Broadcasting
Room for improvement
Paul Johnson The Government's White Paper on cable systems sensibly follows the main recommendations of the Hunt Report, which was (by present-day standards) a notably libertarian document. There were, of course, many objectionable features in the Hunt recommendations, as I pointed out at the time, and most of these are reproduced in the White Paper. But in some ways it is an improvement on Hunt. It ac- cepts, where Hunt rejected, the system of Pay-per-view, which allows the cable com- pany to charge for specific programmes. It Permits classified and other all-advertising channels. It does not impose impossible re- quirements in the way of technology. It ac- cepts that cable companies be allowed some say in the mapping of the franchise areas they serve. All these proposals are designed to strengthen the financial viability of the first cable companies and to encourage in- vestors, who have recently been daunted both by the propaganda barrage put about by the BBC, unions and other vested in- terests, and by the gruesome experiences of TV-am and Channel 4.
So far so good. Potential bidders for cable franchises have been much encourag- ed by the White Paper and there is now lit- tle doubt that there will be plenty in the run- ning. It is also excellent that the White Paper, like the Hunt report itself, shares the anxiety of the Prime Minister and Ken- neth Baker, Minister for Technology, to get cable into the ground as quickly as possible — hence the proposal that licences be issued to up to 12 systems, covering 100,000 homes, in advance of legislation. It is vital that consumers experience the advantages of high-technology cable TV at the earliest °PPortunity, so that an expanding home market can be rapidly created as a prelude to building up an export trade in cabling. All the same, any Bill based upon the White Paper will have serious faults and should be subjected to careful scrutiny by Tory MPs, with a view to forcing through amendments. First, while the White Paper rightly rejects the outrageous demand by the unions that British Telecom be given a monopoly of cabling, it is hard to justify its proposal that BT, plus the private consor- tium Mercury, be given in effect a duopoly. A whole series of restrictions will ensure that cable companies are forced to employ their services: for instance, BT and Mercury telephone will be permitted to offer voice .telephone services on cable or to col- laborate with the provision of data services in the business centres of London, Man- chester and Birmingham. Duopoly is only o lie degree less odious than monopoly, and n the empirical arguments for imposing it in the first instance are strong, MPs should in-
sist on an early cut-off date.
Secondly, many of the restrictions on programme content seem wrong. Why should not cable operators be allowed to buy exclusive coverage of what are termed 'national events'? There is absolutely no evidence that there is a public demand for such a veto, which is hard both on sports promoters and on the operators. If it is right to charge people to see, for example, the Grand National on the spot, why is it wrong to charge to see it on the TV screen? The White Paper rejects the view of the Hunt report that soft porn be permitted on cable, under the safeguard of a locking device to prevent children from watching. This, too, is illogical, though it may well be justified. So far as it is possible to judge, the great majority of British viewers do not want an 'adult' channel — they get quite enough raw sex from the BBC and Channel 4 and if they want more they can resort to video cassettes. At any rate, few libertarians will be prepared to fight a battle on behalf of the porn trade.
Equally, I doubt if there will be much ob- jection to the White Paper's veto on chan- nels owned or sponsored by political par- ties. It is a different matter, however, when religion is included in the veto. Indeed, it is not at all clear why Mr William Whitelaw places religion on the same moral plane as pornography: that is, a topic so objec- tionable in itself and so liable to lead to public controversy as to make it unsuitable for a separate channel. In fact there is a strong case for allowing religious groups to set up their own cable service. If there is one thing this increasingly violent and dishonest country needs it is a bit more moral indoc- trination. Nowadays, religion gets a very poor deal from conventional TV. 'God slots' have been cut down, eliminated or, worse, turned into varieties of political (unusually left-wing) propaganda, follow- ing the widespread assumption among the fashionable clerics who infest the media that religion has nothing to do with spiritual life but is exclusively concerned with social welfare. Genuine churchgoers are usually nauseated by so-called religious program- mes, and it is a reasonable assumption that there is a demand for straightforward Christianity on the box, which cable could
supply. And why should not Moslems, for example, have their channel too?
Thirdly, it seems to me intolerable that cable operators should be obliged by law to carry the programmes of their chief com- petitors, that is the existing four channels, plus provision for the proposed five satellite channels. The White Paper is illogical on this point since some existing cable com- panies are to be relieved of this statutory duty if they supply an aerial. Surely such provision ought to be left to the subscriber? If the public want conventional TV on their cable, let them have it. But of course many will not wish to have it, because by taking cable alone they will be legally entitled to discontinue paying the onerous BBC licence fee. This is precisely the reason why the Home Office, which has an undue fondness for the misnamed concept of 'public service broadcasting' and especially for the BBC, insists on cable operators carrying the ex- isting duopoly services. Here is an excellent issue of principle on which backbench MPs can unite to change the Bill for the better.
Cable TV is thus on the march, despite its many collectivist enemies. In the long run it must bring fundamental changes in conven- tional TV, and very likely the end of the BBC, or at any rate of the licence system. As I have urged before, the BBC would be well advised to assume it will not have licence revenue for ever and to begin the search for alternatives now. That, I im- agine, is one good reason why a new, finance-minded chairman has been ap- pointed. As a matter of fact, the White Paper points the BBC in the right direction, since it proposes that the Corporation be allowed to use pay-per-view for its satellite services. It is, indeed, high time that the BBC began to move away from its privileg- ed parasite status and to earn its keep in the harsh world of commerce.
Previous page
