Michael Jackson: Why I'm backing the BBC

Michael Jackson, Channel 4's chief executive, declares himself an unlikely supporter of the BBC in its battle for more channels – without which, he warns, it will be more films and football

For a commercial broadcaster, such as Channel 4, to come out in support of the BBC's plans for four new digital TV channels, may seem a bit like a Spurs fan sending Sol Campbell a Good Luck card for his first season with Arsenal. After all, on the face of it, we have as much to fear as most from the corporation's digital expansion plans, with a revamped and handsomely financed BBC3 promising to target the younger audience that C4 and E4 have successfully made their own.

But to join the chorus of "foul" issuing forth from parts of the commercial sector, smacks of putting self interest before the interests of viewers and the longer-term benefits that should accrue to the digital TV marketplace as a whole. Besides, greater competition has always been the spur to greater innovation at C4.

C4 is very different from the BBC. We do not receive a penny of public money, but are funded entirely by commercial activity. We compete with commercial channels for advertising and the BBC for quality. We are not there to offer something for everyone as the BBC does, but instead to engage an audience that is attitudinally young with public-service values and to place a premium on innovation, creativity and diversity. But we do represent an intervention in the market, just as the BBC does, although on a much smaller scale.

Unsurprisingly then, the argument against the BBC's proposed expansion is similar to that which the same group of commercial broadcasters has been attempting to make – albeit less vocally – against C4's pay-TV services, FilmFour and E4. C4 is abusing its privilege of free access to terrestrial frequencies, they say, by using some of the profit it makes from selling airtime on its terrestrial service to fund the launch of new digital services. The market should fund new services such as E4 and FilmFour, so the argument goes.

But, of course, the market is not yet funding new services of this type to this extent. FilmFour offers the UK's only dedicated foreign-language film service and a range of movies that are simply unavailable elsewhere on British television. E4, in its first year, is investing more in discovering original new British formats and talent, such as Banzai, than many digital channels spend annually on their entire output.

The BBC's proposed investment in BBC3 and BBC4 and two children's channels – in excess of £120m in their first year – can only help to raise the quality and increase the range of digital television. Digital TV has been sold on a promise of an explosion in viewing options but has yet to capture the imagination of the majority of the British public. It has delivered increased choice to football fans and pay-per-view movies, as well as another chance to see the best of British TV's archives. Some interesting specialised channels have started to take root. But it is yet to become much of a marketplace for new and original programming ideas. It is difficult to imagine programmes such as Brass Eye, So Graham Norton, Queer as Folk or Tina Takes a Break originating from a digital channel at present.

If the BBC and C4's financial and creative investments in digital force private broadcasters – or each other for that matter – to raise their game and their investment levels further then that can only benefit viewers and increase the attraction of digital TV to those who have not yet been persuaded to sample it, to the long-term benefit of all channels. It is this dialogue between public and private that has driven British television forward in the last five decades and accounts for all its innovations and successes.

It is not a question of whether public broadcasters like C4 should take part in the digital revolution, but how. There is no such thing as "new" media or "old" media, only increasing opportunities to engage with audiences across a range of different platforms. To be excluded from one platform – or to deliberately exclude oneself, as ITV2 has done with Sky Digital – is to risk exclusion from the viewing patterns of the future. If the BBC is forced to wait until all its licence-fee payers have access to digital TV before launching new services, it will be too late.

A BBC restricted to just two branded TV channels in a universe of hundreds, will lose prominence and relevance and cease to justify its claims on the public purse. A good thing, perhaps, for the shareholders of its competitors, but not for anyone who believes that public service broadcasting will prove of even greater worth in an increasingly fragmented digital marketplace.

Similarly, if C4 were to remain a single channel in a universe of hundreds, its significance would gradually diminish. FilmFour and E4 reduce C4's primary reliance on terrestrial advertising revenue, by opening up new streams of subscription, sponsorship and advertising income that will help fund our public-service ambitions on the core C4 service in years ahead.

FilmFour and E4 also help maintain the prominence of the C4 brand. In its first six months on air, E4 has helped increase the combined viewing share for C4 and E4 in digital homes by 31 per cent, compared with C4 alone in the previous year. Combined viewing share for the two channels amongst 16 to 34-year olds has increased 47 per cent year on year in digital homes.

Or look at it another way. The core C4 service so far this year has claimed 10.2 per cent of total TV viewing, but 6.3 per cent of viewing in Sky Digital homes. The figures for the BBC are even starker with BBC1 claiming just 18.8 per cent of viewing amongst Sky Digital customers (against 26.5 per cent of all viewing) and BBC2 just 5.9 per cent (11 per cent of total viewing). These are figures that foretell the eventual demise of public-service broadcasting in the UK, if its exponents are forced to sit on the bench while private operators carve up digital between them.

The key question for the secretary of state for media, Tessa Jowell, is not whether these BBC channels should exist but how effectively they are regulated. The enormous privilege of £2.5bn a year of public funding also confers on the BBC an obligation to offer the public programmes and services not provided by commercial channels.

BBC3, BBC4 and the two children's channels must be truly innovative and distinctive from other digital channels, not just to the satisfaction of the governors but in the eyes of consumers as well. These channels will need to demonstrate that they are truly extending viewer choice with distinctive and challenging programming from the off, not trade off the promise of offering something different in the future.

These new channels must not excuse the BBC from its public-service obligations on BBC1 and BBC2. They must not become a dumping ground for the more difficult, less populist genres that characterise the BBC's public-service commitment. Only by bringing the BBC under the umbrella of the Office of Communications and making it subject to the same system of content regulation as its commercial rivals, can we ultimately ensure its channels remain truly distinctive in such a crowded marketplace.