Not since the dawn of the printing press has there been such a radical transformation in the nature of communications. The digital age, focused on the birth of the internet, has completely revolutionised how information is communicated, shifting power from governments and established organisations to ordinary people, who for the first time in history had the ability to communicate essentially without filter or without censor with their fellow citizens and taxpayers.
Ever since then, government, with its natural inclination towards controlling information flows and limiting free speech, has been desperately trying to catch up. There was the Communications Act (2003), which, among other measures, created Ofcom, banned political advertising on television or radio and made the sending of a “malicious communication” via a public network a criminal offence. But that was focused more on controlling broadcast media, given the advent of cable television and the proliferation of broadcasters that resulted. The ability of government to control content available online remained extremely limited.
That has since changed, spectacularly, with the introduction of key elements of the Online Safety Act. This legislation, whatever is said about some of the noble aims to restrict children from viewing pornography, has actually resulted in the suppression of legitimate political speech.
But the government, through Ofcom, is not content with telling us what we — and in particular young people and children — can’t see online. It is also, more surreptitiously, trying to engineer what we, and in particular young people and children, should be seeing.
In Ofcom’s latest Public Service Media (PSM) Review, published recently, it was revealed how little the younger generation now cares about our state broadcaster, the BBC. For 16-34 year olds, Netflix, YouTube and Disney+ rank higher than the BBC. The figures are even more stark for children. As the report notes “today’s 4-6-year-olds spend a larger proportion of their in-home viewing on YouTube (27 per cent) than they do on all public service broadcasters’ (PSBs) services combined (21 per cent)”, while “7-12 year olds spend over a third of their in-home viewing time (35 per cent) on YouTube and 13-15 year olds spend nearly half (49 per cent) on YouTube and TikTok.”
Younger people simply aren’t consuming the BBC. Yet they may end up being forced to pay for it. If they consume live television — BBC or otherwise — through YouTube, or other streaming services, they will have to cough up. Even more extraordinarily, the government is refusing to rule out requiring Netflix and Disney+ users, even those who do not consume live television, to cough up for the licence fee as ministers scrabble around for anyway to fund the Beeb which doesn’t involve a modern, 21st century funding model.
But it’s not enough to force young people to cough up for this content. Ofcom is determined to find a way for them to consume it. The Media Act (2024), includes a clause which states that “a regulated television selection service” must give an “appropriate degree of prominence to material that is public service remit content or contributes to the promotion of one or more of the BBC’s public purposes.” Essentially what this means is that smart TVs, via the Internet Television Equipment Regulations (2024), are required to place BBC iPlayer in a position of prominence, regardless of how frequently the user accesses the app.
Not content with this, Ofcom has further plans to force feed the younger generation the BBC. Because the PSM review also includes proposals for PSB content to to be given greater prominence on services such as YouTube and recommends that the government considers whether this needs to be underpinned by legislation.
And of course why not? Do we really want the next generation to miss out on the amazing range of BBC content there is available? From chants of “death to the IDF”, to documentaries narrated by the son of a senior terrorist, to brilliant on-air talent like Gregg Wallace and Gary Lineker, our broadcaster is an endless treasure trove of unmissable television.
What’s really notable though about the PSM review is what it doesn’t say. Discussion of the licence fee is almost entirely absent from the 65-page document, bar some passing references. Given Ofcom’s willingness to suggest policy in other areas it seems peculiar that they wouldn’t also recommend that the government consider the appropriateness of a 20th century model of funding broadcasters for the 21st century. Especially given the BBC’s charter is up for review in 2027.
Whether the BBC can adapt or not, it’s not for taxpayers to fund
All of this is extremely undignified. Ofcom is acting almost as the carer of the state broadcaster, which now gives off a sense of being too tired, too sclerotic to have the courage of its convictions and the conviction in its content to try and keep up with the fast moving digital age and instead relies on the regulator to ensure it always gets a seat at the table.
Of course, the irony in this is that it’s probably the licence fee itself that is holding the BBC back. For as long as it doesn’t absolutely need to adapt, then why force the issue? But whether the BBC can adapt or not, it’s not for taxpayers to fund. This government was elected on a promise of change. In 2027 it has an enormous opportunity to make one change by scrapping the licence fee and moving the BBC onto a subscription model.
