Firstly, they've missed a trick on the vision for a broadband future. The way I see it is that, by 2015 or thereabouts, the distinction between wireless, mobile, bluetooth and broadband will have disappeared - whatever device you use will just be connected. It will sort out what is the best way to connect without you having to intervene. I think the Government should facilitate this by announcing a competitive process for the 4th generation mobile network. Rather than simply awarding the spectrum to the highest bidder, it should go to the bidder who has the best combination of price, coverage (geographic, not population - we need to recognise that people actually move around!) and quality of service. If we were to take this approach then there would be no need for a subsidy from Government.
Secondly, the idea of moving radio to DAB-only is pointless. What they should do is move all radio and television to the internet. The digital switch-over should be followed as quickly as possible by a digital switch-off. This would not mean you would need a computer to listen to the radio or watch TV. There are already some radios that connect to the internet via a wireless network. A clear statement from Government that we were going to switch off both analogue and digital broadcast would speed the introduction of consumer products that streamed content from the internet. This would also free up a lot of bandwidth that could be used for the 4th gen mobile network.
Third, I think its interesting that they've essentially given up on trying to prevent people file sharing and downloading non-licensed content. I think this is right - the game is up for the traditional publishing companies and the brighter ones know it. I can't blame them for a moment for trying to protect their business model - I would be doing exactly the same thing if I were in their position. However, they're still going to lose. It's interesting that they've said that they'll go after the pirates who make money selling illegal copies - when you think about it, the pirates' business model is subject to exactly the same pressures as the publishers': who's going to pay for a dodgy copy of a movie when they can download it for free?
Nice to see that they propose to do something about orphan works but disappointing that there's not a peep about getting the legal deposit regulations sorted (six years on and counting).
Taking some of the TV license fee and giving it to Channel4 or ITV is a bad idea. There would be no way to effectively ring-fence it or to prove value for money. It is more important than ever that the BBC exists to provide reporting that the other broadcasters (both in the UK and abroad) won't touch. Whether the BBC needs to be as big as it is, is another matter. If we think in footballing terms, at the moment, the BBC is Man United (with Sky as Chelsea and ITV as... Sunderland, perhaps?). Maybe a BBC more like Everton (well run, punches above it's weight but never winning anything) is all we need as a nation.
All the stuff about the other TV channels is irrelevant. Content production (or acquisition) aligned with a specific delivery mechanism (i.e. broadcast television) has no future in the always-on world we're looking at.
The stuff about internet security is a bit ho-hum and there is a serious whiff of complacency around access to personal data stored by Government. There needs to be a realisation that Government databases are going to be hacked, people's identities are going to be stolen and what they need to do is to recognise this by ensuring:
- Personal data is treated like money as far as security goes;
- There are strict limits on the amount of personal data that can be held in one place by Government. The data held by any arm of Government should be the minimum necessary.
- There should be robust procedures in place that allow people who's identities have been stolen to alert the authorities and to sort out all the mess.
