Grokster U-turns And Closes Service

Grokster U-turns And Closes ServiceGrokster, the online music sharing service, much legally embattled, has decided to shut the service and pay $50 million to settle claims against it.

Visitors to their site will now see the following message

The United States Supreme Court unanimously confirmed that using this service to trade copyrighted material is illegal.

Copying copyrighted motion picture and music files using unauthorized peer-to-peer services is illegal and is prosecuted by copyright owners.

There are legal services for downloading music and movies.

This service is not one of them.

Quite a turn around from their previous stance and not exactly expected.

AP is reporting that the settlement

permanently bans Grokster from participating, directly or indirectly, in the theft of copyrighted files and requires the company to stop giving away its software.

You would think that this would pretty much be the end of them, but no.

Grokster U-turns And Closes ServiceThere is a plan to launch a service that they say will be a “safe and legal service” under the name Grokster 3G.

As you would expect with such a massive turn around, the record industry is pretty happy. Mitch Bainwol, Chairman and CEO of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) explained their position, “As the Court articulated in no uncertain terms, there is a right way and a wrong way to conduct a business. This settlement makes clear that businesses are well aware when they are operating on the wrong side of that line.”

The fallout from this sudden turn-around by Grokster is far from clear. They were originally one of the strongest proponents of the right to run a P2P service without restricting the content that is exchanged on it.

Grokster U-turns And Closes ServiceCertainly, it will put significantly more pressure on StreamCast Networks Inc., which distributes Morpheus, and Sharman Networks Ltd., which distributes Kazaa, who were co-defendants of the original court case.

What is not certain is if Grokster will be able to pull any of their current users over to their new Grokster 3G service – effectively ‘doing a Napster’. We suspect that it’s highly likely that many of the current Grokster’s will feel betrayed by their change around.

Grokster

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.ofcomwatch-logo

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 AllenPartially 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.

Free Mobiles; Technology Terror?; RIAA Boycott – Teenage Tech News Review

Free PhoneHandy… Literally!
Engadget has a story on how Montclair State University in New Jersey is handing out free phones to it’s students to enable them to easier communicate with each other. The handsets feature software which allows them to receive “channels” of information, which users sign up for. These channels include things like the dinner menu and the location of the university’s shuttle buses, as well as channels students have set up of their own.

I can admit I am actually kind of jealous of this: I would love the ability to be able to do this at school, checking up on when holidays are, what’s on the menu, and what my time-table’s like. Sadly, I think my school would have some difficulty in preventing the chavs from selling them on eBay, which of course is an entirely different issue.

This is the problem with technology like this: Those most likely to adopt it are, by default, young people, who therefore can’t afford it. Give it to them instead then, and a select few will take advantage of that. Technology like this, for now, is only for older people I think. This isn’t to say it isn’t exciting though: I still find socio-technological implementations, usually referred to as MoSoSo (Mobile Social Software), fascinating, as although there isn’t yet much of a market for these sorts of services, there will inevitably be, and when there is, it could well change the way we communicate with each other forever.

SMS Text MessageSounds nasty!
Everyone over here in Europe likes to text, or “txt” for short. I’m not entirely sure how popular the practice is over in the US, but in the UK it’s used mainly by teenagers, although others use it too, because of it’s extremely low cost in comparison to making voice calls.

The New York Times is reporting that apparently, using SPAMming techniques, it should be possible to flood a cities GSM infrastructure by sending as little as 165 text messages a second into the network. This is made possible because text messages use the same communications infrastructure and network that voice calls are made to as well. Imagine what could happen if someone flooded a network, so that no calls could be made, and then at the same time a co-ordinated terrorist attack occurred. People would be unable to call the emergency services, and wide-spread carnage and destruction would occur.

This is particularly scary for me, as I would be at a loss in an emergency without my phone: It’s central to how I find people and communicate with them, and when I really need to get in touch with them, I wouldn’t be able to. This reliance and taking for granted of technology is something that most of my generation are likely guilty of, and when everything does kick off and there’s no electricity, phones or water, I would have severe doubts that a lot of them would be able to cope with it.

It was only really recent events (London bombings) that brought this to my attention, but it has made me realise that reliance on technology could be very turned around and be used against us.

RIAAThat lot again
Yes, that’s right, the RIAA are at it again: A short time ago, a case against a mother on her daughter’s behalf of file sharing was dismissed in court. Now, the RIAA are back, but this time, they’re not suing the mother but her 14-year old daughter.

People like the RIAA make me so, so angry: At 14, no-one really knows what they’re doing. So a little girl downloaded some of her favourite songs from the Internet. That little girl was probably a paying customer as well, but her pocket money just wasn’t enough, and she just wanted to hear one more song by her favourite artist, but couldn’t afford it. Her friend said “you can get it for free from here”, and so that’s what the girl did. Next thing she knew, the very company she was a customer of, was sending threatening letters to her, demanding thousands of dollars in compensation.

Is this the right way of treating your customers? I know for sure it is one great way of driving them away. If you are in my position at the moment, of having a good few thousand songs you enjoy, then stop buying music unless it is from your local bands or from an independent label. It might sound an unrealistic expectation, but I have found so many great bands on the Internet and locally at pubs and other music venues, that I am quite confident I will never be giving another penny to those greedy folks over at the RIAA.

You can do something about it though, by going to www.boycott-riaa.com. Every little helps!
That would be my rant for the day, have a nice weekend :-)

NSF GENI Project Looks To The Next-Generation Internet

NSF GENI Project Looks To The Next-Generation InternetThe boffins at the US National Science Foundation (NSF) have proposed “re-engineering” the Internet to create a whizz-bang updated version that connects all kinds of devices with built in security and robustness.

With the government agency challenging researchers to look at the Internet as a “clean slate”, the NSF’s Global Environment for Networking Investigations (GENI) initiative proposes a research grant program and an experimental facility to test new Internet technologies.

NSF officials trumpeted the GENI project at a conference for the Special Interest Group on Data Communications in Philadelphia last week.

But before you get too excited about this new super-improved Internet being piped into your devices (ooo-er), NSF spokesman Richard “Randy” Vines has some news for you: it’s not yet funded and it’s only “an idea under consideration.”

With the Internet continuing to grow exponentially and with researchers predicting an explosion of data in the next decade from mobile and wireless devices as well as sensors, the GENI project intends to anticipate and envision the Internet society’s needs 15 years or more from now.

NSF GENI Project Looks To The Next-Generation InternetThe goals of the GENI Initiative include a new core functionality for the Internet, with new naming, addressing, and identity architectures; enhanced capabilities, including additional security architecture and a design for high availability; and new Internet services and applications.

According to the NSF’s GENI Web page, the GENI project intends to “explore new networking capabilities that will advance science and stimulate innovation and economic growth,” adding, “The GENI Initiative responds to an urgent and important challenge of the 21st Century to advance significantly the capabilities provided by networking and distributed system architectures

The site also urges the enabling of “new classes of societal-level services and applications”. We’ve no idea what that means, but it sure sounds good to us.

Faster transmission speeds aren’t on the agenda of the GENI Project, however, with David Clark, a senior research scientist at the Laboratory for Computer Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology sagely commenting, “Making a network faster has never made it more secure or easier to use.”

National Science Foundation
NSF Global Environment for Networking Investigations

.xxx domain: US Gov Tells ICANN To Wait

.xxx Domain For Pornos ApprovedBack in June this year, the .xxx domain appeared to be have been cleared by ICANN (Internet Corporation For Assigned Names and Numbers), the organisation that has control of domain names with world over.

Now Michael D. Gallagher from the US Department of Commerce (DoC) has now written to ICANN asking them to delay the ICANN Board of Directors wait for a week in what was to be a rubber-stamping of the final approval. Involvement of the US government with ICANN at this level is without precedence.

Gallagher sights nearly 6,000 letters and email from ‘concerned families’ that have been received to the DoC. In a country of over 296m people (assuming only US citizens have written in), 2.027e-5 is beyond a rounding error. It’s the rounding error of a rounding error.

We all know how easy it is to send an email – it takes seconds. And as the BBC found out when they received a flood of over 20,000 emails objecting to the showing of “Jerry Springer The Opera”. It’s no concern that very many of these mails were identical – as ‘the faithful’ from various religious groups were rounded up to form a virtual lynching posse.

.xxx Domain For Pornos ApprovedThe Bush administration doesn’t appear to have taken in to account any of this, and all of a sudden are interested in the views of the people. Wouldn’t it have been great if they’d listened to the view of the people before invading Iraq.

Gallagher’s letter draws to a close with, “Given the extent of the negative reaction, I request that the Board will provide process and adequate additional time for these concerns to be voiced and addresses before any additional action takes place on this issue.”

The Bush administration say that they have a concerns that the .xxx domains become a virtual red-light district, reserved exclusively for pornography.

Which way do you want it? Protecting those who don’t want to view porn, or not?

Porn on the Internet is a fact, and will not go away – just as porn in print will not vanish.

Surely it’s better to know where the porn is, rather than those not looking for it stumbling across it by accident.

Others see the creation of a separate TLD for ‘objectionable’ material as a step towards censorship of the Internet. Their concern is who becomes the arbiter of what is and isn’t ‘objectionable’, would a pencil drawing of nude be lumped in with hardcore porn, or would a slightly racy story be forced into the same category.

Is it just us, or do you feel that the steadily increasing involvement of Governments in areas which they really shouldn’t been getting involved with is a concern?

ICANN

‘Naked DSL’ Demanded By Vonage In UK

'Naked DSL' Demanded By VonageResearch has revealed that two thirds of UK Internet users are deeply unchuffed about having to pay a BT line rental on top of their broadband subscription.

The stating-the-bleeding-obvious revelation was the conclusion of an online survey of more than 1,000 broadband subscribers in the UK who were questioned in June 2005 by online research company, TickBox.

The research, carried out on behalf of the broadband telephony outfit Vonage, also revealed that only 37% of Internet users believe there is a real choice of telephony provider, against 72% for mobile phones.

'Naked DSL' Demanded By VonageVonage has demanded ‘Naked DSL’ in the UK, which would enable consumers to independently subscribe to telephone and broadband services and allow users to subscribe to a VoIP service instead of a traditional fixed-line service,

In a statement, Vonage commented: “In the UK, by the end of this year, broadband subscribers will be paying a surcharge of £672m annually to BT in line rental on top of their broadband bill, no matter who their ISP is.”

“Broadband subscribers deserve the right to choose their broadband and telephone providers independently without being forced to pay for a telephone line they may never use,” clarion-called Vonage UK MD Kerry Ritz.

'Naked DSL' Demanded By Vonage“The broadband infrastructure will support a variety of services, one of which is telephony. Customers should be able to decide what services they want to ‘plug’ into their broadband network in the same way that they choose their electricity provider,” he added.

BT was quick to scoff at Vonage’s appeal, putting on its best supercilious tone while patting the upstarts on the head, saying that the company had little grasp of the costs involved in supporting its nationwide broadband network.

'Naked DSL' Demanded By Vonage“We are aware that applications providers that don’t contribute to the cost of building and supporting that ever improving broadband network have little appreciation of the economics involved,” said a BT spokesman. “Our customers, however, do”.

Vonage

.mobi Domain TLD Approved For Mobile Phones

New '.mobi' Suffix Approved For Mobile PhonesConsumers on the move will soon be able spot websites which have been specifically designed for mobile phones courtesy of the .mobi suffix.

The new suffix, which we originally picked up on back in March 2004 was approved by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), will join the popular “.com”, “.org” and of course “.info”, and other top-level domain names when it goes live in 2006.

The new domain name was requested by a heavyweight gang of mobile phone operators and handset makers who teamed up to create a joint venture tasked with encouraging companies and Web site designers to create mobile-specific Web pages.

The member companies include Hutchison 3G, GSM., Ericsson, Microsoft, Nokia, Samsung, Telefonica Moviles, T-Mobile and Vodafone.

New '.mobi' Suffix Approved For Mobile PhonesThe companies hope that the new mobile-optimised websites will encourage consumers to upgrade their phones and access the web more while on the move – and thus generate lots of lovely lolly for their coffers.

“As .mobi will encourage the usage of advanced functionalities in mobile devices, the market potential for those devices will increase,” the companies said in a joint statement.

For some old timer designers it’ll feel like being back in the mid 1990s with the new mobile sites having to take into account the small screens, limited memory and frugal bandwidth available on mobile phones.

Although the new suffix makes perfect sense for British babblers (who call their phones ‘mobiles’), it’s a little more confusing for the Finns, where mobile phones going under the curious name of “kannyka,” which sounds like something that Ali G may have come out with. Aye!

ICANN

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's BT statement - Legal Issues ExaminedOfcom 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.Ofcom's BT statement - Legal Issues Examined

* 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

Ofcom: A New Regulatory Approach For Fixed Telecoms

Ofcom: A New Regulatory Approach For Fixed TelecomsUK Super-regulator Ofcom have today published details of a new regulatory approach for the UK’s fixed line telecommunications market.

We think this information is significant enough to be reproduced without editing.

A new regulatory approach for fixed telecommunications

Ofcom today published details of a new regulatory approach for the UK’s fixed line telecommunications market.

Ofcom has concluded that a new approach is necessary for the longer term, based on real equality of access to those parts of the fixed telecoms network which BT’s competitors cannot fairly replicate.

This new approach to regulation has six objectives:

  1. to drive down the price of calls, connections and services for consumers and businesses;
  2. to support more innovation through the growth of competitive products and services, such as faster broadband, television and voice over the internet and video-on-demand, from a range of credible companies;
  3. to provide regulatory certainty for providers and investors so that they commit to developing, marketing and extending these products and services for UK consumers and businesses;
  4. to re-focus regulation where it is truly needed, with swifter remedies to tackle anti-competitive behaviour and a structure which delivers equivalence to a timetable with real penalties and incentives;
  5. to remove regulation wherever competition is effective and the effect of open markets – rather than regulatory intervention – ensures the delivery of choice, value and quality for consumers; and
  6. ensure the necessary level of consumer protection through a combination of codes, sanctions and effective consumer information.
Ofcom Chairman David Currie said: “We believe these proposals have the potential to encourage more sustainable competition, more services, lower prices and greater consumer choice.”

Ofcom Chief Executive Stephen Carter said: “Effective regulation for the telecommunications industry needs to be forward looking, needs to encourage competition in the right places and needs to deliver tangible benefits for customers.”

He added: “These proposals are substantially different to traditional telecommunications regulation. They demand significant changes in key areas, and recognise that in other areas regulation can be rolled back.”

Proposed Undertakings

On Tuesday 21 June the Board of BT Group plc agreed in principle to offer to the Ofcom Board legally binding undertakings in lieu of a reference under the Enterprise Act. On Wednesday 22 June 2005 the Ofcom Board accepted this offer.

The proposed undertakings commit the company to substantive changes in organisation and behaviour; full detail of the proposed undertakings will be published on 30 June 2005.

A more detailed Ofcom Statement can be found online at www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/telecoms_p2/statement/

This news release should be read in conjunction with that statement. The full undertakings – which will be subject to final consultation – will be published on 30 June, together with a number of other proposals relevant to securing greater competition in the fixed line market, the details of which follow later in this news release.

  1. Enforceability. The final undertakings to be offered by the Board of BT Group plc will be in lieu of a reference to the Competition Commission under Section 155(1) of the Enterprise Act 2002. They will be legally binding and enforceable, and will mean that:
    • in the event of a breach, Ofcom could take the matter to the High Court. The Board of BT Group plc would then be responsible for ensuring compliance with the order of the Court;
    • third-parties affected by a breach could also seek damages via the Court to recover losses incurred; and
    • these undertakings will sit alongside Ofcom’s existing competition and regulatory power.

Ofcom will publish the final undertakings for a six week consultation on 30 June 2005.

  1. Branding and identity. The proposed undertakings offered by BT will stipulate the setting up of a new – and operationally separate – business unit, provisionally entitled Access Services, but with a distinct new brand and identity to be devised in the coming weeks. The new business unit will be staffed by around 30,000 employees presently responsible for the operation and development of BT’s local access networks. It will have:
    • separate physical locations for management teams;
    • separate bonus schemes; whilst the new business unit’s staff will remain BT Group plc employees, their long-term incentive plans will be changed to a new scheme which reflects the objectives of the new business unit, not those of the BT Group plc; and
    • over time, new branding on uniforms and vehicles which emphasises its operational separation from BT Group plc.
    • given the limited size of the market in Northern Ireland (and, as a consequence, BT’s current operational structure in Northern Ireland), BT has proposed – and Ofcom has accepted – that the three operational changes above will not apply to Northern Ireland. However, all other aspects of the proposed undertakings will apply equally across the whole of the UK; and
    • separate operating and trading systems.
  2. Product equivalence. The new business unit will be required, through a set of formal rules on governance and separation, to support all providers’ retail activities (including those of BT Retail) on a precisely equivalent basis, which Ofcom terms “Equivalence of Input”. Equivalence of Input will mean that all providers will benefit from:
    • the same products, with equal opportunity to contribute to the development of new products;
    • the same prices, offered to all providers equally; and
    • the same processes, to ensure all providers are able to order, install, maintain and migrate connections for their customers on equal terms.
  3. Products and services. The new business unit will offer a universally available product and service set:
    • Local Loop Unbundling (LLU) products, including fully unbundled loops (where a provider takes full responsibility for all of the customer’s voice and broadband services) and shared loops (where BT Retail continues to provide voice services and another provider is responsible for broadband).
    • All forms of Wholesale Line Rental (WLR), where a provider takes responsibility for all voice services and provides a single bill for both line rental and calls.
    • Backhaul products, which are used to connect the local access network to the core network. Some providers have built out their own backhaul networks; however many others are dependent on BT for wholesale backhaul services.

Equivalence of Input will also apply to IPStream – BT’s wholesale internet products used by many Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to provide broadband connections for their customers.

Detail of the timescales under which Equivalence of Input will apply to these services are set out in the accompanying Statement, which can be found online at;

www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/telecoms_p2/statement/

  1. Next Generation Networks. The proposed undertakings will also set out a number of clear principles which BT Group plc should follow in the design, procurement and build of its next generation 21st Century Network. These principles will help ensure that other providers who will depend upon interconnection with BT’s 21CN do not suffer competitive disadvantage.
  2. Board and governance. BT Group plc and the new business unit’s compliance with the proposed undertakings will be monitored by a new Equality of Access Board (EAB), which will also oversee the delivery of other legacy regulated products not directly delivered by the new business unit. The proposed undertakings from the Board of BT Group plc require BT Group plc to act swiftly upon the recommendations of the EAB.
    • The EAB will be a compliance Board, not an operating management Board;
    • The EAB will be chaired by Carl Symon, a Non-Executive Director on the Board of BT Group plc, with four other members, three of whom will be independent of BT Group plc and will be appointed in consultation with Ofcom;
    • The EAB will meet between six and ten times during the first year of operation;
    • The EAB will produce a regular summary report of its activities, which will be published; and
    • The EAB will have extensive powers to seek access to information from wherever in BT Group plc it deems necessary to do its work.
Ofcom Chief Executive Stephen Carter said: “The Ofcom Board proposes to accept BT Group plc’s proposed undertakings on the critical assumption that BT Group plc does not merely deliver the letter of the undertakings, but also the spirit.”

Other regulatory policy initiatives

Ofcom has also been developing a series of regulatory policy initiatives under its sectoral powers which, in their impact on the competitive market, will complement the proposed Enterprise Act undertakings offered by BT Group plc.
Cost of capital Separately, Ofcom has today also published a further consultation document on the Weighted Average Cost of Capital it will apply in assessing the rate of return on BT’s regulated products.

The consultation document can be found online at www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/cost_capital2/

Establishing the relationship between risk and return is an important aspect of Ofcom’s work. The more high-risk a company’s investment, particularly in terms of the volatility of returns compared to the volatility of returns on equity investments generally, the more expensive it becomes to raise capital in the markets, as investors expect a higher rate of return to acknowledge the degree of risk involved.

Where Ofcom is required to set a limit on the price a company can charge for its regulated products and services, it is important that those limits allow the company to make enough of a return on its investments to reflect the costs it incurs in raising capital.

In line with its preliminary consultation, Ofcom will propose separate levels for the traditional copper access network which differ from the overall cost of capital for BT Group as a whole. Ofcom believes that this approach will provide a fairer pricing regime for competitors using BT’s access network whilst allowing BT an appropriately higher return on higher-risk investments.

In the coming weeks Ofcom will also publish four further documents. These are:
Undue Discrimination Guidelines Ofcom has imposed regulation on some companies requiring them not to discriminate unduly to prevent then from using their dominance to the detriment of competition and consumers.

Ofcom is reviewing the guidelines that describe how it will investigate potential cases of undue discrimination. The present approach was designed by Ofcom’s predecessor Oftel before the Communications Act 2003 came into effect. The new approach proposed in the consultation, to be published on 30 June, will tighten the requirements and in Ofcom’s view will help increase effective competition.

The consultation will also include, by way of illustration, a number of examples of the kind of behaviour which may lead to undue discrimination. Those examples are included to help foster understanding of the new approach.
Wholesale Broadband BT Group plc has today announced that it will cut the price for full LLU by 24% per cent from £105 to £80 per year, with effect from August. BT Group plc has also committed to deliver stability on IPStream pricing until there are 1.5 million unbundled lines in the UK to encourage competition.

Ofcom believes that these voluntary measures from BT Group plc will help to stimulate greater competition in broadband markets by providing reassurance for LLU operators investing in deep level infrastructure.

Ofcom welcomes these initiatives from BT. It will publish a short statement on 30 June outlining its future plans for regulation of Wholesale Broadband. Ofcom is intent on fostering competition in the LLU market and will be quick to use its regulatory powers if required.
Next Generation Networks Ofcom will consult on the detailed practical steps to ensure that the development and deployment of BT Group plc’s Next Generation Network – 21CN – offers all providers the same products, prices and processes on equal terms and does not inhibit reasonable developments by alternative network operators.

The consultation, also to be published on 30 June 2005, will propose that BT Group plc should not simply inform its competitors what it is doing, but instead share details of deployment and interconnection with its competitors via a genuinely cooperative new NGN forum.
Universal Service Obligation Ofcom will consult on the outcome of its analysis of the Universal Service Obligation – the statutory safeguards which provide important citizen and consumer protection measures, including tariffs for people on low incomes, obligations to install new lines upon request and commitments to provide and maintain the public payphone service. The consultation will be published on 30 June 2005.
Deregulatory measures Ofcom is seeking to withdraw from the regulation of competitive markets wherever feasible and appropriate. Ofcom has previously consulted on deregulating in two narrowband wholesale markets. In July 2005 Ofcom intends to consult on possible deregulation in the leased lines and large business markets.

Ends.

Ofcom Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) Midyear Figures

Ofcom Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) Midyear FiguresA number of people have raised concerns as to how open an organisation Ofcom is. It’s a public corporation, set up in many ways like the BBC, but it was setup with the knowledge that the UK Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) would take effect in January 2005. This has led it to define the accessibility of the information that it produces, as it generates it.

We’ve heard many people have applied for information and have been turned down, with the frequently cited reasons being; Not in the public interest (how broad a brush would you like sir); or Commercially sensitive (also pretty broad). Others, who have had their request granted, are nearly always pointed to Ofcom’s extensive Web site, which isn’t always the known as the quickest to locate what you want.

We’ve heard that many applications take the statutory maximum number of days (20) to respond with a reply – even when it’s a refusal. This causes us some confusion – does it really take that long for Ofcom to deduce that it is going to be refused, especially as all information is graded on creation? Ofcom’s response is that if it comes back as a refusal, they will pass it through “internal procedures” to re-examine if they can release it.

Ofcomwatch have been keeping an eye on this for some time. We spoke to Luke Gibbs from Ofcomwatch about their FOIA findings, “This is something we’ve been looking at over the last year. It appears to us that Ofcom is following the letter of the FIOA, rather than the spirit. We’ll be doing further research into this later in the year.”

Ofcom Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) Midyear FiguresRuss Taylor, Ofcomwatch co-founder reveals their finding …

Ofcom was kind enough to provide OfcomWatch with some brief midyear statistics on how it is progressing with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), implemented in the U.K. on January 1, 2005. For previous Ofcomwatch posts on this issue, check Ofcomwatch’s Brief Guide to The Freedom of Information Act and its continuation.

* Ofcom is averaging about 130 FOIA requests per month ~ about 800 so far.

* About 70% of FOIA requests are granted. Common reasons for denying a FOIA request: (i) the data is commercially confidential and (ii) the request is overly-broad and could not be completed within the 18 hour / 450 GBP limit.

* 98.5% of FOIA requests are processed within the statutory time limit. Interesting point: Grants are reportedly swifter than denials, because Ofcom internally review proposed denials to determine whether they can be partially granted.

* Ofcom do not categorise FOIA requests because that would lead to prioritisation, which would be ‘wrong and unfair’.

* Overall, Ofcom commented that the FOIA — in ‘philosophical terms’ — is ‘both welcome and in line with our view of the public’s right to expect transparency and accessibility from public bodies’. However, Ofcom noted that FOIA is something of an operational burden because of the volume of requests received.

* * *

Ofcom Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) Midyear FiguresSo, that’s Ofcom’s take (and progress) on FOIA so far. FOIA is of course a new area of U.K. law and we expect all public bodies–not just Ofcom–to struggle with implementation. OfcomWatch will take a closer look at FOIA in January 2006, as the first-year of the FOIA’s applicability to Ofcom draws to a close.

But, overall (and interim) statistics only tell part of the story:

* We’ve heard some interesting stories about FOIA from some of you, and we’ve filed less than a handful ourselves. Keep sharing your FOIA stories (mail to: [email protected]).

* I suppose we’ll also receive legal clarifications on just how powerful a tool FOIA is as some denials (whether by Ofcom or by others) are tested on appeal.

* Finally, FOIA is only one element of ‘better regulation’ that is being implemented across the U.K. Better regulation means that FOIA requests should be minimised because public bodies otherwise maintain useful websites and publication schemes, always with an eye toward satisfying their ultimate boss: the citizen-consumer. So, we always want your comments on how Ofcom can function better in this regard.

Stay tuned…

Ofcomwatch
Ofcom UK Home Office, FOIA