I have just read "Digital Britain - the Interim Report" by Lord Carter and a bunch of the usual suspects. It makes deeply depressing reading, and illustrates, to me, the futility of having reports like this.
It's hard to know where to begin criticising it. It is written in the most contorted language:for example, "In the final Digital Britain Report, we will establish whether a long-term and sustainable second public service organisation providing competition for quality to the BBC can be defined and designed, drawing in part on Channel 4's assets and a re-cast remit. It would be a body with public service at its heart, but one which is able to develop flexible and innovative partnerships with the wider private and public sector. While it makes sense to begin by looking at public sector bodies- Channel 4 and BBC Worldwide- the Government is currently evaluating a range of options and organisational solutions for achieving such an outcome. "
It is fairly obsessed with the BBC, which it mentions 65 times, almost once per page, even though clearly this is at its heart an analogue organisation. It seems to take the view that the internet has grown in the UK largely without needing any help from the government, now it is large and important it will have to be closely regulated, controlled, restricted and managed by the public sector if it is to survive. One of the most outrageous parts of the report concerns net neutrality, which bizarrely it decides would be a barrier to the growth of the net: "Internet Service Providers can take action to manage the flow of data - the traffic - on their networks to retain levels of service to users or for other reasons. The concept of so-called 'net neutrality', requires those managing a network to refrain from taking action to manage traffic on that network. It also prevents giving to the delivery of any one service preference over the delivery of others. Net neutrality is sometimes cited by various parties in defence of internet freedom, innovation and consumer choice. The debate over possible legislation in pursuit of this goal has been stronger in the US than in the UK. Ofcom has in the past acknowledged the claims in the debate but have also acknowledged that ISPs might in future wish to offer guaranteed service levels to content providers in exchange for increased fees. In turn this could lead to differentiation of offers and promote investment in higher-speed access networks. Net neutrality regulation might prevent this sort of innovation. "
As Eric Raymond has pointed out the real problem is the monopoly position that the telco's have of controlling the local loop, which, of course, as you'd expect from a monopoly situation, very low investment.
I wrote to my MP, and in order to pad this first post in ages, I thought I'd copy the letter here:
FOR THE ATTENTION OF:
Barbara Follett MP
Stevenage
Thursday 5 February 2009 Stephen Hemingway
[my address removed]
stephen.hemingway@gmail.com
01438 221370
Dear Barbara Follett,
I was appalled at the decision of the authors of the Digital Britain Interim Report to oppose enforcement of net neutrality. It seems to me quite clear that allowing ISP's to charge content providers as well as content consumers will damage the essential "level playing field" environment that the internet currently offers to content providers. I strongly urge you to support legal enforcement of net neutrality and oppose the recommendation of the report.
Net neutrality may not be a big political issue in the UK right now, but it certainly is in the USA. Barack Obama's clear and unequivocal support for net neutrality was, in my view, a major reason why he had overwhelming support from bloggers and the "digerati" who are becoming increasingly influential in forming political opinion, whatever Hazel Blears might think.
To my mind it's a clear choice: allow BT, Virgin Media and their ilk to set the agenda or support something that will, when it understands the issues, be overwhelmingly supported by the electorate.
Yours sincerely,
Stephen Hemingway.
