Making Money System

BBC Online is meeting its obligation to commission 25 percent of eligible production work from external suppliers - but must make wide-ranging changes to the process, a review by its regulating BBC Trust has concluded (release, review)

The BBC has met the quota requirement every year since it was recommended by the 2004 Graf report. Last year, it commissioned external interactive producers for work totalling £20 million.

See more of our latest BBC coverage
or add an alert for future coverage of BBC.

But a Deloitte review in to the quota commissioned by the trust slates the system for lack of transparency, management, direction and value for money.

Consequently, the trust - whilst it is not raising the quota - has ordered BBC Online to “discuss with industry what form strategic goals for a quota system might take”, and to simplify the current process.

This BBC Trust review has been many months in the making - the BBC executive had already known the outcome and recommendations before Friday’s publication and has partly responded - it has already agreed to give the trust, after speaking with industry, a review within three months. The trust says the whole issue requires “urgent attention”.

Deloitte’s review (highlights):-

“The BBC is complying with the requirements set out in the BBC Agreement. However, the Online independent supply quota does not appear to be working well in practice. Whilst steps have recently been taken to remedy the issues surrounding it, both the BBC and the independent sector recognise there is a lack of: communication around how the commissioning for online takes place, clarity around how the quota is calculated and tracked; and, consistency and efficiency in commissioning practices. Most significantly, interviews demonstrate a strong belief in the independent sector that BBC online commissioners select suppliers to pitch for commissions based on the commissioners’ personal knowledge, rather than any rounded evaluation of who is equipped to deliver quality and value for money.

“There is a high degree of external scepticism as to whether reported performance is real or the result of an accounting allocation.

“Overall BBC Online expenditure is expected to go down rather than up

“There are issues with the management of the current arrangements that impact the value for money and quality BBC Online achieves for licence fee payers

“BBC Online has failed to provide sufficient transparency to the sector in terms of: strategic direction, emerging opportunities, decision making processes, and reporting of performance relative to the quota.

“An average commission size in FY 2009/10 of less than £5,000 and only 17 commissions over £100,000

“The revenues of the top 100 interactive agencies totalled c. £790m in 2009. In 2009/10 the BBC spent c. £20m externally as part of the BBC Online quota. Although the BBC will spend more on digital content (for example on those areas excluded from the eligible base), in absolute terms the impact that the BBC makes on the online content sector is limited.

“In this context, BBC Online’s c. £20m of ‘eligible’ annual spend lacks the scale to have as significant an impact on the shape of market as the BBC does in TV broadcasting.”

You're probably reading this on junk. And I'm not talking about newsprint - industry woes aside, that's high-quality stuff. But if you're on a computer or an iPad, and you're not plugged into an Internet jack in the wall? Junk, then.

But it's not your MacBook or your tablet that's so crummy. It's the spectrum it's using.

Spectrum, in the words of FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, is the economy's "invisible infrastructure." It's the interstate system for information that travels wirelessly. It's how you get radio in your car, service on your cellphone and satellite to your television. It's also how you get WiFi.

But not all spectrum is created equal. "Beachfront spectrum" is like a well-paved road. Lots of information can travel long distances on it without losing much data. But not all spectrum is so valuable.

In 1985, there was a slice of spectrum that was too crummy for anyone to want. It was so weak that the radiation that microwaves emit could mess with it. So the government released it to the public. As long as whatever you were doing didn't interfere with what anyone else was doing, you could build on that spectrum. That's how we got garage-door openers and cordless phones. Because the information didn't have to travel far, the junk spectrum was good enough. Later on, that same section of junk spectrum became the home for WiFi - a crucial, multibillion-dollar industry. A platform for massive technological innovation. A huge increase in quality of life.

There's a lesson in that: Spectrum is really, really important. And not always in ways that we can predict in advance. Making sure that spectrum is used well is no less important than making sure our highways are used well: If the Beltway were reserved for horses, Washington would not be a very good place to do business.

But our spectrum is not being used well. It's the classic innovator's quandary: We made good decisions many years ago, but those good decisions created powerful incumbents, and in order to make good decisions now, we must somehow unseat the incumbents.

Today, much of the best spectrum is allocated to broadcast television. Decades ago, when 90 percent of Americans received their programming this way, that made sense. Today, when fewer than 10 percent of Americans do, it doesn't.

Meanwhile, mobile broadband is quite clearly the platform of the future - or at least the near future. But we don't have nearly enough spectrum allocated for its use. Unless that changes, the technology will be unable to progress, as more advanced uses will require more bandwidth, or it will have to be rationed, perhaps through extremely high prices that make sure most people can't use it.

The FCC could just yank the spectrum from the channels and hand it to the mobile industry. But it won't. It fears lawsuits and angry calls from lawmakers. And temperamentally, Genachowski himself is a consensus-builder rather than a steamroller.

Instead, the hope is that current owners of spectrum will give it up voluntarily. In exchange, they'd get big sacks of money. If a slice of spectrum is worth billions of dollars to Verizon but only a couple of million to a few aging TV stations - TV stations that have other ways to reach most of those customers - then there should be enough money in this transaction to leave everyone happy.

At least, that's some people's hope. Some advocates want that spectrum - or at least a substantial portion of it - left unlicensed. Rather than using telecom corporations such as Verizon to buy off the current owners of the spectrum, they'd like to see the federal government take some of that spectrum back and preserve it as a public resource for the sort of innovation we can't yet imagine and that the big corporations aren't likely to pioneer - the same as happened with WiFi. But as of yet, that's not the FCC's vision for this. Officials are more worried about the mobile broadband market. They argue (accurately) that they've already made more beachfront spectrum available for unlicensed uses. And although they don't say this clearly, auctioning spectrum to large corporations gives them the money to pay off the current owners. But even so, they can't do that.

"Imagine someone was given property on Fifth Avenue 50 years ago, but they don't use it and can't sell it," says Tim Wu, a law professor at Harvard and author of "The Master Switch." That's the situation that's arisen in the spectrum universe. It's not legal for the FCC to run auctions and hand over some of the proceeds to the old owners. That means the people sitting on the spectrum have little incentive to give it up. For that to change, the FCC needs Congress to pass a law empowering it to compensate current holders of spectrum with proceeds from the sale.

One way - the slightly demagogic way - to underscore the urgency here is to invoke China: Do you think it's letting its information infrastructure stagnate because it's a bureaucratic hassle to get the permits shifted? I rather doubt it.

Of course, we don't want the Chinese system. Democracy is worth some red tape. But if we're going to keep a good political system from becoming an economic handicap, there are going to be a lot of decisions like this one that need to be made. Decisions where we know what we need to do to move the economy forward, but where it's easier to do nothing because there are powerful interests attached to old habits. The problem with having a really good 20th century, as America did, is that you've built up a lot of infrastructure and made a lot of decisions that benefit the industries and innovators of the 20th century. But now we're in the 21st century, and junk won't cut it anymore.

ital3e

cutedimepiece

ivoigqicf

ticklezz

asutral

jesiica

abaddononion

fpidazkssh

abaddononion

teamzerosc

fabgoal

jackgall

edscottday

chumpglows

irmodawg

pendulumx3x

jujupunx

mabauti