The market in TV advertising in this country, for instance, is controlled by a handful of large companies. In any case, markets remain competitive and open to new entrants only if they are constantly policed to counter collusion between the major players.But the Office of Fair Trading can adequately discharge this function on its own. In this respect broadcasting is no different from any other industrial sector.Content is special. Until now, the assumption has been that the moving image on screen, whether generated by TV or by video, is so powerful that controls are needed. There is a Broadcasting Act and a Video Recordings Act – but not, thank goodness, a newspaper act. Questioning this assumption is the natural starting point for a debate about regulation.

Should we still insist that news coverage is politically balanced and that some entertainment programmes can be shown only late at night and that some videos can be cut before they reach the viewer?But if we still do have such requirements, as I think it is reasonable that we should, then we must confront the glaring gap in these arrangements – the lack of internet legislation. Or put it another way: if we can learn to live with an unrestricted market in computer-generated home entertainment – because no effective controls exist – then the case for restraints on television and video is weakened.At the very least, however, parents will surely always wish to have assistance in regulating the viewing of their children. They want a quick and easy method of determining whether a particular TV programme or video is suitable for viewing by, say, a 13-year-old. This means having the assurance that certain types of programmes won’t be shown before certain hours. With the internet, the requirement will be for convenient filtering devices that keep dubious websites out of harm’s way.I am worried about the present provision of TV news. When the ITC allowed the 10pm news slot to be vacated even though surveys of viewers showed that a majority were opposed to the change, it was remiss. It showed itself more sensitive to the advertising interests of the television companies than to the needs of viewers This is a major error by a regulator.

While regulators must have a care for the health of the companies in their sector, the consumer always comes first.Nor have I become reconciled to the inability of the BBC governors to recognise a conflict of interest when it is plain for all to see – the fact that Greg Dyke, who is editor-in-chief as well as director general, has given substantial sums of money to New Labour. That is why I am enthusiastically in favour of handing the regulatory functions carried out by the BBC governors to an industry-wide body. You cannot carry the flag for the BBC, as the governors must, and perform a regulatory function. Mr Jackson has a point.aws globalnet.co.uk
More from Andreas Whittam Smith. The Queen will be opening the Tate Modem next week, the most up-to-date art gallery in Britain and probably the world.

The Tate Modem is so called because it is the first online art gallery in the world. All its works of art are stored in a computer, and to access them a “visitor” has to get through on the internet via a modem. The Queen will be opening the Tate Modem next week, the most up-to-date art gallery in Britain and probably the world. The Tate Modem is so called because it is the first online art gallery in the world. All its works of art are stored in a computer, and to access them a “visitor” has to get through on the internet via a modem.
“This is the most exciting new national art gallery for many a long year,” says the Tate Modem’s director, Frank Marsden.

“For a start, you don’t have to go to some ghastly big city such as London to get to it. For another thing, you don’t have to go to Salford or Walsall or any of those ghastly places up north to get to it. For a third thing, you don’t have to go anywhere to get to it – you just have to be at home. All you have to do is log on, click on the picture you want to see, and hey, presto!”But is looking at a painting on a screen the same experience as looking at it on a canvas?”Excuse me,” says Frank Marsden, reprovingly “I thought we’d heard the last of that tired old argument. If pictures don’t look good on the screen, why does TV put out series after series on famous paintings? Would you rather get a glimpse of a Monet painting sideways-on over 10 pairs of shoulders, or would you rather have it all to yourself on a screen? In a gallery there is only one way of making a painting look smaller or larger, and that is walking nearer to it or farther from it.