Jamie said "News programmes are subject to more stringent rules than other genres, making it harder to monetise."They therefore deliver fewer commercial impacts than would be expected for their share of commercial viewing."

He added "Revenues are further impacted because advertisers are, by and large, unlikely to request to advertise specifically around news programming, while others would actively avoid it."

Jamie said “It is becoming clear that fewer and fewer are experimenting with the channel, but it is finding a core audience. There was always going to be a launch pop and then a decline."

Karen said “You would never on a commercial basis have decided not to charge consumers for something that costs you money to provide. It was a political initiative to provide cohesion in the EU. But we’re now not in the EU.” 

She added “It made no economic sense whatsoever to provide roaming in the EU for free."

Tom said “Reinforcement of the remit reduces the attraction to a buyer, while dilution of the remit decreases the benefits that flow from Channel 4."

Karen said said EE’s move had been “somewhat inevitable” given UK operators had faced a “significant” financial impact from free EU roaming.



“Free mobile roaming in the EU for all mobile customers is not commercially logical." She added that since the bloc’s “regulatory intervention disappeared with Brexit, operators . . . have been somewhat reluctant to be the operator who takes that first step given the potential negative press involved.”

The broadcaster could fetch more than 1 billion pounds ($1.4 billion) if the government removed some of its public service obligations and provided more clarity about what regulation would look like in the coming years, according to Claire Enders.

Alice said “Regulation is there to solve the problem of the market not functioning. In this country it has not been used for the government to regulate the content of drama.”