Independent producers and local tv



Download 0.56 Mb.
Page1/12
Date09.05.2021
Size0.56 Mb.
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   12

Title: Independent producers and local TV

IA No: DCMS043

Lead department or agency: DCMS
Other departments or agencies: n/a

     

Impact Assessment (IA)

Date: 20/12/2011 (Updated Jan 2012)

Stage: Consultation

Source of intervention:

Type of measure:

Contact for enquiries:

Dominic Lake 020 7211 6957

Media Team – DCMS





















Summary: Intervention and Options




RPC Opinion:




Cost of Preferred (or more likely) Option

Total Net Present Value

Business Net Present Value

Net cost to business per year (EANCB on 2009 prices)

In scope of One-In, One-Out?

Measure qualifies as

Not quantifiable

Not quantifiable

Not quantifiable





What is the problem under consideration? Why is government intervention necessary?

Success of a new Government initiative to facilitate local TV may be put at risk by two existing regulations:

a) Ownership ceiling: Independent producers cannot hold a stake of greater than 25% in any licensed local television broadcaster without losing their independent status. This could dissuade them from bidding either in partnership (with a collective share of more than 25%) or outright for a local TV licence.

b) Quota system: Existing regulation demands that all UK broadcasters, including licensed local TV broadcasters, must source at least 10% of their content from independent production companies. Keeping this rule means licensed local TV broadcasters would be subject to increased costs and sanction risks.

Government intends to consult on removing these regulations to meet dual policy objectives of low cost burdens on new licensed local TV services and encouraging the broadest range of licence bids.




What are the policy objectives and the intended effects?

Objectives: to enable a strong and sustainable local TV market, by removing:

  • the regulatory barrier preventing independent producers from having more than a 25% commercial stake in the local TV broadcast services without losing their independent status; and

  • the regulation that imposes a fixed 10% content quota on the newly licensed local TV broadcasters.

Intended effect: proceeding in this way would support the nascent local TV market, by:

  • creating commercial incentives for independent producers to invest through increased commercial stake in local TV, and thus broadening the number of bidders/expertise; and

  • shielding licensed local TV broadcasters from the cost burdens associated with meeting the 10% content quota (this quota removal would be consistent with the approach permitted by an EU directive for such quotas at the local level).




What policy options have been considered, including any alternatives to regulation? Please justify preferred option (further details in Evidence Base)

Option 1: Do Nothing: the status quo is maintained. Independent producers could only hold up to 25% stake in any licensed local TV broadcaster without losing their independent status and new licensed local TV broadcasters would be required to source at least 10% of their content from independent producers.

Option 2 (preferred): Deregulate in both areas through one new statutory instrument: (a) remove the ceiling on the permitted ownership stake of a local TV broadcaster by an independent production company; and (b) remove the requirement for local TV broadcasters to comply with the 10% content quota.




Will the policy be reviewed? It will be reviewed. If applicable, set review date: 1 year.

Does implementation go beyond minimum EU requirements?

No

Are any of these organisations in scope? If Micros not exempted set out reason in Evidence Base.

Micro

< 20



Small

Medium

Large

What is the CO2 equivalent change in greenhouse gas emissions?
(Million tonnes CO2 equivalent)


Traded:
     N/A

Non-traded:
     N/A

I have read the Impact Assessment and I am satisfied that, given the available evidence, it represents a reasonable view of the likely costs, benefits and impact of the leading options.

Signed by the responsible :



 Date:

20 Dec 2011

Directory: government -> uploads -> system -> uploads -> attachment data -> file
file -> Remove this if sending to pagerunnerr Page Title Light Rail Security Recommended Best Practice
file -> 8 Section 1 : Sport
file -> Notice of exercise of additional powers of seizure under Sections 50 or 51 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001
file -> Home office circular 004/2014 Powers to search for and seize invalid travel documents in Schedule 8 to the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014
file -> Consultation on the Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2012
file -> Crown copyright 2012
file -> This is the Report to Government by the Film Policy Review Panel The brief
file -> Impact Assessment (IA)
file -> Dcms/Wolfson Museums and Galleries Improvement Fund a public-Private Partnership (2002-2010)


Share with your friends:
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   12




The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2020
send message

    Main page