Exclusive: Purnell: British broadcasting "to be admired"

In this exclusive essay commissioned by Freeview for Digital Spy, culture secretary James Purnell outlines the government's aims for the future of public service broadcasting in a post-switchover world.

We are going through a revolution in broadcasting technology. And while the view from the digital sofa may be ever-changing, it is certainly bright.

It is a basic fact that broadcasting in this country is to be admired and compares well with rest of the world. Both private and public sectors are thriving; output is educative, informative and entertaining.

We now have the highest proportion of digital households in the world, and the first phase of the full digital switchover process, beginning in the Copeland region of Cumbria this year, has been a success. Meanwhile, the extraordinary fertility of the internet is unlike anything we have ever seen.

I trust the essential intelligence of the audience, and am confident that, however technology develops, people will not tolerate poor quality, especially as they have become accustomed to better television here than they see on their travels.

To preserve its value, British broadcasting needs constantly to adapt. But precisely what we need to adapt to, we don't know. Far better regulation will follow if we accept that reality as we look forward than if we make guesses about the future. Even if our predictions are accurate, they will never last.

Look at what we thought would happen ten years ago in the light of what did. Yes, the internet became a mass medium - but a third of homes still don't have it. Yes, new channels have found an audience - but the so called old networks still get two thirds of viewing. With half of TV sets in the UK still analogue, we have only just taken the first crucial step in a five year process towards a digital future where digital TV is a universal provision. The risk is, that without public intervention, this will not happen. A vicious circle could emerge in which the wealthy pay to watch on demand, via technology which is not affordable to the rest. Advertising revenues could gravitate to this more affluent market, leaving a fragmented audience and a significant part of the population not only without access to these new types of content, but also finding the traditional broadcast channels dwindling.

So the starting point for our policy making must be "what do we want to achieve?" not "what is going to happen?" And there are three things that I want to achieve: open markets, universal access to high quality output and individuals able to consume and create what they want.

An open market is a relatively new goal for broadcasting. Less than 25 years ago, there were only two television organizations in Britain but today, broadcasting is a functioning market. That's a good thing. Markets tend to provide the best climate for innovation and creativity. A good rule of thumb for the next decade is to open up markets and remove outdated regulations so that consumers and producers can exploit the potential of new technologies. The challenge is to find a way of deregulating that increases competition. It may mean we need to regulate more through principles than detailed rules, as happens in financial services.

My second goal is universal access to high quality, distinctive and original content. Public service broadcasting is about improving the breadth and quality of what is on offer. Its cachet is its distinctiveness and originality, but it is also about ensuring that everyone can take part in the national conversation.

There are some good economic arguments for public service broadcasting. But, in the end, they are secondary to a cultural argument that as a nation, we value what is offered by broadcasting. It's a forum in which we come together.

With the right policy framework, the circle could be virtuous. An open market stimulates content creation. Public funding widens choice further. Good quality content encourages the take-up of new technologies, with government promoting universal access if it becomes appropriate, and public service broadcasters providing the water-cooler moments for our national conversation.

That commitment to universal access is one reason why we and all other industrialized nations are switching over to digital. If we didn't have the courage to make the transition, millions could be stuck in an analogue ghetto. They would be paying for BBC digital services they were never going to see.

Switchover is fundamental to our goal of universal access, but it is not sufficient. To achieve that, we need to ask how much public intervention will be needed to secure it and what forms should it take? Is there a case for new institutions or new funding frameworks? How do we ensure competing providers for public service broadcasting?

Even asking these questions is sometimes difficult. Ultimately, we may decide that the answers are similar to the current framework. Certainly the BBC has an enduring role. Its remit is fixed until 2016 and its funding until 2013. Neither of those will be reopened.

We'll need answers well before 2012 if we're not to leave behind in the analogue world the goals we still cherish. OFCOM's review of public service broadcasting and our review of public service funding will address these questions. Our starting point is that we value public service broadcasting as part of our public realm, and it is not whether but how it is delivered.

The third set of questions is about content regulation. Today, we have two very different systems: the internet, with little content regulation beyond the law of the many lands it covers; and broadcasting where content is still highly regulated. Those regulatory worlds will co-exist for the foreseeable future.

But traditional content regulation is no longer enough. The 9 o'clock watershed works in the world of the mass audience. But in the many-to-many world, the water starts getting in. Suddenly a child can get hold of material that wouldn't be allowed on TV no matter what time of day it is.

Regulation isn't just about preventing bad things; it's also about not preventing good ones. New technology provides a massive opportunity to give individuals more power, to articulate their concerns. It allows less power for the state to censor them or restrict free speech. A transfer of power from the state to the people - it could serve as the very definition of democracy.

If we can give parents more power to control their children's viewing, they will prove to be very keen regulators, sharper than the blunt instrument of censorship. Many parents are highly media literate but we need to help those who aren't. That's why we've asked Dr Tanya Byron to look at how we can help parents and their children get the best from new technologies while protecting children from inappropriate or potentially harmful material.

All these big issues need to be debated, by experts as well as the general public. John Hutton and I are creating a think tank to kick start this public debate, looking first at how to secure open markets and empower consumers. We'll look at the future of public service broadcasting, and how we ensure the very best broadcasting is open to everyone, starting early in the new year.

An excerpt from 'Notes from the Digital Sofa: a collection of essays to mark the dawn of a new TV era', published by Freeview. Further essays are available at freeview.co.uk/think.