The Ups & Downs Of Digital Britain

By Vikki Chowney

Every man, woman, child and their dog has been talking about the Digital Britain report released by Lord Carter (Minister for Communications, Technology and Broadcasting in the UK) this week. The aim of which is to act a guide for the future development of the digital media space in Britain.

Now, when I think about digital, I see videos, blogs, interactive media and mobile applications galore. Yet, this report is delivered on a downloadable PDF, with no real website, just a forum with an embedded video from the first Digital Britain event. An event, which I have to add, was attended and organised by the more traditional media bods alone, rather than a mixture of people representing a mixture of mediums.

This aside, the report appears to have been received well by the online industry as it acknowledges the role of self-regulation, and bodes particularly well for gamers. In fact, the government aims to give developers, publishers and parents a helping hand by switching out BBFC games ratings in favour of the Pan European Game Information system (PEGI).

However, I’ve often spoken of the difference between those that have simply reacted to the explosion of digital media versus the ‘digital natives’ (such a ridiculous term, but relevant in this case) that have grown up with all things online as an integral part of their lives. Digital policy in my mind should be formed in consultation with the most common consumers of it; the grassroots bloggers, developers of new products and those using it on a day to day basis. Even Jeremy Hunt, the shadow culture secretary, said that the report was ‘digital dithering from a dated government’.

It comes as no surprise then, that the report favours large telecommunications firms, almost at the expense of smaller, innovative players. Case in point; delivering next-generation high-speed mobile and wireless broadband is to be achieved by switching the existing fixed 3G licences held by mobile operators to an indefinite term, without competition.

On a positive note, one new initiative I’m keen to see implemented is the proposal to provide universal access to a minimum 2Mb broadband connection, or the ‘Universal Service Commitment’. Landline users will pay £6 a year towards the rollout of super fast broadband, with the surplus from the BBC's digital switchover help scheme (£130m) helping to meet the £200m annual cost of providing universal access. I’m not sure 50p a month will hurt even those suffering at the hands of the credit crunch, so it seems a fair gamble to implement such a tax.

On the flip side, though the analogue to digital radio switchover also seems promising, the Office of Fair Trading has concluded that a reform of rules governing mergers in local media is unnecessary. Regional news companies have been lobbying intensively for change, forming the Local Media Alliance to submit their case. The government said it would ask the National Audit Office to assess the impact of council-run publications on regional newspapers.

All things considered, I wonder whether the digital space really requires government intervention to make it work better and more effectively at all. So many parts of this space have done very well up till now with a bare minimum of government interference, thanks to the likes of a healthy start-up marketplace, some forward-thinking entrepreneurs and more importantly, a nation that has embraced new technology with gusto.

POSTED IN: TECH
Thu, 18 Jun 2009 08:00 (GMT+00)
7 Responses
1.

Worth noting that the "telephone tax" is intended to pay towards the 2Mb Universal Access- not next generation broadband.

SomeRandomNerd
Thu, 18-Jun-2009 09:33 GMT
2.

So another 50p per month to BT... with the last three months profits currently at 113M pounds, and we are already taxed on any sort of service (VAT), why the hell should we be lumped with another tax on top of that!!??? Is my £25 a month broadband package not enough money already!!????

Maybe I wouldn't be so narked off, if I lived in an area that wasn't one of the last to be switched over to digital (2012), or if BT were proposing to strangle the broadband of anybody logging onto iPlayer even though I opted for the unlimited download broadband option... In fact, why the hell am I giving them any money at all??

ARRRGGGHHH Hulk Smash!!!

Merrick
Thu, 18-Jun-2009 09:40 GMT
3.

Yes, the switch over to PEGI's rating system is more helpful in its descriptiveness regarding content. But unless pressure is placed upon retailers to take some degree of responsibility; utilising discretion, strict ID checking and advising parents purchasing games for minors- as they were technically required to by law under the BBFC classification - I struggle to see how this make any significant change.
Let's call a spade a spade here; a parent who takes the time to examine the content of a child's computer game will do so under any degree of classification, and a parent who does not is unlikely to start doing so now that the symbols have changed.

Ultimately I have strong doubts that this new classification system will put an end to me hearing 9 year old boys on the bus talking about how many digital hookers they killed with chainsaws the night before.

Camilla Blackett
Thu, 18-Jun-2009 09:48 GMT
4.

Was going to rant but deleted it all. The Digital Britain report would be better entitled as the Digital Some parts of Britain and I agree to talk about a digital anything and for it to lack media shows that the concept is just not understood. You see I nearly went into a rant. ;)

Gordon O'Neill
Thu, 18-Jun-2009 10:31 GMT
5.

The main problem with the Digital Britain report is that it isn't a policy. It has very few actions, and there are few real actions arising from the document. It is a positioning analysis, nothing more.

Joanne Jacobs
Thu, 18-Jun-2009 16:18 GMT
6.

Re: my previous comment- I was wrong; the 50p telephone tax is supposed to be towards next generation broadband- not the universal access that I thought. (Somewhere around page 200 of the report, I think I stopped paying attention properly...)

SomeRandomNerd
Mon, 22-Jun-2009 16:05 GMT
7.

I disagree with your view that the report benefits the big telecoms companies by extending the 3G licences indefinitely. Yes, it benefits them, but I think that's only fair seeing the they have been screwed ever since the licences were awarded. Given the substantial amount of capex they had to commit to build new networks and the massive risks they had to take (e.g.nobody was sure about take-up) the licences set up a tall order in terms of what the operators had to achieve in terms of coverage etc etc. in a very short timespan. Now that 3G is finally off the ground and the licensees are slowly beginning to see an ROI on their investment from 10 years ago, it's only fair that they should be given a chance to benefit. I don't think that this limits the opportunities of smaller players. I don't think that a smaller player would have the umph to go out and build a network -- but they could be very profitable as an MVNO, for instance.

@awillige

Andrea Willige (telecoms and PR dinosaur)
Mon, 22-Jun-2009 23:40 GMT

Add Comment

Note: Your email address will be verified but will never be published on the site.

If you are a registered user, please Sign In.




The opinions expressed by the author and commenters are their own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of BitchBuzz or any employer or organisation. The aforementioned are not responsible for the accuracy of content published.