Ofcom (UK super-regulator) – Page 6

65.9% of UK Households Watching Digital TV

65.9% of UK Households Watching Digital TV Ofcom has published its Digital Television Update for the third quarter of 2005, revealing that two thirds of UK households now watch digital television.

The figures show that digital television was viewed in 65.9% of UK households (up from 63.0% in the previous quarter), with 2.6% of households receiving television services via analogue cable, bringing the total receiving some form of multi-channel television to around 68.5%.

By the end of September 2005, the total number of households viewing digital television swelled by more than 760,000 to around 16.5 million, with more than 6.3 million free-to-view digital households (Freeview/free-to-view satellite).

65.9% of UK Households Watching Digital TV The number of households with Freeview as their only source of digital television viewing was estimated at 5,775,000 – up by 600,000 homes during the quarter.

Sales of Freeview (Digital Terrestrial Television or DTT) set-top boxes and televisions with integrated DTT tuners are booming, with more than one million sales registered during the quarter – a whopping 55% increase against the same quarter last year.

During the same period, BSkyB notched up another 48,000 subscribers, bringing its total number of UK subscribers to 7,472,000, with Ofcom estimating that there are also around 545,000 free-to-view digital satellite homes (this includes viewers who no longer fork out for a BSkyB subscription but still use the box for the freebie channels).

65.9% of UK Households Watching Digital TV Digital cable subscribers now account for more than 2.6 million of the total cable television homes, increasing by more than 43,300 in the quarter, while subscriptions to analogue and digital cable television decreased slightly to just below 3.3 million in the quarter (due to a fall in analogue cable subscribers outweighing the increase in digital cable subscriptions).

This healthy take-up of digital television will be encouraging news for the government who are committed to a digital switchover between 2008 and 2012.

Ofcom Digital Television Update – 2005 Q3 [pdf]

Will UK Public Sector Voluntarily Give Up ‘Spare’ Spectrum?

The UK Treasury announced earlier today that the Pre-Budget Report (PBR) will be on 5th December. This will allow the Chancellor to outline the Government’s economic priorities and focus ahead of the Budget in the spring, and provide an update on a number of reviews.

Pre-Budget Report - Date Announced - Media and Communications Issues Of interest to the media and communications industries will be the final report of the Martin Cave led Independent Audit of public sector spectrum holdings. This review was announced in the Chancellor’s 2004 PBR – and generated some excitement as to the possible freeing up of spectrum held but not used by public sector organisations. In recent weeks there have been suggestions that the review won’t yield up very much in the way of ‘spare’ allocations.

Pre-Budget Report - Date Announced - Media and Communications Issues The Cox Review that aimed to investigate how best to enhance the role of creativity in raising the productivity performance of SMEs in the UK will probably also get a mention. The Review is led by Sir George Cox, Chairman of the Design Council. It was commissioned by HM Treasury and has had team support led by the DTI.

Pre-Budget Report

Luke Gibbs writes regularly for Ofcomwatch.

Digital Dividend Review: Ofcom Look At Spectrum Use After Analog TV Switch Off

Now that the Government has hit the ‘go’ button for switchover there are plenty of people anxious to know how the released spectrum will be used – and thereby how we will realise the value of it for UK plc.

In an attempt to address this issue Ofcom announced today the beginning of the Digital Dividend Review (DDR) – the project which will examine the options arising from the release of spectrum afforded by the digital switchover programme.

Digital Dividend Review: Ofcom Look At Spectrum Use After Analog TV Switch Off Ofcom estimates that the digital switchover programme will release up to 112 MHz of spectrum in the UHF (Ultra High Frequency) band for new uses. The UHF band is prime spectrum, because it offers a technically valuable combination of capacity (bandwidth) and range.

Ofcom say,

“The cleared spectrum – the Digital Dividend – offers real opportunities for wireless innovation.”

The Digital Dividend could enable the launch of a wide range of different services. Ofcom’s examples include:

New mobile services, with high quality video and interactive media delivered to handheld devices
Wireless broadband services, with high-speed data and voice services
Wider coverage for advanced services in remote and rural areas. This spectrum is particularly suitable for low cost, wider-area coverage
Advanced business and broadcasting services, such as those used to support major sporting events
Additional television channels including possible High Definition (HD) channels carried on Freeview

Ofcom point out that this is not an exhaustive list – which will please HM Treasury since the greater the potential uses and users the higher the value likely to be realised from auctioning it.

On this point, Ofcom have a tricky job since they will have to ensure that there is enough incentive to investing the development of a particular wireless technology with no guarantee of it actually securing an allocation of the spectrum required – however it should be noted that Ofcom have stated that they will also begin work on a new auction design, with a view to ensuring that the spectrum is acquired by users who are likely to make best use of it – (i.e. best use = greatest value) – not sure how HMT will view this.

This approach means Ofcom will:

Consider the potential uses for the available spectrum
Set out the technical limits on spectrum use to prevent potential interference
Draw up packages of frequencies that give flexibility to the market
Design an efficient auction/allocation process

The proposed timetable for DDR is:

Digital Dividend Review (DDR) begins – November 2005
Programme team and consultants in place – end 2005
Stakeholder meetings begin – Jan-Feb 2006
Outcome of RRC – June 2006
Digital Dividend Review completed – Q3 2006
Ofcom publishes final proposals – Q4 2006
Digital switchover programme begins – 2008
Digital switchover programme completed – 2012

Luke Gibbs writes regularly for Ofcomwatch.

Ofcom Digital Dividend Review

UK Digital Switchover Costs: Ofcom Report Questioned Again

Matthew Wall of the Sunday Times Doors section hammers Ofcom over the regulator’s recent report on digital switchover cost and power consumption issues. Wall labels Ofcom’s report a ‘dubious attempt to play down the true costs of switching…’

Read for yourself folks, but basically Wall claims that The Times / Doors estimates the digital switchover costs at about one billion GBP, while Ofcom’s report claims a ‘pie in the sky’ figure of 572 million GBP. The tone of Matthew Wall’s piece is aggressive and he suggests Ofcom is deliberately playing down the true costs of digital switchover.

My comments: Wall needs to be careful in his accusations. Ofcom did not author the report at issue. Instead it was authored by Scientific Generics. While I don’t know if this is the case with this particular report, in the past Ofcom has published third-party research without endorsing the conclusions contained therein. In particular, Ofcom’s recent third-party produced report on the Television Without Frontiers Directive proposed revisions was merely put on the internet as an interesting report for public viewing and comment. The regulator informed me that the TVWF report was useful third-party data but did not contain Ofcom’s views, per se.

That being said, Ofcom need to do a better job at handling third-party research. Some suggestions:

1. These types of reports should be tendered in a public manner. How do these research projects get sourced? I’d like to know…

2. Ofcom should publish how much it pays for these types of reports. I’ve mentioned this before and the reasons Ofcom gives for not reporting how much this research costs are not convincing.

3. The significance (or lack thereof) of these reports should be plainly stated. Similarly, if Ofcom is not necessarily endorsing a particular report’s conclusions, it should plainly state that fact. An ‘evidence-based’ regulator should be very clear as to how it treats these findings made by third parties. If the Scientific Generics report is not endorsed by the Ofcom Board, but it is merely one of many research inputs on the issue of digital switchover costs, then Walls’ claims are clearly overstated. However, it’s hard to blame the press when reports like these are published on the Ofcom website with no disclaimers, giving them the imprimatur of Ofcom approval.

On the merits, I think people should stop bellyaching about the cost of digital switchover. No expert can seriously claim to accurately predict the true cost: Qui numerare incipit errare incipit (He who begins to count, begins to err). Anyway, the cost is not the real problem – the real problem is that Freeview stinks as a platform and Wall is correct when he observes that the U.K. government tends to assume it is the standard of the future. But that’s just my opinion.
Russ Taylor writes for OfcomWatch

RFID’s Are Go: Ofcom Extends UK Frequency Range

RFID's Are Go: Ofcom Extends UK Frequency Range Ofcom, the UK uber-regulator, has today announced that they have removed the licensing restrictions on the frequency that radio frequency identification(RFID) tags use.

The currently spectrum available is limited to the range 869.4 to 869.65 MHz. The new position will make the range much wider, stretching between 865-868 MHz range.

The extension isn’t a great surprise as, for a number of years, there has been great excitement in industry as to the possible uses of RFID. The much used example is to improve the efficiency of handling goods in a warehouse, where items within a crate are wirelessly read, and their number deducted from the known stock list automatically as they leave the warehouse.

Many have voiced concerns about the privacy problems of information being remotely read about a person, using RFID, without their knowledge, or complicity. Their oft cited, but basically harmless example is of each item of clothing that a person is wearing being read as they walk into a shop.

Ofcom say that when coming to their decision, they considered two main issues. The first, the potential of interference from RFID devices, concluding that current legislation of output levels covered this. Secondarily, the economic costs and benefits. We quote

Ofcom conducted an impact assessment which found that the potential net benefits to businesses (through better inventory management and improved security) and consumers (if savings were reflected in lower prices) would be £100 – £200 million over 10 years

Benefits are clear for business, as efficiency is improved, by removing employees from the equation. Those to the consumers are less clear, as we can see Ofcom effectively acknowledge in their bracketed ‘if savings were reflected in lower prices’. Given what we know about the pursuit of profit, we see this as a very large If.

Perhaps the revealing section in Ofcom’s announcement is that they “seek to deregulate in order to increase the amount of licence-exempt spectrum used by businesses to bring new technologies and services to the market.” (Our stress).

It could be argued that Ofcom are losing site of their statutory dutiesunder the Communications Act 2003 – to look after the interests of the public. Specifically, quoting from the Ofcom site (again our stress).

3(1) It shall be the principal duty of Ofcom, in carrying out their functions;
(a) to further the interests of citizens in relation to communications matters; and
(b) to further the interests of consumers in relevant markets, where appropriate by promoting competition”

The above is listed on the ‘about section’ on Ofcom’s site .

Ofcom’s full statement (PDF)
Wikipedia RFID

Free Speech In Advertising?

Background – Make Poverty History had its last TV advertising campaign, widely know as the finger-click advert, removed from the UK’s TVs by Ofcom, citing political advertising.

Tamsin Allen (pictured below) has a thought-provoking piece on page six of today’s MediaGuardian (Sadly we can’t link to it as they are a subscription-only service, but it’s on page six of the printed version).

Tamsin Allen Partially arguing against the UK ban on advertising by organisations that attempt to “influence public opinion on a matter of controversy”, she says her group will challenge the ban. Allen is right in some respects when she says:

Oil companies can spend thousands on vanity advertising to convince us that the environment is safe under their stewardship but Greenpeace is not allowed to contest that view in the same media.

My reaction:
Tamsin Allen also misses the point in certain ways. Allen’s same logic of unfairness also applies to political party messages, but she discards them into some lower class of speech than (oddly) animal rights. That is wrong. If a group of interested persons – whether organised as a political party or not – want to get a certain message across to the UK populace and that message is otherwise legal, it should be permitted. Picking and choosing the nature of the permitted topic (animal rights, environmental issues, etc.) seems as arbitrary as the current system.

I don’t mean to be flippant about Allen’s cause, but do we really want the aborted ‘My Mate’s a Primate’ ad campaign to be the poster-child for this issue?

The whole ‘we don’t want to end up like the US’ tone he starts off with is just silly. So much of misguided thinking on British media policy is a reaction to some perceived deficit in the US system. Straw man thinking.

If you want a reasoned view of the US system, just click on the Becker-Posnerblog – they covered this precise issue yesterday. Becker notes,for example, that the $4 billion spent in the 2004 US campaign is quite small compared to the $200 billion annually spent by commercial advertisers.

There’s a convergence point here somewhere. Oh, it’s with the Conservatives. And the Labour Party. And even the Respect Coalition! So, like so many other debates we are witnessing, the regulatory scheme developed in 2003 is already out-of-date in many respects.

Russ Taylor writes for OfcomWatch.

UK Risks Being Left Behind In Mobile TV

UK Risks Being Left Behind In Mobile TV The UK production and development community is in danger of losing out to competition from overseas if it doesn’t wake up to the potential of mobile TV, said Mark Selby, Nokia’s Global Vice President for Multimedia, (pictured right) at the inaugural Mobile TV forum in London today.

“There is already activity in many other markets,” he said. “The UK is perceived as a technology capital by the rest of Europe, but it could lose this advantage. Its approach to mobile TV is being seen as luddite.”

Nokia has staked its claim on DVB-H (Digital Video Broadcasting for Handhelds) as the best technology for future delivery of mobile TV services. DVB-H is a one-to-many technology; it’s cost effective and provides what could be seen as highly attractive content to consumers (ie. like existing broadcast TV channels).

UK Risks Being Left Behind In Mobile TV But many claimed that the lack of spectrum is holding DVB-H back in the UK.

David Harrison, senior technology advisor at Ofcom, (pictured left) also speaking at today’s conference, confirmed that no new spectrum would begin to be available until the start of analogue switch-off in 2008. [Ed: Following that they’re keen on a spectrum auction, see below for further information on their current proposal]

Harrison’s comments left the floor wide open for Glyn Jones, Operations Director, Digital One, (pictured below right) to remind the audience that there is an alternative to DVB-H – Digital Multimedia Broadcast (DMB). There’s no coincidence about his comments – Digital One owns the spectrum for it.

UK Risks Being Left Behind In Mobile TV Digital One owns the UK’s only nationwide commercial DAB multiplex – but the capacity allocated for DMB is minimal.

The word in the halls over coffee was that recent events such as London winning the 2012 Olympics and the London tube bombings, are causing the UK Government to re-think its mobile TV strategy. Mobile TV could have a positive use in mass crowd control, telling people what to do should another terrorist attack happen.

In the next 12 months, Nokia will be hoping for a change in policy.

Nokia
Ofcom
Spectrum Framework Review: Implementation Plan – Interim Statement
Digital One

SwitchCo: UK Unveiling This Week?

There’s been quite a lot of talk in the UK media about SwitchCo, the organisation tasked with switching from Analogue to Digital TV in the UK. Luke Gibbs of OfcomWatch wonders if it will come to life this week?

It seems as though digital switchover has been going on for ages. And yet it hasn’t even begun – it’s just been a load of people talking about it!

Despite the Government announcing the creation of SwitchCo earlier in the year no-one has heard anything since. The only things we know for sure are that Barry Cox is the Chairman and some bloke called Ford Ennals is the Chief Executive. No website, no contact details, nothing – the proverbial blank screen. Perhaps it’s a precursor for what’s to come in 2012!

[ed. – an extremely limited site does seem to have emerged today!]

We also know that the Government remains committed to switchover. How? Because, the Labour Party election manifesto outlined the switchover process and thereby made both the process and timeframe an election pledge. So if you voted for Labour you voted for switchover. And if you didn’t vote for them or didn’t vote – well – tough luck they won the election.

Now, it’s possible that Labour will renege on its pledge. It’s certainly been known before for political parties to come into Government and do a spot of backtracking. Could this happen with switchover?

Well, later this week we may get some answers. On Thursday evening Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Rt Hon Tessa Jowell, MP, will make the keynote to the Royal Television Society’s bi-annual conference in Cambridge. As if Jowell hasn’t got enough high profile issues on her plate – licensing, Olympics, gambling – she also has digital switchover.

It is likely that in her keynote will offer a clearer vision of how switchover will take place and what SwitchCo’s role will be in making it happen.

After outlining the process it makes sense for SwitchCo to launch in earnest, publishing the technical and marketing plans for switchover. Will they be what the world has been waiting for?

From a technical perspective switchover it is not going to be a walk in the park. A phased switchover to digital by geographical area between 2008 and 2012. And we’ll only know how many people might be unable to get digital television once the analogue signal has been turned off and the digital signal boosted.

The technicalities of switchover will be critical to acheiving it. However, the marketing plan will also be essential to its success. Bringing the two strands together will be no easy task.

A successful switch to digital will release swathes of spectrum for re-allocation. But switchover also provides an opportunity to embed digital technology in the core of people’s homes – digital television is fundamental to acheiving the long envisaged, much touted Digital Britain.

So SwitchCo needs to be more ambitious in its aims than just pushing people to takeup digtial television. Digital television is just the beginning of digital enablement not the end of it.

There may be temptation to promote Digital Terrestrial Television (DTT) services such as Freeview over other digital services such as cable (D-Cab) or satellite (D-Sat) because it provides a low cost, convenient method of switching to digital television. However, it is also limiting as a digital technology, providing a few extra television channels and a low level of interactivity. Freeview might allow us to meet the proposed 2012 target but by then it will be out-moded.

It has already been stated that when SwitchCo does launch that it will take a platform neutral approach. So maybe we shouldn’t worry. However, switchover has the potential to become a political nightmare – and if it does there maybe a temptation to take the easiest possible route.

I am certainly not the first person to have pointed these things out. But I thought it was worth re-iterating ahead of various announcements this week, when potentially we will see an important new organisation emerge.

SwitchCo

EU Seeks To Regulate Internet TV

EU Seeks To Regulate Internet TV ‘The Man’ in the form of the EC wants to introduce regulation to the Internet by bringing in controversial rules to cover television online, according to a report in the Times.

Well, actually it’s ‘The Woman’, as Viviane Reding, the European Information Commissioner is hatching plans in Brussels to regulate areas such as taste and decency, accuracy and impartiality for Internet broadcasters.

Or good old ‘censorship’, as some may like to put it.

The consultation documents also looks set to relax regulations covering the amount of advertising that a TV channel can show, with the current limit of 12 minutes an hour likely to be scrapped. More adverts. Whoppee.

One of five “issue papers” to be released by Reding discusses the impact of technological change and concludes that “non-linear audio-visual content” (‘TV downloads’ in human-speak) need to be subjected to regulation.

Although some of the suggested changes – like the extension of rules governing the protection of children – are unlikely to ruffle any feathers, demands that Internet broadcasters provide a statutory right of reply look set to get the fur flying.

Ofcom’s already in a strop about the proposals, with Tim Suter, Ofcom’s partner for content and standards, snarling: “Whatever happens, it is not appropriate to take the set of rules that apply to television and apply them to other media. Where possible, we should be looking at self-regulation or co-regulation, because that is something that can deliver the goods.”

EU Seeks To Regulate Internet TV Internet-delivered TV is currently unregulated in the UK, so there is no compulsion for Web broadcasters to respect rules governing accuracy and impartiality or taste and decency that apply to all other analogue and digital channels.

The current big boys of UK Internet TV broadcasting, Home Choice, have formed their own self-regulatory body which mirror most of the existing rules, and Ofcom believes that this approach is sufficient for responsible broadcasters.

Ofcom argues that dodgy operators would be likely to operate offshore and thus be completely unhindered by any jurisdictions that the European Union dreams up.

The new rules will be based on the 1989 European directive, Television Without Frontiers, which set the benchmark for television regulation.

The proposals in the issues papers are not firm conclusions and broadcasters will have until 5 September to respond in writing, with a draft directive following by the end of this year.

The Times
Europe’s Information Society

Ofcom’s BT statement – Legal Issues Examined

Following hot on the heals of yesterdays Ofcom’s notice to BT, under Section 155(1) of the Enterprise Act 2002, Russ Taylor of OfcomWatch takes us through the legal issues.

Ofcom released the details of the BT settlement.

Folks, here are the key takeaways / open issues as I see them from a legal perspective:

* This is essentially a consultation on whether BT has promised enough (‘undertakings’ – spelled out in Section 2 of the document) to avoid referral of this matter to the Competition Commission. Ofcom concludes that BT has, and asks for public comment until August 12, 2005.

* Section 4.14 of the document is the key allegation, and check-out the indirect wording on Ofcom’s part! Ofcom basically say that BT had the incentive to engage in anti-competitive conduct, and later say that it suspects BT ‘may have acted in accordance with the incentives set out above.’ Is that Plain English? Even the title of Section 4 is non-confrontational… referring to the problems of the market, rather than problems with BT. Ofcom's BT statement - Legal Issues Examined

* Annex E is the basic document (the Annexes are here). It is the proposed agreement between BT and Ofcom. It specifies the undertakings. It looks to me like the Access Service Division (ASD) CEO reports to the BT CEO. So, presumably, the BT CEO can terminate the ASD CEO? That’s not exactly ‘separation’. And more importantly, it does not square with the classic definition of a CEO.

* It’s a lengthy document, and I’ve only skimmed it, but the missing element–in my opinion–seems to be a clear dispute resolution / problem solving element of the undertakings. In other words, what happens if BT shirks its duties, or there is a dispute about one of the undertakings. Are the undertakings self-enforcing? I don’t think so. Sections 12 through 17 of Annex E purport to cover this ground, but I think they are vaguely worded. Section 14, in particular, seems to merely allow BT and Ofcom to agree to disagree, and has no real teeth other than Ofcom’s ability to declare BT in breach of the undertakings. But what then? Does Ofcom then have the power to fine BT? I don’t think so – I think a breach would require Ofcom to go to court to secure a remedy… or threaten another referral? So, would communications policy decisions then rest in the hands of a court? Why didn’t Ofcom require BT, as part of its undertakings, to waive court procedures and agree to a schedule of monetary penalties, etc.

* I also recall that Ofcom initially said that third parties would be able to secure relief under this settlement–for their losses caused by BT’s breaches of the undertakings. How does that work? This element of the scheme seems to be completely missing from the documents.

* Finally, what happens if BT merges with another entity to which these undertakings do not apply. I’m confused… Overall, I think the document accomplishes much by way of technically sorting out a way to limit BT’s market power. But from a legal perspective, it needs some more thought.

* * *

This should be an interesting consultation… stay tuned…

Russ taylor is a co-founder of OfcomWatch
Ofcom