Digital Britain outlines the Government's strategic vision for ensuring that the UK is at the leading edge of the global digital economy.
Apparently, some companies are getting calls from a character calling himself Anthony Towers, purporting to be from the Digital Britain Office or similar and wanting to discuss products and services.
I’ve never met anyone of this name and can only presume there is a scam at work. In fact a quick search reveals there is a history of this sort of thing. It is definitely nothing to do with us.
So in the unlikely event you get a call like this, give it short shrift!
There has been plenty of coverage today of the 50p levy on phone lines, which we proposed in the Digital Britain Report as a means of raising money to support investment in Next Generation broadband.
Stephen Timms stressed in an event at the British Computer Society that it remains the Government’s intention to implement this in 2010. Readers of this blog, of course, will not find that a surprise, because we have stressed this all along.
It’s quite interesting that the levy now has the tag ‘the government’s controversial tax’ despite there having been relatively little controversy to date. But there will of course be those who oppose the levy for various reasons, and there is a debate to be had.
This isn’t the place to get into party politics, but there are of course issues to iron out as regards passage of any Finance Bill in an election year. Hopefully yesterday’s announcement has put the issue firmly back on the map and will allow the politicians to have their discussion.
More coverage this weekend of broadcasting regulation, with stories in the papers that restrictions on product placement will be relaxed.
While no final decision has yet been taken, the announcement that the government is in principle in favour of deregulation have brought mixed reactions, with commercial broadcasters understandably pleased, and some groups claiming viewer trust will be undermined. Or maybe they are worried viewers will be as traumatised as I was at seeing Superman drink Budweiser.
The annual performance by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport at the Royal Television Society Convention is always closely watched, and Ben Bradshaw’s speech this year will be no exception. It comes not long since James Murdoch’s Mactaggart Lecture in which he complained of (among other things) the effects of the BBC on the market, and the BBC’s response to this, including its own review.
All good stuff for debate, but it is worth remembering that much of what Digital Britain said about broadcasting was not so much about what the BBC was doing to the fortunes of the popular broadcasters, but what the market would not provide without an intervention. And at the top of that list, we concluded, was provide alternative sources of impartial news, particularly at a regional or local level.
The question of whether a part of the licence fee should in future be used to provide this choice remains at the top of Mr Bradshaw’s inbox, although his speech will undoubtedly address the wider issues surrounding TV today. I suspect as we go into party conference season, there will be more soul searching about the future of what is likely to remain the digital communications device found in most homes – the telly.
The appearance this morning of a league table published by the Fibre to the Home Council has provoked a small amount of comment on the UK’s position in relation to other countries in the rollout of next generation broadband.
Like any league table of this sort, the figures can be read in different ways. To some, it shows that the UK is a laggard, and the Digital Britain goals are unambitious.*
To others, to get too focussed on a league table risks missing the bigger picture. Is the fact that Andorra has 6.6% of its population connected to fibre (which by my reckoning might only be three thousand homes) really of use to us in determining a policy? And of course you could if you wanted question the assumptions about what is measured and whether it takes into account other NGA technology.
Likewise, is the announcement that a 100 Gbps service might be available for US business customers at some stage in the future really a reason to beat ourselves up over what is available in the UK today or what our policies will deliver?
Francesco Caio, who provided a report on next generation access to the Government in September last year, used to refer to ‘the Korea syndrome’. By this he meant the tendency of some people to bewail the fact that the UK was not keeping up with South Korea’s broadband deployment, usually overlooking its far more densely populated citites and high-rise accommodation, and its entirely different government/industry structure. His report suggested that the picture of ICT availability and use needed to be more nuanced than a single measurement of fibre availability.
All that said, of course, Governments are only too quick to point to league tables when they top them!
* As a reminder, we said in the DBR that we intend to ensure a line capable of delivering 2Mbps as a basic minimum level of service regardless of where you are; but also to dedicate £150-£175m per year for seven years to supporting private investment in Next Generation services.
One of the issues in Digital Britain that gets the least coverage compared to its value is that of spectrum reform. It is a highly obscure and technical issue that many people in government have yet to get their head round, never mind the general public. Yet I would argue the prize at stake, in terms of the sort of services and economic activity that could be unlocked, deserves a huge amount more attention than it gets.
An extremely short history of radio spectrum policy in the 21st century goes something like this.
Spectrum in the UK had historically been licensed for specific purposes to a range of public and private sector users, paying varying amounts for the privilege, having been selected by various means, and with various controls over what the spectrum could be used for.
In line with the Cave review, the government adopted a new market-led strategy which aimed to put spectrum in the hands of those who valued it most, to do with it broadly what they wanted. The spectrum auction in 2001 was the first step towards this goal, and with the creation of Ofcom, the process of liberalisation was to be embarked upon.
That we have not got further down the track of a market-based system of allocation, with widespread spectrum trading, change of use and greater efficiency, is at least in part due to the complicated nature of legacy spectrum licences. Incumbents have naturally sought to maximise the value of their licences and avoid what they see as discrimination, including by legal challenge.
This is most evident in the mobile sector, where we have five players falling roughly into three camps. Yesterday, the Secretary of State met the five UK mobile operators to discuss next steps on how to drive forward liberalisation. There is a growing understanding that this might be the best chance we get to unlock new spectrum for use, and allow already-held spectrum to be used for other services, at a pace with which everyone can live.
The fact it has taken me four paragraphs just to understand why we want to take action, never mind what the details will be, demonstrates how obscure an issue this is. But the prize – new services; new technology; new economic value – is enormous and could well be one of the most important things we achieve in Digital Britain.
