Independent
TV producer Chris Gosling has launched a new online campaign aimed at fighting
for fair censorship charges for small-scale web-TV operators.
Gosling, who produces specialist TV shows about caravanning
and boating for satellite platforms, is specifically concerned
about the Association for Television on Demand (ATVOD), a new
body established to regulate video on-demand content.
ATVOD, which took over VOD regulation duties from Ofcom in
March last year, has imposed a flat-rate fee of £2,900 (rising
to £3850 for 2011) on the services of all notified VOD providers
in the UK, from the small to the enormous like SeeSaw and Virgin
Media.
Gosling has launched a new website, called
SmallScale TV, aimed at representing the hundreds and
thousands of people in Great Britain and Europe who make online
video content in a professional, responsible way [in] a
recreational or small business environment.
I see a future in which small producers like me can make
highly specialist programmes to play online, showing to maybe
just a few hundred or a few thousand viewers every week or month
- but instituting regulator fees that may be in excess of such a
programme's annual budget is going to kill small enterprises
like these stone dead.
Surprise surprise, consulting
the big guys results in a fee structure to stiff the small guys
Based on
article from
smallscale.tv
The above story about the campaign featured in the media
section of well-respected TV website Digital Spy spurred an
almost immediate response from ATVOD Director Peter Johnson,
defending the new regime.
For the first time on record, Johnson confirmed that ATVOD is
now charging a concessionary fee of £150 for the current
year to a number of organisations, although we only know
of one such. Our understanding is that this organisation is a
charity, which we don't believe should be charged in any event.
Johnson also said that ATVOD is fully aware of the concerns
of smaller enterprises that fall within scope of the flat rate
fee set for the first year of the new arrangements, claiming
that this is a fee set after a public consultation held
jointly by ATVOD and Ofcom. [and
no doubt all the big TV media companies contributed. They have a
bit of vested interest in keeping their fees down whilst being
able to use censorship to keep small competitors out of the
market]
It was certainly the case that in September 2010, when this
writer had his first conversation with ATVOD's Peter Johnson,
that no concessionary fee was available – or even available for
discussion. During this and subsequent conversations, Johnson
said that no smaller providers had come forward at the time of
the original consultation, and that if his decision was that a
service fell within scope, ATVOD would take any non-payer to
court to force payment. ATVOD's currently online statement
regarding concessionary fees on went online on 12th November
2010, apparently after extensive lobbying from a number of
disgruntled parties.
But even the possibility of concessionary regulatory fees
for small-scale video on demand doesn't hold out much hope
for businesses considering developing online services.
Ofcom
have published a consultation on the future regulation and cenorship of Video on
Demand (VOD) services.
Under
the proposals for consultation ATVOD would regulate VOD services and would be
required to ensure that programming on VOD services adheres to a number of
minimum standards from the Directive which will be set out in UK legislation.
Programmes, for example:
Since
2004 the ASA has regulated TV and radio advertising in the UK under a
co-regulatory agreement with Ofcom. Under the proposals for consultation the ASA
would regulate the advertising on VOD services.
Magazine
publishers represented by the Periodical Publishers Association (PPA)
have urged the government against inadvertently widening the scope of
new video on demand regulations to include content streamed through the
websites of magazine publishers.