Government

Google Digitises US Video Archives, Iraq Censorship Rumours Debunked
Google has struck up a partnership with the US National Archives to digitise their historic movie collection and provide free access to the public through their video search service.
Initially offering 101 digitised films, the public will be able to view World War II newsreels and footage of the Apollo 11 mission and other Nasa material online.
Also included in the pilot are reels from a 1930s documenting the establishment of the national park system (be steady, my beating heart).
In a statement, US archivist Allen Weinstein declared the partnership as, “an important step for the National Archives in its goal of becoming an archive without walls.”
“Our new strategic plan emphasises the importance of providing access to records anytime, anywhere. This is one of many initiatives that we are launching to make our goal a reality,” he added.
Google censoring Iraq content?
But what Google gives with one hand it appeared to be taking with another as The Register reported that the search engine giant was blocking US viewers from seeing a piece of Iraq footage on their video service.
Although available to non-US viewers, the innocuous clip – which showed US military personnel detonating a roadside bomb in a controlled explosion – was unavailable in the US with The Register (and, to be fair, several others) citing this as an example of a new regime of political censorship at Google.
Happily, this was not the case, as a Google spokesperson explained: “Video uploaders, using Google Video’s ‘Advanced Options’ feature, can choose to blacklist countries. In this case the uploader blacklisted the US and only the US. When uploading the video the content owner set a preference not to show this content to users in the US.”
Of course, had Google not agreed to their highly controversial deal with China to censor search results recently, people would be less inclined to think them capable of censorship closer to home…
Google Video censors Iraq footage – for US only
National Archives via Google Video
27 February, 2006
Ofcom VoIP Consultation Announced For UK
Ofcom has just announced another consultation on Voice over IP (VoIP) use in the UK as a follow up to their last, which they called New Voice Services: A consultation and interim guidance, and released on 6 September 2004.
We feel this is sufficiently important to instantly flag up, so now only cover the key points. More details will follow.
Ofcom estimate is that there’s around 500,000 VoIP users in the UK, we can only assume that this is both software (Skype, gTalk, etc) and hardware (Vonage, etc). Sounds low to us and at the time of writing, Ofcom hasn’t responded to our request for clarification.
Subjects for discussion/debate –
The obvious of 999 emergency service comes up, but the use of language is pretty interesting. Ofcom say they want to ‘increase the incentive for VoIP services to offer 999 access,’ so potentially no insistence. VoIP providers will love this, as they’ve tripped up in other countries with this.
The scope _does_ appear to cover number portability which is good for the consumer.
As yet unclear, but in our view important. Will there be a move to enforce interoperability between different providers of the service? It would be very pro-consumer, but would put the noses-out-of-joint for quite a few VoIP providers, especially Skype.
Any comments in response have to be with Ofcom by 3.May.06. They’re not going to rush themselves in making their views on the process know in a big rush, they plan to make a statement in August 2006.
Ofcom – Consultation Documents on Regulation of VoIP Services
22 February, 2006
Mayday! Mayday! UK Digital TV Boxes In Trouble Again
For the second time in a fortnight, coastguards have been scrambled after a digital TV box sent out a signal on a wavelength used by ships in distress.
Mrs Donaldson, a 67 year old pensioner in Plymouth, Devon, came back from an evening at the cinema to find investigators waiting outside her door, “holding a massive antenna.”
After picking up the ‘distress’ signal from Mrs Donaldson’s Freeview box, two lifeboats and a police launch spent a fruitless three hours searching 20 miles of coastline looking for what they believed to be a mystery vessel in trouble.
Two weeks previously, a faulty TV digital box in Portsmouth resulted in a coastguard helicopter from RAF Kinloss being scrambled for a two hour search of the harbour area before the signal was traced to a household inland.
RAF spokesman Michael Mulford confirmed that the Aeronautical Rescue Co-ordination Centre at Kinloss had detected the beacon – transmitting on the major emergency frequency – from one of five orbiting satellites.
Once the RAF had established that the source wasn’t coming from a nearby vessel or missing plane, they contacted Ofcom who were able to track the signal down to a household.
At the time, an Ofcom spokesman was reported as saying that the signal was a “real one-off”, adding that “digital boxes only receive signals.” When we spoke to Ofcom today, they claimed to have said it was ‘probably’ a one-off.
Beacons not boxes
The frequency used by the digital Freeview set-top box (officially called the Civil Distress Frequency) exactly matched the one reserved for emergency distress beacons.
These beacons are carried by ships, yachts and aircraft, and when they come into contact with water, automatically broadcast a signal that identifies the vessel and its location.
Will the digi-TV rollout be scuppered?
With Digital TV boxes being responsible for two major incidents in just two weeks, some serious issues are being raised for the proposed roll out of digital TV in the UK.
Ofcom officials told us that they think that only two boxes failing out of the ten million Freeview boxes already sold isn’t much of a problem.
But with the cost of the two wasted rescue operations exceeding what has been reported as £20,000, lifeboat crews have warned that such rogue signals could cost lives in the future.
An Ofcom spokesman explained that the faulty boxes are now being examined for malfunctioning components, adding: “Apparently any device capable of receiving a signal can also send a signal if it malfunctions. To the best of our knowledge these are the only two out of millions of Freeview users in the UK to have experienced this problem.”
Confusingly they said that they hoped to have the results of the tests in a ‘couple of weeks,’ but might not make the findings public. They refused to be drawn on who made the Distressing digi-box, or indeed if both boxes were made by the same company. They also wouldn’t reveal the price range of the offending box.
Meanwhile, it looks like they’ll be no shiny digital future for Mrs Donaldson who has said that she won’t be getting a replacement box as she would “hate to cause more bother”. Bless.
14 February, 2006
Google.cn Censorship. Don’t Be Greedy
It was with great disappointment and a heavy heart that we heard that Google had compromised their search results in China, excluding results the Chinese government didn’t find acceptable. In effect becoming the government’s censor.
Why would a company whose strap-line was Don’t be Evil do this? The draw of the potential of huge amounts of income in the future has to figure large. The business logic being, if you’re not in China (they’ve been blocked by the Chinese for years), your global future looks less assured.
We suspect that the public reaction around the world, won’t be quite as accepting, as was signaled in the Radio 4’s business interview this morning with Google‘s Senior Policy Counsel, Andrew McLaughlin.
McLaughlin’s attempt to draw parallels between the censorships that they’re required to carry out in Germany for terms around the Nazi’s and their actions in China were slapped down by Greg Wood, the interviewer.
“The situation is different in those countries, because the users of your Web services in countries like Germany, also have some influence in drafting the laws that ban access to Nazi-realted sites, and that’s not the case in China – is It?
McLaughlin’s tell us that they’ve taken a year to develop the idea. We suspect a good deal of that time has been spent trying to figure out how to sell this terrible compromise to their current customers/believers.
We feel this single action has marked the start of the end of the Google-fanatics relationship with the company.
It’s not that we think that people will stop searching on Google, it’s just that they won’t trust Google implicitly any more
Importantly, we feel that if another company came along offering a similar service – which isn’t beyond the bounds of possibility – current Google users will feel a lot less concerned about making the switch.
It’s not like people haven’t change search engines before – remember when nothing but AltaVista existed for search?
It appears that Google now feel that they are so vital to the world that they can act against the wishes of the vast majority of their users. We can’t help but to draw strong parallels to many Western governments of late.
We hate to burst your bubble Google, but the reality is that the World could live with a similar service, and not notice the loss of Google.
Those who don’t like what Google has done, and really want to change their mind have an easy means at their disposal – take away their income.
Where Google would really start to suffer is by Web sites removing their Google TextAds from their sites – and bloggers seem like an ideal start for this.
After all, from their China/censorship actions, it’s clear that Google’s really driven by income. Added to this, we also know that Google isn’t primarily a search engine company, it’s an advertising company. Removing their adverts means to removing their income.
25 January, 2006
Steps To Understand Where Tory Thinking is on TMT
Yesterday piece raised the questions of where the Conservatives thinking may be on UK Telecoms, Media, and Technology (TMT) sector. Today we outline how we intend to find out more.
So where do we start?
Well, initially we hope to meet with and interview Hugo Swire, MP (Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport) and John Whittingdale, MP (Chairman – Media, Culture and Sport Select Committee). Both will be important figures in developing coherent, cohesive and workable policies for the party in this area and we hope interviewing them will provide us insight as to the likely direction of travel on some of the main issues.
There are also a number of other bodies within the party looking at issues impacting the TMT sector – such as the Conservative Technology Forum – and we hope they may also meet with us to outline their current position and work on these issues.
There are a range of immediate issues where we think the U.K. can benefit from the Conservative’s input:
- (i) copyright policy;
- (ii) radio spectrum management;
- (iii) the regulation of new media;
- (iv) digital switchover;
- and (v) the regulatory environment, in particular, the future of Ofcom.
Do the Conservatives have something different to say on these and possibly other equally-important issues? We want to uncover areas of contention and, alternatively, areas of consensus. Ultimately we want to highlight the importance of this policy area, and ensure that it is at the forefront of the party’s offering in the future – after all, technology is the future.
Naturally, there will always be those who say regulatory decisions made by organisations such as Ofcom are ‘independent’ and ‘evidence-based’ and therefore would be valid whoever happened to be in government. However, most people know Ofcom is ultimately a product of the government who created its remit – New Labour – and who on occasion have allowed the notion of ‘evidence-based’ regulation to underpin a culture of third party ‘experts’ who decide policy matters with a minimum of public participation or scrutiny.
Of course, any ‘evidence’ rarely, if ever, just points to one policy outcome. Regulation is always discretionary – it needs to be in order to be flexible enough to be applied coherently – but accordingly it is also always political.
It won’t have escaped anyone’s attention that senior appointments at Ofcom are made by or approved by the Secretary of State – is this what is meant by ‘non-political’? Surely very few people are really convinced by the notion of regulatory independence. Political context defines any regulatory outcome to an extent.
We should note at the outset that we certainly don’t already have answers as to what the Conservatives should be doing in this area. However, we do believe it would be beneficial for everyone if they engage in these issues and push them to the fore. We hope that this challenge will be of as much interest to the Conservative Party as it is to us.
We will keep you posted as to how we get on.
Luke Gibbs and Russ Taylor are founders OfcomWatch
20 January, 2006
What Are The Conservatives TMT Sector Policies?
If you were to consider UK telecoms, media, and technology (TMT) policy since Parliament passed the Communications Act 2003 and brought about the formation of Ofcom much has happened. The regulatory machinery of the state has swung into action with relative efficiency, taking on such issues as BT’s marketplace position, digital switchover, and public subsidy and control of broadcasting and new media. And we are starting – just starting – to see the results of some those efforts.
But up until now, it is fair to say that the Conservative Party have basically ceded influence over the TMT policy arena to New Labour – not least because Labour has been the party of power during what has been a period of radical technological change. The Conservatives, for a number of reasons, have been somewhat ineffectual at making their voices heard in this space … leaving observers such as ourselves largely unsure of where the party stands on most issues impacting the TMT sector.
This is not a good thing. These industries are massively influential from a social and economic perspective. According to Ofcom, for example, the U.K. communications marketplace has an annual turnover of £55.9 billion. That’s tens of thousands of jobs and billions of pounds at stake. Policies applicable to the TMT sector also affect how the U.K.
- (i) sees itself,
- (ii) communicates,
- (iii) drives its economy,
- (iv) learns,
- (v) projects global influence, etc.
What can we say? The TMT sector is already staggeringly important and will become more so as economies across the globe become increasingly interlinked through electronic communications technologies. So it is common sense that there be senior level engagement with technology issues across all political parties.
This holds particularly true for the Conservative Party.
- Firstly, they are the UK’s main opposition party.
- Secondly they are currently engaged in a process of revamping their image and re-orientating their policy offering in order to be relevant.
- Thirdly, technology – and the policy and regulation associated with it – is always relevant.
However, any proposed policy and regulation must be backed by new thinking. So, although we have been told what sort of music David Cameron has put onto his new iPod, we don’t yet know how he thinks this technology might be used to deliver public service broadcasting or for that matter public services, or what the rights issues might be, and how all of this might impact the commercial market.
Of course there won’t be any answers overnight – and we don’t expect the Conservatives to suddenly unveil a raft of policy positions in what is a highly complex and constantly evolving area. But without doubt there’s a genuine and important opportunity here for the party. Developing a keen and critical understanding of TMT and proposing broad policies likely to harness the benefits that stem from new technologies would provide a platform that would assist the party in being seen as critical to delivering a modern Britain.
Certainly the party is already developing new ideas (or in some cases adopting the opposition’s cast-offs) in other policy areas. And by all accounts, David Cameron is doing an effective job of moving the Tories back toward the centre of British politics. The new leader appears flexible and open to new policy approaches. But nothing definite is happening in the TMT space. We think it should.
So with this in mind, we have decided that 2006 would be a good time to try and stimulate the political debate in regard to issues impacting the TMT industries by occasionally placing a specific focus on what the Conservatives might look to do for the sector. In doing this we hope to assess, encourage and develop thinking as to what the Conservatives have to offer if (and when) they return to power.
We will not be attempting to write the Conservative Party’s policies in regard to the TMT sector. Far from it – as always, we hope to provide a dialogue – a small impetus that might get a much bigger ball rolling. And any debate on would possibly include the views of those who may not be supporters of the Conservative Party – new or old. We remains open to all.
Tomorrow, in the second installment, we’ll get in to the details of what could get the ball rolling.
Luke Gibbs and Russ Taylor are founders of OfcomWatch
19 January, 2006
Stephen Carter Leaving Ofcom?
In an update to this story, Ofcom confirm Carter to leave
A reasonably insightful interview with Ofcom’s Stephen Carter by Maggie Brown in Monday’s Guardian. There is a suggestion that Carter is looking to move on – which would mean that the implementation of many of the key recommendations/agreements from the various strategic reviews he has overseen will fall to someone else (most likely – Ofcom’s COO – Ed Richards).
Brown suggests that Carter will be judged by the decisions he has taken in regard to ITV – particularly the decision to scale back ITV regional programming obligations. In reality I think the industry – both media and telecoms – are likely to judge Carter by the regulatory settlement he got out of BT.
However, interesting to note the use of what Carter refers to as the “‘soft power’ of influence” in regard to decisions taken on ITV. Apparently others – including the ‘independent’ Content Board’ – favoured a different approach on scale backing PSB obligations but didn’t get their way.
Other interesting points from the article –
- 1. Production Supply Market Review – which is published tomorrow. Carter says Ofcom has not tried to rewrite the ITC’s ‘terms of trade’ agreement made in 2003. He states,
  “We will make it clear that we are not intending to redraw the terms of trade on a short-term basis or whim, given that they have had a relatively short period of time to bite. The 2003 agreement will stand.” Asked for his views about the seven-day window agreed between the BBC and Pact, the independent producers’ body, he says: “It is too electric a subject to speculate on.”
- 2. BBC – Carter stands by Ofcom’s position that the licence fee money should be ‘contestable’. This reiterates the advice of the independent Burns’ Panel who looked at the BBC structure and funding. However, the government didn’t go with it in the Green Paper on the BBC’s future, and it is unlikely to be in the White Paper. In my opinion this is also the right thing to do- although there will be plenty of people who disagree.
It will be interesting to see where Carter moves – if he does – my money would be on BSkyB (or News Corporation). Of course there will always be a role for him at Ofcomwatch – if he fancied a hands on role in new media.
Luke Gibbs is a co-founder of OfcomWatch
Ofcom
11 January, 2006
Huge US Music Downloading Fine Upheld
A US federal appeals court has upheld the mammoth $22,500 (£12,760, €18,930) fine slapped on a 29 year old Chicago mother caught illegally distributing songs over the Internet.
Cecilia Gonzalez’s unsuccessful appeal against a music industry copyright lawsuit will no doubt delight music industry lawyers, who have already filed against thousands of computer users.
The three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago weren’t interested in Ms Gonzalez’ arguments that her Internet activities were permitted under US copyright laws.
After Ms Gonzalez rejected an earlier proposed settlement from music companies of about $3,500 (£1,950 €2,950), a federal judge later filed a summary judgement ordering her to shell out $750 (£425) for each of 30 songs she was accused of illegally distributing over the Internet.
The mother of five contended she had downloaded songs to determine what she liked enough to buy at retail, adding that she and her husband regularly buy music CDs, with over 250 albums in their collection.
The appeal panel weren’t impressed, pointing out that because Ms Gonzalez didn’t delete the songs she hadn’t decided to buy, she could have been liable for the 1000+ songs found on her computer.
“A copy downloaded, played, and retained on one’s hard drive for future use is a direct substitute for a purchased copy,” the judges wrote, adding that her defence that she downloaded fewer songs than many other computer users “is no more relevant than a thief’s contention that he shoplifted only 30 compact discs, planning to listen to them at home and pay later.”
Ms Gonzalez’s case was part of first wave of civil lawsuits filed by record companies and their trade organisation, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), back in September 2003.
“The law here is quite clear,” table-thumped Jonathan Lamy, a senior vice-president for the Washington-based RIAA. “Our goal with all these anti-piracy efforts is to protect the ability of the music industry to invest in the bands of tomorrow and give legal online services a chance to flourish.”
And make lots of money for themselves, of course.
RIAA
12 December, 2005
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).
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).
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]
12 December, 2005
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.
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.
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.
18 November, 2005