have helped.
Instead we are going in the wrong direction. Overview to a government set agenda which sets commercial broadcasting above public service broadcasting.
Yes the Beeb would exploit any independence with a few more decisions in their interests rather than the viewers and listeners. But not as any as commercial broadcasters do every day encouraged or at least condoned by Ofcomm.
Speaking as an ex customer who has not had a TV set this century and blocked “bbc.co.uk” by firewall for years its hard to care what happens to his sanctimonious cancer of democracy. I see it occasionally when visiting folk and it seems ever more like a piss take of itself. Will this change get them back to the golden days of the BBC and its core values, pre war Lord Reith blocking rabble rousing anti appeasement politicians from accessing the media (Churchill), Peston using live coverage to undermine RBS negotiations using an intriguing stream of apparently market leading inside information to bring the company down etc, Peston Fixed It as surely as the great Jimmy, true BBC men at heart.
When I hear radio news now I repeatedly hear sketches presented by actors written by anonymous parties, what agency is paying for this mendacious fiction that the BBC laughingly presents as fact.
The only answer is to shatter the monolith that is slowly poisoning the UK, its becoming clear that the BBC like the idea of the License Fee becoming a government imposed tax. It will make the poll tax seem like a stroll in the park.
When I worked for the Commercial Media rivals of the BBC everything that could be blamed on the BBC was blamed on the BBC. Audience figures for a show slightly down? Specific demographic missing from the audience? Unable to do that on a commercial station (Ofcom would scream murder) only the BBC can get away with it. It's always the fault of the BBC. So I played devils advocate in one meeting by suggested that what we wanted therefore was for the BBC to be put on equal terms with ourselves namely be regulated by Ofcom and take advertising rather than the License Fee.
The faces round the room were not smiling and someone said we didn't want to change the status quo (and certainly didn't want then taking advertising) because who would we have to blame for our woes - we certainly won't be blaming our excellent programmes.
Ofcom can and do ban services from broadcasting in the UK, fine you for serious breaches of the broadcasting code and for the Media services 'can' be quite tough. Telecoms on the otherhand.......
Do any of the official "regulators" actually do anything for consumers? Ofcom seems to exist to protect BT and their openworld monopoly. Ofgem have done nothing about pushing prices lower, or dealing with dodgy selling tactics or t&c's etc - so again the actually appear to exist to protect the energy companies. Ofwat seem to be doing nothing to force the water companies to replace ancient leaking pipes.
They're all a complete waste of tax payers money.
Ofgem have done nothing about pushing prices lower, or dealing with dodgy selling tactics or t&c's etc
Speaking as an employee of a company on the receiving end of some of Ofgem's £200m odd of industry fines over the past five years, I presume you've been relying on the comments section of the Guardian to keep you up to date on UK regulatory practices?
And again, speaking with an industry background that also includes water, Ofwat do a very good job of balancing consumer interests, costs and the water industry. The poor state of the network inherited back in 1990 was of course entirely down to the failure of the public sector to maintain the asset, and the reason it hasn't all been replaced is because the country would grind to a halt if they dug up every sewer and water pipe, and because your water bill would be about £6k a year to deliver the programme in a decade.
"Do any of the official "regulators" actually do anything for consumers?"
No. That's not their purpose; they are there to ensure a "level playing field" between the big players. That's why it's always Virgin complaining to OFCOM about Sky, or everyone complaining to OFCOM about BT, or British Gas going to OFGEM about npower. If you want to complain to one of the OFBODS, you need to have the cash to present your case over a *VERY* expensive lunch.
It doesn't matter if retail energy prices are going up when wholesale prices have plummeted, or everyone sells broadband based on unattainable speeds. As long as everyone is screwing the customer in the same way, it's fine. In fact, the OFBODS would probably uphold the howls of complaints and judge it unfair competition if one player broke ranks and started treating customers fairly...
Passing the Board of Trustees "regulatory" function over to Ofcom may or may not be a good idea, but the Trust has other functions about which Ofcom frankly won't give a sh1t.
The Trustees should have blown the whistle on the DMI and doubtless other follies, but one thing that I think we can be absolutely certain about is that unless Ofcom's remit is radically changed it won't pay the slightest attention to a future DMI debacle. Corporate stupidity will be of no interest to Ofcom unless it impacts on some (existing?) regulatory standard. OK; the Trustees failed in that specific responsibility but that was a failure of their duty, not the non - existence of that duty, and there will have to be some body to oversee the non - regulatory matters that do not fall within Ofcom's brief.
IMHO leaving such responsibilities to the Board fo Management is to invite a repeat of DMI (or similar) and there must remain some "board" (whatever one might choose to call it) to maintain that oversight. I suspect (but do not know) that the problem was that there was nobody in the Trustees with sufficient technical knowledge to be able to mount a proper challenge to management thinking (if there ever was a case where "manglement" might be more appropriate then this was surely it) along the lines of "the Emperor has no clothes".
I can't see Ofcom being able to fulfill that role.
So how will this pan out? Will they treat the BBC like BT, a monopoly and hence demand that it should open up it's channels to competition, and go on about splitting the business up along nonsensical lines, simply to "increase competition".
Also won't OFCOM have a conflict of interest, because they are wanting to reduce the spectrum available to broadcast radio and TV (ie. the BBC and friends), so that it can be resold to the 4G operators...
Yes, I get it that the BBC Trust have a conflict of interest, but I doubt that getting OFCOM involved will actually give rise to any benefit whatsoever; unless you happen to be Sky, TalkTalk et al (you can see their complaint: the BBC should be a programme maker not a programme delivery organisation, because that igves it an unfair advantage...).
The BBC don't need a regulator just to protect themselves from themselves, they need one to protect them from unfair external interference as well. Particularly unwarranted political pressure and the nonstop lies spouted by some media rivals. OFCOM in that role makes no sense at all unless the aim is destroying any independence the BBC still has.
Enough people hate them for usually purely selfish reasons, OFCOM aren't the solution to ensuring honest and strong but fair and balanced independence in the face of so many wanting to cripple and control the BBC.
Must have missed the left wing BBC agenda, from the random selection of BBC stuff I watch they normally seem to be quite right wing in overall tone across content as a whole (obv any 1 particular program, be it TV or radio, chosen at random might have a left wing bias, but overall their "slant" always seem to broadly follow government line in recent years ).
As far as I can tell, the BBC gets accused of bias from all sides of the political spectrum - which kinda implies they aren't biased (at least not in the way people accuse them of being)
However, they definitely need to more independence from government influence - they should never be a mouthpiece for any political party, they should be providing the facts, and letting people make their own conclusions. Doing any less is a disservice to democracy.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
