What's the difference between Birmingham, Alabama and Birmingham, England?

That's a question that is sparked by the oft-quoted lament: "Why does Birmingham, Alabama have 8 local television stations whilst Birmingham, England has none?". Jeremy Hunt, the new Culture Secretary quoted it in a recent speech. It is a snapshot of a broader issue, that the US has hundreds of local TV stations across the breadth of the country whereas we do not really have (and have never really had) anything resembling that.

We did used to have the ITV regions which was a vaguely regional approach with some local programming but there were only 15 or so of them across the whole country and they have now been merged into the single behemoth that is ITV1.

So why does the US have such diversity of local stations and the UK have such a dearth? Here are a few thoughts.

The USA is a vastly larger country than the UK both in terms of geography and population. The population of the USA is around 5 times the size of the UK and the geographical size is around 40 times the size. These two factors mean that firstly, you would expect there to be many more TV stations anyway. But secondly because they have a population density that is roughly 8 times lower than the UK you would expect that to tilt things more in favour of local stations. For example in the UK it is not unreasonable for a local TV station and news channel to cover Birmingham, Coventry, Wolverhampton, Walsall, Warwick and Solihull. They are all within about 50 miles of each other. Whereas in the USA many areas have much lower population density but are much more broadly spread out. It is natural therefore to expect that TV channels will have evolved to reflect this reality.

Which brings me to my next point. In the USA TV stations have often evolved in local areas from the ground up. In the UK, TV stations have (until recently) been very much top down. The USA has an affiliates system whereby local stations often affiliate themselves with a national network such as NBC, CBS, ABC or Fox. They will then often have their own programming including local news during the daytime and then pick up the networked programmes at peak times. It is a looser situation than in the UK where even when ITV was a federated group of separate companies the network scheduling was more tightly controlled and the franchises for each area were awarded in a top-down manner by the government. Affiliates in the US have been known to drop affiliate status with one network and sometimes go with another one as a result of disputes or new management. Can you imagine back in the 1980s if Granada has decided to affiliate with Channel 4 instead of ITV? It wouldn't really have been possible. We just do not have the infrastructure in this country for it to work like that. Perhaps it is a reflection of the entrepreneurial spirit so prevalent in the US that has meant their TV statiions have evolved in this way. Whatever the reasons, it is probably this point above all that is why Birmingham, Alabama has 8 TV stations and Birmingham, England has none.

We then need to ask whether having 8 local TV stations is desirable. I have spent some time in various US states (although admittedly not Alabama) and from what I have seen of the local programming it can be pretty ropey. I guess with so many stations seeking advertising revenues from a much smaller population quality is bound to take a hit. However it is the market that is deciding how many stations can be supported and just because the output is not to my UK taste does not mean it is wrong. It's just that there would likely be a price to pay if we go down a road that ultimately leads to Birmingham, England with 8 TV stations.

I don't think the answer to our current broadcasting malaise lies in making lazy comparisons between two places that happen to have the same name but very different history, cultures and contexts. I think local TV programming should have its place in the UK but it is likely to come from the ground-up organically as need dictates. The technology has already pretty much reached the point where for a very low outlay local people could set up their own station if they wished. Perhaps also a way will be found by social or media entrepreneurs to monetise at a local level and hence provide good quality local content. I expect the internet will play an integral part in this brave new world.

If anything though, the best thing the government could do is get out of the way! Perhaps if we had lower barriers to entry for broadcasting then we would see our own broadcasting landscape flourish.

House of Comments recording 26 - Listen Live from 8pm

We have started streaming the recording of the House of Comments podcast in the last few weeks. We will be doing so with the latest one from just after 8pm tonight. You can listen to it via the embedded player below:

The BBC is its own worst enemy

I am a huge fan of the BBC. I was literally born and raised on it as one of my main sources of entertainment and information. As I have grown older, its excellent news coverage, documentaries, analysis and the plethora of insightful programmes on the national treasure that is Radio 4 have helped make me the politically engaged person I am today.

I absolutely feel that this country is a better place for having a publicly funded broadcasting organisation like this. I think if we ever lost it, even many of its critics would find that they didn't know what they had until it was gone.

Having said all this, that doesn't mean that I am happy with the way things are with the BBC. There are certainly things that it does that I think it should not be doing. Lots of them if I am honest. It seems to be a fairly bloated organisation (as can often happen with public institutions) and I feel sure could be reduced in size whilst retaining its unique characteristics.

Here are the sort of things that I think need to happen:

• I think they should get rid of BBC3. There is very little of worth on that channel that could not be provided by commercial channels (and the small number of good things could be broadcast on BBC2) and it gives the BBC's opponents an easy target by just listing some of the programmes on it. I have just had a quick look at what has recently been broadcast on 3 on the iPlayer and I can see several that fall into this category: "Claire Richards: My Big Fat Wedding", "Kirsten's Topless Ambition", "When Diets Go Wrong", all of which sound like headlines from the front cover of Heat magazine. This is not what publicly funded broadcasting is for I am afraid. E4, Nuts TV, Dave, Sky, ITV and many other channels can and do provide this sort of thing already. Why is the BBC competing?
• Radios 1 and 2 (and possibly Radio 5 live) should be spun out into commercial channels. I loved Radio 1 when I was growing up and am a big fan of Radio 2 now but what they provide is very similar to that available on commercial channels and their presence as publicly funded behemoths in this space distort the market. They can surely survive as commercial entities? Again, this is not what public service broadcasting should be about.
• In general the BBC should stop pursuing ratings in exactly the same way as commercial channels. They should stop trying to ape commercial successes like "X-Factor" and "Saturday Night Takeaway". They need to be distinctive otherwise they will eventually lose the argument for their continued existence.

There are other areas that should be reformed such as pay for senior executives (how can my namesake Mark Thompson really justify earning almost 1 million pounds per year?).

There are many things that the BBC does brilliantly and I would not want to see lost. Here are a few examples:

• Almost all of Radio 4's output
• Almost all of BBC4's output
• Newsnight
• Natural world documentaries (David Attenborough, Dr Iain Stewart, Coast etc.)
• National TV news
• Comedy
• Local TV news
• Costume/period dramas
• Light hearted drama (e.g. Life on Mars)

I could go on but you get the point.

One final thing. There has been talk about top slicing of the license fee recently. The idea is that a small amount of the license fee (e.g. 3% or 4%) is given to other broadcasters in order to provide public service programmes, especially locally based ones. The BBC and its champions have reacted with horror to this announcement but why? The BBC should not necessarily have an absolute monopoly on public sector broadcasting. If other agencies/companies can provide services through being allocated a small chunk of the license fee then why is this such a terrible thing? One of the arguments I have heard against this is that it could lead to further slicing of the fee later once the principle of the BBC solely getting the fee is breached. This sounds suspiciously like the slippery slope fallacy to me and is not good enough frankly.

The BBC needs to change and ditch the dross and unneccessary stuff in order to protect the valuable output that the commercial sector struggles to or cannot provide. The fact that the BBC still doesn't see this and is determined to stay as big as it can get away with and insisting that its funding needs to remain as it or even grow shows that it is its own worst enemy.