Seizing the broadcasting station is usually the priority in any military coup. So it is no surprise that so much suspicion has been generated between the BBC and the Government over the “subversive” line allegedly adopted by prominent BBC journalists.

Yet, quite apart from the immediate political row, there are great changes sweeping the broadcasting sector. The Communications Act 2003 received its Royal Assent last week and a radically changed regulatory regime, in the shape of the Office of Communications (Ofcom), is expected to be in control by mid-December.

Already, however, questions are being raised about whether Ofcom will be ready for the task. “Ofcom will have so much to do that it will be a real challenge to get it all ready by the time it is open for business,” Michael Ridley, of Denton Wilde Sapte, says.

The problem, as Stephen Edwards, of Richards Butler, explains, is that Ofcom has indicated that it aims to look afresh at the codes by which broadcasting operates and that it is keen to “start from scratch”. John Enser, of Olswang, agrees. “Ofcom is going to be rewriting the rule book,” he says.

What this means is that over the next five months there will be relentless lobbying of Ofcom by broadcasting lawyers on behalf of their clients, who want to see the rules fixed to their advantage.

“I expect that in the early stages of the new regime there will be quite a number of battles over novel issues,” Enser says. The impact of human rights on the rules, plus a fresh approach to advertising, are anticipated with particular interest.

This will, however, be just a sequel to the long-running drama that began when the Communications Bill received its first reading last year. Since then most of London’s top broadcasting lawyers have been busy advising clients on the ramifications of the Bill, taking note of their reservations and making the case to the Government and members of the House of Lords of the need for a multiplicity of amendments as it worked its way through Parliament.

“Our role has been to look at the legal basis of what the Government has been proposing, examine what it will mean in practice, identify where it has been badly framed or is self-contradictory and then to try to ensure that the legislation and the rules are drafted sensibly,” Daniel Sandelson, of Clifford Chance, says.

In fact, Sandelson and his colleagues have been especially successful recently acting for clients over both issues of media ownership and the right of religious organisations (notably those that are UK-based) to hold broadcasting licences.

So being a broadcast lawyer requires more than a sharp suit and contacts in the best restaurants. It has become a hybrid practice area in which regulatory work is interleaved with contract and copyright law, while in the larger firms — such as Clifford Chance — it will embrace major corporate activity and financial work as well.

This reflects that broadcasting, once relatively simple, now impinges on matters of culture, technology and global business. And this shows itself in Ofcom, whose remit extends from taste and decency right across to the complex areas of technology and competition policy. “Ofcom was supposed to be purely a market regulator but the decision to create a content board has changed its balance,” Edwards says.

Even the BBC has not entirely escaped its clutches — it will be accountable to Ofcom on taste and decency issues. But, with the BBC Charter up for renewal in 2006, questions are stacking up high for Greg Dyke, the Director-General. “Everything is up for grabs with the BBC,” Sandelson says.

Apart from the politics, the charge against the BBC is that it is two-faced, posing as a public service operation while being as entrepreneurial as anyone else (with funding from the licence-payer). As Eben Wilson commented in a recently published paper from the Adam Smith Institute (Media, Meddling and Mediocrity): “Technically the 1996 Broadcasting Act demands that any new service be subject to separate accounting but the provisions have been sidestepped by the BBC. The lesson for any policy is to ensure that public service broadcasting — in the sense of broadcasting that a private company would not produce — is institutionally and legally separated from commercial activity.”

No doubt, in the next couple of years, broadcasting lawyers acting for the commercial sector will pressurise the Government to rein in the cross-subsidy of the BBC’s profit-making activities. But more immediately, they are waiting the outcome of the Carlton-Granada merger and what it presages for the future.

“The Communications Act relaxes the cross-media ownership restrictions,” Stephen Wisking, of Herbert Smith, says. “I think from the new year we will see a lot of consolidation in the market.”

With that will come a blizzard of due diligence work for the likes of Wiggin & Co, the West End firm. “There are a lot of US predators out there just waiting for the green light,” Sean James, a partner, says, licking his lips at the prospect of some juicy assignments.

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• The best legal yarns this Christmas
• Legal school 'earned £1m by exploiting bar course'
• Axe may fall on 5,000 more City lawyers