Ofcom UK to Extend Content Rules to Internet-based TV Channels
The UK Government has proposed to change the law so that internet-based TV channels on smart TVs, which are delivered over home broadband ISP connections, would need to follow the same Ofcom content rules as on traditional TV to ensure “young and vulnerable audiences are protected from harmful programming“.
According to the government, more than 7 in 10 UK households now have a “Smart TV“, through which audiences can often technically access up to 900 unregulated and mostly internet-based TV channels via innovative new services such as Pluto TV, Samsung TV Plus, LG Channels and Amazon Freevee. The particularly rapid increase in the number of free ad-supported streaming television (FAST) channels is also noted.
However, such channels are not currently required to meet the same standards as expected of traditional broadcasters. While some channels follow rules on inappropriate or harmful material voluntarily set by the companies who run them, UK viewers cannot complain to Ofcom if they are concerned by a programme, and the regulator has no powers to issue fines or other sanctions if a channel broadcasts harmful material.
Advertisement
Unregulated channels also don’t have to follow Ofcom rules on ensuring subtitles, audio description and signing are available for people with disabilities, and are not required to ensure public service broadcasters are shown prominently in TV guides.
Research conducted by the Department for Culture (DCMS) claims to have already found examples of potentially harmful content which could easily have been found by children or vulnerable audiences, including swearing and sexual content before the 9pm watershed.
Culture Secretary, Lucy Frazer, said:
“Here in the UK our TV is genuinely world leading… Many of the most celebrated shows of this golden era have been made here in the UK, written here in the UK, and shot here in the UK.
We recognise that internet provided TV is growing… But while this shift is an exciting one, it’s our job to look at those channels that fall outside our existing regulations.
That’s why we are going to consult on whether we need to extend regulation to these unregulated channels… any change to regulations must strike a balance between protecting people – particularly the young and vulnerable – while protecting freedom of speech, and not unduly burdening the TV industry.”
All of this is intended to complement existing work, which is taking a broad look at the future of TV distribution, including how changing viewing habits and technology will impact how programmes are brought to our screens over the next decade and beyond, particularly in light of the rising popularity of streaming platforms and other internet-based forms of TV viewing. A lot of this will help to form the Draft Media Bill.
Consultation on the regulation of additional EPGs
https://www.gov.uk/../consultation-on-the-regulation-of-additional-electronic-programme-guides
Mark is a professional technology writer, IT consultant and computer engineer from Dorset (England), he also founded ISPreview in 1999 and enjoys analysing the latest telecoms and broadband developments. Find me on X (Twitter), Mastodon, Facebook, BlueSky, Threads.net and Linkedin.
« Autumn 2023 BDUK Update on UK Project Gigabit Broadband Rollout
Latest UK ISP News
- FTTP (6119)
- BT (3676)
- Politics (2758)
- Business (2464)
- Openreach (2435)
- Building Digital UK (2355)
- Mobile Broadband (2184)
- FTTC (2093)
- Statistics (1938)
- 4G (1841)
- Virgin Media (1797)
- Ofcom Regulation (1605)
- Fibre Optic (1484)
- Wireless Internet (1473)
- 5G (1439)
It is possible for the government regulate content hosted in the UK, but how will does it propose to stop people accessing content hosted abroad? Cut all the submarine cables and shoot down the satellites?
See “The Great Wall of China” – then only Tory approved channels like the Daily Wail and other assorted right wing crap will be allowed.
Which begs the question how do you regulate content that is hosted outside the UK? Even if ISP’S were required to block such content it’s not hard to get around it if you were so minded.
The focus is on Smart TVs and EPGs, so in that sense the obligation would likely fall on the TV and app makers to ensure that they only included rules-compliant channels.
What about the content on news channels like GBeebies – I wish OFCOM would sort this out too!
The UK has been overrun by neo Nazis like the above who believe no one should ever hear any opposition view, no wonder ofcom keeps getting more and more censorship powers
The Chinese Communist party should model what governments should NOT do, instead, Canada and the UK are using it as a blueprint
Leftism does not survive in a free market place of ideas, that’s why they resort to authoritarian censorship. The gender cult is very easy to debunk even a 5 year old can do it, that’s why they use the “hate speech” gambit to ban truth
GBNews now has more audience than sky or the BBC or any other usual propaganda channels, that’s why they want it censored. Expect even more ofcom censorship going forward, does not matter that they host literally all views across the political compass, including the extreme left just stop oil founder
@Patrick Interesting comment about GB News audience figures. Where is the source of those “figures” to back up this assertion?
BARB figures for all channels for June 2023 can be found here: https://www.barb.co.uk/monthly-viewing/
BBC News: monthly reach 9,540,000 (or 14.96%); monthly share of viewing figures 1.05% (or 1 h 30 min)
Sky News: monthly reach 8,089,000 (12.69%); monthly share of viewing figures 0.81 (1 h 10 min)
GB News: monthly reach 2,786,000 (4.37%); monthly share of viewing figures: 0.62% (0 h 53 min)
And those figures don’t take into account any BBC news on the main channels or accessed through the BBC/Sky (or GB News) news web page.
Not monthly yet, but in several days they are coming up with higher numbers. I’m sure there are other caveats such as YouTube and X views. I don’t even watch TV.
Then again we’re comparing a 3 year old outlet to a state funded outlet with one century
THEY WANT TO TAKE ARE GB NEWS AWAY, JUST LIKE THEY DID TO ARE ALEX JONES AND ARE TRYING TO WITH ARE RUSSELL BRAND!!
I SAY BAN THE COMMIE NAZIS INSTEAD!!! THEY SHOULD MOVE TO NORTH KOREA!!!!
WWG1WGA!!!!
BRING BACK BORIS AND TRUMP 2024 WITH SIR NIGEL AS VICE PRESIDENT!!!!!!
I wish I could insert a meme here, so instead imagine the South Park Randy porn climax with the caption
“I said gbeebies on the internet”
Never has the side of censorship been the good guys in history
GB News have been top of the ratings during prime time for a while. It was announced GB News beat all the other channels for an entire day recently.
@Jack @Patrick- it’s clearly a Covfefe / Bilderberg / Battenburg / WEF / WWF / WTO / KLF / ELO / REM conspiracy I tell you! I will take my horse worming tablets and be free!
ALSO WHY WILL MY ISP NOT ALLOW ME TO PAY IN CASH I ASK?!?
Ah man, what am I going to do with the channels that are not properly regulated? Damn. (this is a joke btw)
I mentioned on the other thread that the govt was trying to erase Russell Brand… Turns out they are trying to censor even just talking about him
https://twitter.com/alexandrosM/status/1704714707196956874
Very dystopian letter from the government to fire a GB news presenter
Whatever happened to the presumption of innocence? At least the video channel Rumble has stood firm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEa9pcOAZo8
While I agree with @Optimist on the presumption of innocence issue (however execrable I personally consider Brand to be, he should be treated as innocent, and is so, until proved otherwise in a court of law; there is something wrong about this trend of trial by media, akin to public lynching, that is plain wrong), @Jack has somewhat shot him-/herself in the foot.
You do realise, @Jack, that what you link to is not a government communication, don’t you? Obviously not, but I suppose if it fits your personal political agenda to say it does then it’s OK to misrepresent it as such. The hint is in the letterhead. It’s a select committee communication, not a government communication. The committee is made up of 6 Conservatives, 4 Labour, and 1 SNP MPs, none of whom are in government. Ipso facto, it is not a “dystopian letter from the government”. And nowhere does it indicate the presenter should be fired. It’s just reminding the broadcaster of their (legal) obligation to continue the perception of impartiality required of the news outlet and what steps are they going to take to ensure that. No different really to what the BBC did with Emily Maitliss after her comments about Mr Cummings’ antics.
Inability of seeing that Jack is a male name, not a “herself” adding on the inability that an MP is literally an elected MP, thus is part of the state and is a public worker by every meaningful way. A very bad red herring done in bad faith to defend government overreach
Not only is it overreach, it is in fact a violation of one of the remaining 4 rights in the Magna carta which safeguards human rights from state tyranny
The MPs involved should resign and be criminally prosecuted
What stops a child at 9am scrolling back in the EPG and selecting a grown-up’s programme from 22:00 and playing via cathup?
Easy answer: parenting, not the state
How dare you John! The government is the peoples parent. We must all be guided and protected by mother-state. I fully trust the state to know what is best for me and the nation.
The government should focus on protecting us from real threats like Putin, we don’t need to be protected from content on TV, we all know where the off button is.
Not to mention that the stuff really warping young people’s minds is the celebrity and instant-fame-with-no-work garbage on TikTok, Youtube and other mindless content distribution networks.
But that of course assumes government has a purpose, driven by democracy. That’s now been well exposed as a fallacy. The true purpose of government is to be seen to be doing something, whilst trousering the spoils of office and fame. See Bunter, Hancock, Blair for the more outrageous examples, but seems they’re all at in some way or another. Remember the VIP contracts route for Covid PPE contracts? Internet and digital TV censorship will be like the laughable restrictions on knife sales, on recreational drugs, or indeed like the failed experiment of Prohibition in the US. The purpose of restrictions is not to improve things, but to appear to be doing something.
If young persons are not supposed to watch some content after 21:00 UK Time, where does that leave content originated from overseas? After all it is 21:00 once an hour all through the day. Are the powers that be going to insist that global streamed content from cannot be viewed in the UK? The powers that be have already required ISP’s to ‘regulate’ what can be seen so this seems to be a further extension of censorship. Although it is not said, governments (of all persuasions) do not want the proletariat to view anything that is available throughout the world to inform, educate and entertain – only the dire programming that is available within the ‘Great British Firewall’.
Am I going to have freely available channels such as UATV which does show shocking scenes of real war made unavailable? I don’t think the content should be seen by growing minds. However where do you draw the line between freedom to view and censorship? Parents (Of which I am not) ought to be responsible for the content to be viewed.
Just a suggestion, with web cameras being built in to equipment, it ought to be possible for the smart TV sets to see who is watching, use AI to determine whether the viewers have an underage person in their midst and then impose a ban on content (or at least issue an audible warning) to protect les enfants.
“Think of the children…”
Nothing about Elsagate, social networks, etc. So out of touch.
The problem today is people are too weak and dumb to stand up against the establishment and would rather fight against each other over the most stupid of arguments. Distractions here there and everywhere so as to control and manipulate all aspects of your lives.
I can say for certain that western society is done for. Say goodbye to all your rights and freedoms in the name of security and safety.
Take some responsibility, grow a back bone and WAKE UP before it too late.