Ofcom, Digital Dividend Review - Update and Next Steps

Digital Dividend Review - Update and Next Steps

Ofcom published its proposals for the award of the spectrum freed up by the digital switchover process – the so-called digital dividend – on 19 December 2006. These proposals are available on the Ofcom website at: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/ddr/.

The 13-week period of public consultation on these proposals ran until 20 March. During the consultation period, we engaged actively with a wide range of stakeholders in order to gather views on these proposals. This included organising or attending over 20 events of various kinds across the UK to discuss the proposals with interested parties.

We have now received over 600 written responses to this consultation. The non-confidential responses can be found at: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/ddr/responses/.

Responses

We are still reviewing the responses to the consultation, but already it is clear that a wide range of issues have been raised and will require detailed consideration. These include representations about:

• reserving spectrum for high-definition TV services on Freeview and/or for local TV services;
• the impact of the proposals on the programme-making and special-events (PMSE) sector, principally users of wireless microphones;
• the timing of releasing channel 36 (590-598 MHz); and
• holding spectrum back from the award for possible future innovations and/or for low-power applications.

We will consider the responses on these and all other issues very carefully over the coming weeks.

In the consultation document Ofcom stated that its objective in relation to the digital dividend was to maximise its benefits to society as a whole. We will be considering the responses, and our further analysis of the issues, in light of this objective and our relevant statutory duties.

Next steps

Our consultation document set out proposals. There is still a significant amount of work to be done before the Digital Dividend Review is completed.

We will now undertake a detailed review of all of the responses to the consultation, and will evaluate – and, where appropriate, modify – our proposals accordingly. We hope to publish a statement and a second, more detailed consultation document later in the year.

In addition, and in response to the responses we have received, we aim to publish a consultation document focusing on proposals related to the PMSE sector in May.

net.wars

net.wars: Double the networks, double the neutralities

by Wendy M Grossman | posted on 23 March 2007

---

(...)Stories like this are part of why the Internet developed the way it did: the pioneers were determined to avoid a situation where the Internet was controlled like this. In the early 1980s, when the first backbone was being build in the US to connect the five NSF-funded regional computing centers, the feeling was mutual. John Connolly, who wrote the checks for a lot of that work, told me in an interview in 1993 that they had endless meetings with the telcos trying to get them interested, but those companies just couldn't see that there was any money in the Internet.

Well, now here we are, and the Internet is chewing up the telcos' business models and creating havoc for the cable companies who were supposed to be the beneficiaries, and so it's not surprising that the telcos' one wish is to transform the Internet into something more closely approximating the controlled world they used to love.

Which is how we arrived at the issue known as network neutrality. This particular debate has been percolating in the US for at least a year now, and some discussion is beginning in the UK. This week, at a forum held in Westminster on the subject, Ofcom and the DTI said the existing regulatory framework was sufficient.

The basic issue is, of course, money. The traditional telcos are not, of course, having a very good time of things, and it was inevitable that it would occur to some bright CEO - it turned out to be the head of Verizon - that there ought to be some way of "monetizing" all those millions of people going to Google, Yahoo!, and the other top sites. Why not charge a fee to give priority service? That this would also allow the telcos to discriminate against competitor VOIP services and the cablecos (chiefly Comcast) to discrminate against competing online video services is also a plus. These proposals are opposed not only by the big sites in question but by the usual collection of Net rights organization, who tend to believe all sites were created equal - or should be.

Ofcom - and others I've talked to - believes that the situation in the UK is different, in part because although most of the nation's DSL service is provided either directly or indirectly by BT that company has to be cooperative with its competitors or face the threat of regulation. The EU, however, is beginning to take a greater interest in these matters, and has begun legal proceedings against Germany over a law exempting Deutsche Telecom from opening the local loop of its new VDSL network to competitors.

But Timothy Wu, a law professor at Columbia and author of Who Controls the Internet: Illusions of a Borderless World, has pointed out that the current debates are ignoring an important sector of the market: wireless. The mobile market is not now, nor ever has been, neutral. It is less closed in Europe, where you can at least buy a phone and stick any SIM in it; but in the US most phones are hardware-locked to their networks, a situation that could hardly be less consumer-friendly. Apple's new iPod, for example, will be available through only one carrier, AT&T Wireless.

Wu's paper, along with the so-called "Carterfone" decision that forced AT&T to stop confiscating people's phone cords, is cited by Skype in a petition to get the FCC to require mobile phone operators to allow software applications open access. Skype's gripe is easy to comprehend: it can't get its service onto mobile phones. The operators' lack of interest in opening their networks is also easy to comprehend: what consumer is going to call on their expensive tariffs if they can use the Internet data connection to make cheap ones? Wu also documents other cases of features that are added or subtracted according to the network operators' demands: call timers (missing), WiFi (largely absent), and Bluetooth (often crippled in the US).

The upshot is that because the two markets - wireless phones and the Internet – have developed from opposite directions, we have two network neutrality debates, not one. The wonder is that it took us so long to notice.

FCC launches Net neutrality inquiry

Wheels of policy grind too slowly, say consumer-rights advocates

March 22, 2007 (IDG News Service) -- The Federal Communications Commission on Thursday launched an inquiry into how broadband providers manage their traffic, again getting involved in a debate over network neutrality.

The FCC voted to launch a notice of inquiry that would also examine whether broadband providers charge different prices for different speeds, whether FCC policies should distinguish between content providers that charge end users for access and those who do not, and how consumers are affected by the ways broadband providers manage their networks.

During the past two years, e-commerce companies and several consumer groups have pushed Congress for a law that would prohibit broadband providers from blocking or slowing Web content from competitors or from speeding up partners' content. Broadband providers such as AT&T Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc. opposed a Net neutrality law, saying it would limit potential business plans and discourage them from rolling out new services.

The FCC first created a largely unenforced policy statement on Internet consumer rights in 2005, including the right to access any legal content and attach any legal devices. The new inquiry would look at whether the FCC should include some kind of Net neutrality language in that policy statement.

The inquiry will help the FCC stay informed about possible discriminatory practices, said Kevin Martin, FCC chairman. "Although we are not aware of any current blocking situations, the commission remains vigilant in protecting consumers' access to content on the Internet," he said. "The commission is ready, willing, and able to step in if necessary."

Public Knowledge, a consumer rights group and supporter of a Net neutrality law, said it was disappointed that the FCC didn't take more concrete action than a notice of inquiry.

"This bureaucratic process will delay by months, if not years, the crucial action needed to guarantee that consumers will always have access to an open and nondiscriminatory Internet -- assuming that it issues a proposed rule after evaluating the information it receives from the inquiry," Gigi Sohn, president of Public Knowledge, wrote in an e-mail. "The commission should recognize that the goal of Net neutrality is to restore the protections for consumers and content providers that were in effect when the Internet started and which allowed the medium to become what it has today."

In mid-2005, the FCC and the Supreme Court freed broadband providers from nondiscriminatory carriage rules, and Net neutrality backers say large broadband providers will now be tempted to provide tiered speeds based on which Internet companies pay them the most.

The FCC shouldn't wait until there's major evidence of blocking content before taking action, she added.

"Simply because telephone and cable companies are on their best behavior today, while the Commission and Congress examine the issue, is no reason to delay action to protect consumers and content providers in the future from the actions of network operators which have said they will split the Internet into a privileged fast lane, and a dirt road for everyone else," she wrote.

Berners Lee, Open Internet Model

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/5009250.stm
Last Updated: Tuesday, 23 May 2006, 14:12 GMT 15:12 UK

Web inventor warns of 'dark' net

By Jonathan Fildes BBC News science and technology reporter in Edinburgh

Sir Tim Berners-Lee

The web should remain neutral and resist attempts to fragment it into different services, web inventor Sir Tim Berners-Lee has said.

Recent attempts in the US to try to charge for different levels of online access web were not "part of the internet model," he said in Edinburgh.

He warned that if the US decided to go ahead with a two-tier internet, the network would enter "a dark period".

Sir Tim was speaking at the start of a conference on the future of the web.

"What's very important from my point of view is that there is one web," he said.

"Anyone that tries to chop it into two will find that their piece looks very boring."

An equal net

The British scientist developed the web in 1989 as an academic tool to allow scientists to share data. Since then it has exploded into every area of life.

You get this tremendous serendipity where I can search the internet and come across a site that I did not set out to look for Tim Berners-Lee

However, as it has grown, there have been increasingly diverse opinions on how it should evolve.

The World Wide Web Consortium, of which Sir Tim is the director, believes in an open model.

This is based on the concept of network neutrality, where everyone has the same level of access to the web and that all data moving around the web is treated equally.

This view is backed by companies like Microsoft and Google, who have called for legislation to be introduced to guarantee net neutrality.

The first steps towards this were taken last week when members of the US House of Representatives introduced a net neutrality bill.

Pay model

But telecoms companies in the US do not agree. They would like to implement a two-tier system, where data from companies or institutions that can pay are given priority over those that cannot.

This has particularly become an issue with the transmission of TV shows over the internet, with some broadband providers wanting to charge content providers to carry the data.

The internet community believes this threatens the open model of the internet as broadband providers will become gatekeepers to the web's content.

Providers that can pay will be able to get a commercial advantage over those that cannot.

There is a fear that institutions like universities and charities would also suffer.

The web community is also worried that any charges would be passed on to the consumer.

Optimism

Sir Tim said this was "not the internet model". The "right" model, as exists at the moment, was that any content provider could pay for a connection to the internet and could then put any content on to the web with no discrimination.

Speaking to reporters in Edinburgh at the WWW2006 conference, he argued this was where the great benefit of the internet lay.

"You get this tremendous serendipity where I can search the internet and come across a site that I did not set out to look for," he said.

A two-tier system would mean that people would only have full access to those portions of the internet that they paid for and that some companies would be given priority over others.

But Sir Tim was optimistic that the internet would resist attempts to fragment.

"I think it is one and will remain as one," he said.

The WWW2006 conference will run until Friday at the International Conference Centre in Edinburgh.

UK Regulator Ofcom NOT Neutral on Net Neutrality

UK Regulator Ofcom NOT Neutral on Net Neutrality

IanFogg | March 22, 2007, 12:54 PM

On Tuesday, the net neutrality debate arrived at the UK's seat of government. The debate centred on the industry view, not consumers (unlike Jupiter's recent report), but was revealing nevertheless.

Despite the headlines of many articles I've read, Ofcom does not rule out action. It just believes, rightly, that new legislation is not needed to ensure a functioning Internet market:

Scott [Ofcom] also said it would not be wrong for an ISP to approach an application provider offering to guarantee service quality for a fee — unless that ISP had significant market power [my emphasis], in which case Ofcom could weigh in on the grounds of anti-competitive behaviour.

Net neutrality (or not) is a fundamental part of the business models of both Internet Service Providers (ISPs), and for any company offering products across the Internet.

Dougal Scott, Ofcom's director of policy development on Tuesday as quoted by ZDnet:

"There is a very rapid increase of traffic on the internet," said Scott on Tuesday, pointing to a "change in the nature of applications that people are using on the internet", particularly time-sensitive applications like voice over IP. He went on to characterise the "all bits are equal" advocates as the "most extreme" fringe of the net neutrality lobby, and insisted that there were "real advantages to consumers in treating certain types of applications differently to others".

This goes wide of the mark: It's not giving different types of Internet usage different priorities, or quality of service, that is at the heart of the debate. It's whether different companies' traffic, or bits, are treated differently from other companies, or from an ISP's equivalent products.

Will Skype be prioritised over Vonage by an ISP?
Will Apple TV be impeded, or degraded, by an ISP while Joost and Babelgum are not?
Will all of them suffer second class treatment compared with a BT's IPTV or Orange's Wireless & Talk VoIP services? (both of whom are ISPs)

The real issue, said Scott, was not the "traffic shaping" policies of ISPs, but the way in which those were communicated to the public. "If you use BitTorrent, how do you know which ISP to go to?" he asked, adding that there "needs to be greater clarity to the consumer on ISPs' traffic-shaping policies".

Yes, absolutely, it's good to see some UK decision makers catching up with what I wrote about last year here If ISPs are to resist downward price pressure for broadband packages, consumers need to understand why they should pay a premium for one package over another, or one ISP over another. How will consumers know whether the broadband connection they are paying for does what they want?

For a consumer view, read Jupiter's new 'Net Neutrality in Europe' report. This contains a segmentation based on attitudes to net neutrality and looking at the potential to monetize each group.

Net Neutrality in Europe

jupiterresearch.com

Net Neutrality in Europe
Navigate Through Future Internet Access and Distribution Models

Lead Analyst Ian Fogg Contributing Analysts Thomas Husson, Galina Naydenova Vision Report March 8, 2007

Executive Summary Broadband Internet service providers (ISPs) are debating how to productize quality of service. They are considering whether to charge Internet businesses for prioritized service delivery to consumers. Additionally, they are investigating using similar network tools to hinder Internet businesses that target ISPs' access customers with competitive services. Key Questions What is Net neutrality, why does it matter, and how does Europe differ from the US? Which consumers care about Net neutrality, and how important are they? How serious are over-the-top threats to operators, and how will they evolve? How should ISPs design broadband packages to take advantage of variable quality-of-service levels, and in which situations should ISPs and Internet businesses strike commercial deals for access to an ISP's customers? Landscape: Broadband Providers Consider Moving from Speed Tiers to Quality of Service Outlook: Emerging Over-the-Top Threats Are Enabled by Faster Broadband Mandate: Advocates of a Non-neutral Internet Must Ensure Genuine Value

universal gigabit access as a public service

The answer is deeply unfashionable: nationalisation. Instead of seeing basic connectivity as just another marketplace, we must look at it as we do roads. That means a state-funded organisation with one mission: universal gigabit access as a public service.

Putting the fibre back into Britain

Leader ZDNet UK

Published: 21 Mar 2007 16:10 GMT

• Network neutrality is a hot topic. With the internet now woven deeply into our lives, service providers should not have the ability to deny aspects of connectivity for commercial advantage. In general, the UK's regulators are relaxed about this; they say there's enough competition and freedom of choice to let the market control itself. That may largely be true, but there is one important exception — the link to consumer premises.(...)

• That upgrade has to happen. The physics of copper are being stretched to the limit. Many people are now stuck at a handful of megabits per second, the highest speed they're ever likely to get. That's not good enough: digital health provided at home is just one essential part of our future that will demand universal high-speed access, to say nothing of the enhanced environment needed to develop internationally competitive commercial services(...)

(...)

NetNeutral UK? Chasing Maxwell's Rainbow...

Instead of seeing basic connectivity as just another marketplace, we must look at it as we do roads. That means a state-funded organisation with one mission: universal gigabit access as a public service.

Divergent press responses to the NetNeutrality debate at Westminster e-forum this Tuesday:

Register neuters the issue ( and here).

Whilst ZDnet sets the issue alight, making a strong editorial statement on UK fibre future

• Network neutrality is a hot topic. With the internet now woven deeply into our lives, service providers should not have the ability to deny aspects of connectivity for commercial advantage. In general, the UK's regulators are relaxed about this; they say there's enough competition and freedom of choice to let the market control itself. That may largely be true, but there is one important exception — the link to consumer premises.(...)

• That upgrade has to happen. The physics of copper are being stretched to the limit. Many people are now stuck at a handful of megabits per second, the highest speed they're ever likely to get. That's not good enough: digital health provided at home is just one essential part of our future that will demand universal high-speed access, to say nothing of the enhanced environment needed to develop internationally competitive commercial services(...)

• The answer is deeply unfashionable: nationalisation. Instead of seeing basic connectivity as just another marketplace, we must look at it as we do roads. That means a state-funded organisation with one mission: universal gigabit access as a public service. That wouldn't be the death of the private ISP: far from it, as the business model of service provision over rented infrastructure is proven and allows for differentiation and competition. It would enhance the market by making it easier to change provider without the current regulatory mess. It would enforce network neutrality by default, while encouraging value-added services that can rely on a high-performance infrastructure.

Over a decade beyond George Gilder's Telecosm, we are still chasing Maxwell's Rainbow- the shift from a scarcity to an abundance model of telecoms; exploiting the banwidth of fibre and radio, as opposed to the copper cage that the telcos imprison themselves, and us, in.

Only some see the rainbow, and some dont....

----------------------------------------------

TELECOSM: How Infinite Bandwidth will Revolutionize Our World, by George Gilder (Author) "The supreme abundance of the telecosm is the electromagnetic spectrum, embracing all the universe of vibrating electrical and magnetic fields..."

Google snubs Net Neutrality debate

Google snubs Net Neutrality debate

UK pols, yawn, move on

By Andrew Orlowski

Published Tuesday 20th March 2007 22:33 GMT

The first significant Net Neutrality debate to take place in the UK was held today at Westminster. Chaired by former trade minister Alun Michael and the Conservative shadow trade minister Charles Hendry, the event attracted the chief Telecoms regulator and ministry policy chief, a clutch of industry representatives, and a sprinkling of members of both houses.

What emerged from the sessions is that 'Neutrality' is one of those incomprehensible American phenomenons, from which we've mercifully escaped. Your reporter was one of those invited to give a briefing - having reported on the issue from both sides of the pond - and said as much. But in the expectation that this would be the heretic view, rather than the near unanimous consensus opinion.

Summing up, Michael described the clamour for pre-emptive technical legislation as "extreme... unattractive and impractical".

It was, he said, "an answer to problems we don't have, using a philosophy we don't share".

That wasn't the only surprise.

Google strop

Interestingly, the event was snubbed by Google, which in the USA has done so much to stoke the "Neutrality" crusade. Google has thrown lobbying money and muscle at Congress, but at Westminster, declined an invitation to speak. It sent a representative who told a fellow attendee that the panel was "biased".

Stranger still, and this should cause conspiracy theorists some confusion - the Forum was sponsored by AT&T. That's the AT&T that Neutralists insist doesn't want to talk about its nefarious plans to sabotage the internet. Well, here it was. Maybe AT&T never had any intention of doing what the Neutralists claimed it wanted to do - and it was all a huge misdirection. But Occam's Razor is never sufficient for conspiracy theorists, who simply create a new, and more elaborate narrative.

Overall, the debate was on another plane of technical and economic literacy to the hysteria served before Congress.

That doesn't mean the UK regulator is oblivious to sensitivities. OFCOM regards the markets as essentially different. There's more access competition here, and the UK doesn't have such as ancient cruft as the US distinction between an information provider and a telephony provider. Greater competition means a regulator can do what a regular should do, believes OFCOM, and let the market sort it out.

OFCOM's Douglas Scott reiterated that policy today. He said, however, he believed Neutrality wasn't a US-only debate. Neutrality issues were being pushed up the agenda by the emergence of time-critical applications (such as video), and the ability of equipment vendors to deliver a smarter network. He then demolished most of the reasons why OFCOM needed to get involved.

In the USA, "all bits is equal" is a mainstream view, in Europe, it isn't. The European framework permits ISP to prioritize packets by application, which the UK regulator regards as fine. A grey area, he suggested, was when an ISP offered MySpace a preferential Quality of Service deal, for a fee. Should the regulator constrain the fee?

Hand-off hands off

In his view, however, OFCOM had done well to leave things alone. He cited the example of concerns about T-Mobile's contract blocking VoIP calls last year. OFCOM was aware that rival network operators were striking deals with VoIP operators (3 UK now offers a packaging including Skype for £5 a month) and declined to intervene. T-Mobile has now responded with a VoIP tariff.

(It's largely irrelevant, but still worth noting, that T-Mobile has yet to block a VoIP call made by your reporter, which suggests that while it wants to discourage VoIP calls it can't afford to prevent them).

In that example, said Scott, OFCOM would probably have stepped in if all the operators were blocking VoIP.

Scott concluded by saying neutrality wasn't an issue, so long as customers could migrate to an alternative provider quickly and easily.

Speaker after speaker described the difficulty of painting the phantom called Neutrality. Most characterized it as a US-centric debate. Most were wary of prescriptive regulation, which had to be technical by nature, when no harm had been caused and the problem couldn't be described.

The Head of UK Telecoms Policy at the Department of Trade and Industry, Claire Hobson, said Neutrality was in danger of being an issue that's "flogged to death". She described the position as "relaxed but not comatose", and reiterated Douglas Scott's view that so long as people knew what deal they were getting, and could switch easily, "Neutrality" wasn't an issue.

And Americans characterize Europeans as regulation-happy?

Putting the fibre back into Britain

Leader ZDNet UK

Published: 21 Mar 2007 16:10 GMT

Network neutrality is a hot topic. With the internet now woven deeply into our lives, service providers should not have the ability to deny aspects of connectivity for commercial advantage. In general, the UK's regulators are relaxed about this; they say there's enough competition and freedom of choice to let the market control itself. That may largely be true, but there is one important exception — the link to consumer premises.

The last mile is a natural monopoly. There's no sense and no money in having to dig a new trench to change suppliers, and for much of the country there's no alternative to BT's cabling. Local loop unbundling acknowledges this and militates against the fact, but doesn't address the problem of upgrading the country to fibre.

That upgrade has to happen. The physics of copper are being stretched to the limit. Many people are now stuck at a handful of megabits per second, the highest speed they're ever likely to get. That's not good enough: digital health provided at home is just one essential part of our future that will demand universal high-speed access, to say nothing of the enhanced environment needed to develop internationally competitive commercial services.

Yet BT is cool about making fibre happen. Why should it provide its competitors with a super-fast pipe before it's ready to sell its own services? That thinking held back DSL and killed ISDN in the cradle — now the stakes are far higher.

The answer is deeply unfashionable: nationalisation. Instead of seeing basic connectivity as just another marketplace, we must look at it as we do roads. That means a state-funded organisation with one mission: universal gigabit access as a public service. That wouldn't be the death of the private ISP: far from it, as the business model of service provision over rented infrastructure is proven and allows for differentiation and competition. It would enhance the market by making it easier to change provider without the current regulatory mess. It would enforce network neutrality by default, while encouraging value-added services that can rely on a high-performance infrastructure.

As a country, we have much experience in combining public services with private finance. Much of it is painful; some positively corrupt: we can learn from that. The national infrastructure company will have to operate under conditions of unheralded openness and accountability, but it can and should be self-financing over time. If as a nation we can contemplate such projects as the 2012 Olympics, we should certainly consider ideas with similar budgets but much greater public good over a much longer period.

There's one final benefit. Should this come within a million miles of actually happening, BT will pull its socks up so fast it'll get ankle burns from the nylon. That's one fibre upgrade everyone would enjoy.

UK regulators 'relaxed' on net neutrality

David Meyer ZDNet UK

Published: 20 Mar 2007 17:42 GMT

There is currently no need to introduce net neutrality legislation in the UK, according to both Ofcom and the DTI.

Speaking at a Westminster e-Forum on the topic on Tuesday, Ofcom's director of policy development, Dougal Scott, told delegates that "the European regulatory framework allows us to deal with any issues that may arise".

The net neutrality debate has been particularly heated in the United States — where there is much less competition between ISPs than in the UK — and centres on the idea of ISPs being able to charge content providers, such as Google or Amazon, for prioritising their content over that of other providers.

Net neutrality advocates, including web pioneers like Sir Tim Berners-Lee and Vint Cerf, insist that this could corrupt the egalitarian nature of the internet. Opponents of net neutrality argue that some kind of discrimination is necessary if the internet is going to survive the next stages of its evolution, and a competitive marketplace should ensure that customers get what they want.

"There is a very rapid increase of traffic on the internet," said Scott on Tuesday, pointing to a "change in the nature of applications that people are using on the internet", particularly time-sensitive applications like voice over IP. He went on to characterise the "all bits are equal" advocates as the "most extreme" fringe of the net neutrality lobby, and insisted that there were "real advantages to consumers in treating certain types of applications differently to others".

Scott also said it would not be wrong for an ISP to approach an application provider offering to guarantee service quality for a fee — unless that ISP had significant market power, in which case Ofcom could weigh in on the grounds of anti-competitive behaviour.

He also suggested that smaller ISPs without significant market power could theoretically be stopped from degrading or blocking services by rules which say that operators must offer end-to-end connectivity.

The real issue, said Scott, was not the "traffic shaping" policies of ISPs, but the way in which those were communicated to the public. "If you use BitTorrent, how do you know which ISP to go to?" he asked, adding that there "needs to be greater clarity to the consumer on ISPs' traffic-shaping policies".

Claire Hobson, head of UK telecommunications policy for the Department of Trade and Industry, also said the internet was already "non-neutral". "As long as users understand what they are getting, and can switch broadband provider easily, there should not be a problem," she said, describing the DTI as "quite relaxed at the moment" on the issue.

Others, such as Cable & Wireless' director of regulatory affairs, Andy May, pointed to the rise of online video as a major reason for the introduction of discrimination. May even claimed that "ISPs will go out of business unless they can get some return on the investment they will need to make in backhaul" in order to support such high-bandwidth services.

But David Harrington, head of regulatory affairs for the Communications Management Association, disagreed. "Net neutrality has relatively little to do with backhaul on the core network," he said. "It has everything to do with the lack of capacity and competitiveness in the access network."

Harrington suggested an alternative solution to the bandwidth problem: fibre to the home (FTTH). Joking that "Ofcom is not concerned about whether the UK will move off its low-fibre diet and unblock that last mile", he criticised the regulator's "laissez-faire" attitude towards fibre to the home — which would replace the copper last-mile infrastructure and bring huge increases in bandwidth — and called for a "full-blooded debate" on the subject.

Speaking to ZDNet UK after the event, Harrington claimed that it was "in telcos' own interests not to provide maximised bandwidth until they themselves are in a position to exploit it for themselves", by introducing their own video or other value-added services.

"By the time we understand that FTTH is necessary, it will take five years for us to [catch up with Europe]," he warned. "Let's do something about it."

Wealth of Nations and Networks

From the Wealth of Nations to the Wealth of Networks

[19 March]

The new UK £20 note features Adam Smith- his portrait, an image of a manufacturing process, and the tag-line:

• "The division of labour in pin manufacturing: [ and the great increase in the quantity of work that results]"
  

Founder of classical political economy, Adam Smith's enlightenment cornerstone An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776) theorized the dynamics (the division of labour) of the, then, emergent capitalist mode of production. Karl Marx's Contribution to a Critique of Political Economy and Capital took Smith's Wealth of Nations as their point of departure to place labour at the centre as a producer of value (as opposed to Smith's "invisible hand of the market") and highlight the social contradictions of the capitalist mode of production; whilst the Communist Manifesto asserted the utopian future of a more even distribution of wealth.

Whither the Wealth of Nations in today's networked world of digital communications? (- See Manuel Castell's three volume study The Rise of the Network Society. The Information Age: Economy, Society & Culture, 1996-98- here ; and the wikipedia overview Information Age)

One may toy with the idea that today's Wealth of Nations might be reflected in a £20 note that featured pioneers of the digital networked society, such as:

• Vinton Cerf, a founder of the Internet ( the technical protocol TCP-IP);
  
• or else, closer to home, Englishman Sir Tim Berners Lee, founder of the Web (World Wide Web), an application layer that sits on top of the Internet and allows us to "surf the web";
• or one might even make a gambit for Welshman Donald Watts Davies, a co-inventor and originator of the term packet-switching (that underlies digital communications networks) at the National Physical Laborartory.
  

Both Cerf (Presidential Medal of Freedom) and Berners Lee (Knighthood) have been feted with the highest of civil honours in their countries for their contribution to humanity and the modern world.

And yet the digital communications revolution is a largely invisible affair compared to the hard modernity of the industrial revolution of iron, coal and the railways. Fibre optics and the radio spectrum, the understanding of the technical definition of bandwidth, and the real significance of communications infrastructure as a common public good - these are largely invisible affairs so that a gap persists between the world of technology, social policy, and popular understanding.
The communications revolution has transformed all sectors of the economy to produce a new informational and network society [Castells]; the latest phase of social modernity and capitalist transformation according to its constant revolutionary dynamic and bewildering pace of change.

Two seminal studies have recently been produced in the United States, echoing Adam Smith in their title The Wealth of Networks, exploring the dynamics of the network society and value and wealth creation:

• Yochai Benkler, The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom (2006; see here)

• Tom Vest, The Wealth of Networks: Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of Global Internet Development (work in progress); see debate in the Cook Report on Internet here and here)

Both studies highlight today's Wealth of Nations as being enabled by the Wealth of Networks as a global communications system. A networked communications world based upon open technical architecture and protocols; that allow open access; that enables innovation and value production to occur at the edge of networks, to empower the user-producer and new entrant commercial players, for the new wealth of the global networked order has been created by disruptive new entrants, from Cisco to Microsoft, Yahoo to Google, Skype to BitTorrent, Kazza to You Tube.

In recent years the term "Net Neutrality" has become a charged one in the United States, and there are signs that it is now gaining a currency here in the UK (see for example here and here). "Net Neutrality" represents the meeting ground and site of struggle between technology, the market, and policy; and contending commercial and social visions of the future of the Broadband Internet.

Recent efforts by telecoms corporations in the US to control user's access to the Broadband Internet have led to a strong defence of the open first principles of the Internet and the Web, a large civil society coalition (savetheinternet.com), and a focus upon the government legislative process and legal instruments as a means of protecting the open Internet and the Web.

Advocates of Net Neutrality contest the telco vision of a closed and centralized communications system (- a system for billing, Tripe Play, etc), in defence of the open, end-to-end network that formed the basis of the Internet. The open Internet is a common public good, in what is affirmed as a win-win situation for both citizen-consumer and business- an enabler of the true Wealth of Nations, based upon an abundance as opposed to a scarcity model (- of bandwidth and network access and use). The insistence upon the Internet and the Web's foundation upon an open architecture with a non-discriminatory, neutral transport layer enabling edge based activity and innovation, is as fundamental and far-reaching in its ramifications as Adam Smith's focus upon the manufacture of a pin.

It is salutary that pioneers Vint Cerf and Berners Lee have provided their expert testimony to US government hearings in advocacy of an open future for communications: Vint Cerf in testimony in November 2005, with a brief statement of prinicple (here); and Berners Lee in testimony more recently on 1 March 2007, with a more extended overview of the fundamental technical and policy issues (here). The Net Neutrality drama continues to unfold- Berners Lee has remarked that he hopes that the Net Neutrality focus is a short term one (“I hope that the Net Neutrality thing is a short-term thing. In most of the world people regard Net Neutrality as such an obvious requirement that I hope [the solution] will be short term.”: here); the Cook Report on Internet reports "Net Neutrality As a Diversionary Red Herring" as telco infrastructure game-plays unfold (here); whilst savetheinternet.com engages the strategic issues at the level of government policy and the legislative process.

And so if one had to think of a contemporary counterpart to the Adam Smith £20 note and tag-line "the division of labour in pin manufacturing - and the great increase in the quantity of work that results", one might venture the portrait of a pioneer of the Internet and the Web, an image of fibre optic and the radio spectrum, and the accompanying tag-line "open networks and open access - and the new value and wealth that results". So that the the principle of openness (both technological and social) replaces Adam Smith's "invisible hand" of the market, as a crucial enabler of today's networked world.

[21 March]

A few generations on from Adam Smith's founding treatise of modern economics, the London Great Exhibition of 1851 - Great Exhibition of the Works of Industry of all Nations - provided a spectacular demonstration of the new era of capitalist industry and enterprise and the UK's Imperial ambitions. The monumental Crystal Palace of iron and glass showcased the machinery of the industrial revolution; Adam Smith's pin manufacture - the division of labour - had become the dominant paradigm of modern manufacturing.

The invisible digital communications revolution demonstrates its epochal arrival less in the form of a monumental spectacle, than in its invisible weaving into the fabric of everyday life: "the most profound technologies are those that disappear. They weave themselves into the fabric of everyday life until they are indistinguishable from it" (Weiser). Our everyday weaving of the Internet and World Wide Web; our pc-lap-top-mobile-phone-pda screen on the world - for example my trip on the London tube yesterday, and a sight that an anthropologist might comment upon as quite a number of people in the carriage perform their silent private-public-space digital rituals, hands clutched towards the chest and sms fingers at work, lots of Blackberry scrolling. My afternoon shopping and the bookshop with its coffee shop plus Wi-Fi hotspot.

And more to come:

" the Web will be accessible from a growing diversity of networks (wireless, wireline, satellite, etc.) and will be available on a ever increasing number of different types of devices. Finally, in a related trend, Web applications will become a more and more ubiquitous throughout our human environment, with walls, automobile dashboards, refrigerator doors all serving as displays giving us a window onto the Web" (Berners Lee).

See Berners Lee's www2006 address on the future of the Internet and the open Internet model here.

Berners Lee, Future of Web, US House of Reps

Tim Berners Lee- Testimony on the Future of the Web to Hearing of US House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Telecoms and the Internet, 1 March 2007:

• "The special care we extend to the World Wide Web comes from a long tradition that democracies have of protecting their vital communications channels. (...) We nurture and protect our information networks because they stand at the core of our economies, our democracies, and our cultural and personal lives. Of course, the imperative to assure the free flow of information has only grown given the global nature of the Internet and Web."

• "...the Web is just one of the many applications that run on top of the Internet. As with other Internet applications such as email, instant messaging, and voice over IP, the Web would have been impossible to create without the Internet itself operating as an open platform."

• "Open infrastructures become general purpose infrastructure on top of which large scale social systems are built. The Web takes this openness one step further and enables a continually evolving set of new services that combine information at a global scale previously not possible."

* Copy of Berners Lee testimony available here:
CSAIL Decentralized Information Group, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
* also a copy with blog editorial comment here

* See also official government record here:
HEARING | "Digital Future of the United States: Part I -- The Future of the World Wide Web"
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet | Thursday, March 1, 2007
* and copy with editorial comment here


---

Further:

* Tim Berners Lee

* Google blog | Vint Cerf speaks out on net neutrality | 11/08/2005 01:21:00 PM | Posted by Alan Davidson, Washington Policy Counsel, DC office

(...)

Vinton Cerf
Chief Internet Evangelist
Google Inc.

(...) The remarkable social impact and economic success of the Internet is in many ways directly attributable to the architectural characteristics that were part of its design. The Internet was designed with no gatekeepers over new content or services. The Internet is based on a layered, end-to-end model that allows people at each level of the network to innovate free of any central control. By placing intelligence at the edges rather than control in the middle of the network, the Internet has created a platform for innovation. This has led to an explosion of offerings – from VOIP to 802.11x wi-fi to blogging – that might never have evolved had central control of the network been required by design.

My fear is that, as written, this bill would do great damage to the Internet as we know it. Enshrining a rule that broadly permits network operators to discriminate in favor of certain kinds of services and to potentially interfere with others would place broadband operators in control of online activity. Allowing broadband providers to segment their IP offerings and reserve huge amounts of bandwidth for their own services will not give consumers the broadband Internet our country and economy need. Many people will have little or no choice among broadband operators for the foreseeable future, implying that such operators will have the power to exercise a great deal of control over any applications placed on the network.

As we move to a broadband environment and eliminate century-old non-discrimination requirements, a lightweight but enforceable neutrality rule is needed to ensure that the Internet continues to thrive. Telephone companies cannot tell consumers who they can call; network operators should not dictate what people can do online.

I am confident that we can build a broadband system that allows users to decide what websites they want to see and what applications they want to use – and that also guarantees high quality service and network security. That network model has and can continue to provide economic benefits to innovators and consumers -- and to the broadband operators who will reap the rewards for providing access to such a valued network.

We appreciate the efforts in your current draft to create at least a starting point for net neutrality principles. Google looks forward to working with you and your staff to draft a bill that will maintain the revolutionary potential of the broadband Internet.

* google blog |Standing on the shoulders of this giant | 11/04/2005 01:55:00 PM (...)

The Presidential Medal of Freedom is the highest civilian award given in the United States, and our own Vint Cerf has been recognized with this honor. He and Robert Kahn will be recognized in a White House ceremony next Wednesday.

Together, Vint and Bob designed the architecture and protocols 30+ years ago that are used today to implement and operate the Internet. The White House statement puts it succinctly: "Dr. Cerf and Dr. Kahn have been at the forefront of a digital revolution that has transformed global commerce, communication, and entertainment."

Vint and Bob join an impressive list of winners, including Alan Greenspan, Muhammad Ali, Aretha Franklin, Frank Robinson and Paul Rusesabagina. The official release is here.

We couldn't be more pleased for this recognition Vint is receiving on behalf of the vast Internet community that has realized the aspirations that he and Bob had so long ago.


* savetheinternet.com | House Ignores Public, Sells Out the Internet

Last night’s House vote against an amendment that would make Net Neutrality enforceable is the result of swarming lobbyists and a multi-million-dollar media campaign by telephone companies that want Congress to hand them control of the Internet (...).

* savetheinternet.com | Net Neutrality Saved in AT&T Merger

SavetheInternet.com Coalition looks to new Congress to Make Net Neutrality the Law

WASHINGTON, Dec. 28, 2006 — The Federal Communications Commission today approved the $85 billion merger of AT&T and BellSouth. In a victory for advocates of Internet freedom, the terms of the deal include strict protections for Network Neutrality and concessions that will lower the cost of Internet access.

(...) "This merger agreement is a milestone that may one day be remembered as an important moment in Internet history," said Tim Wu a professor at Columbia University Law School and charter member of the SavetheInternet.com Coalition. "Most notable is the agreement's striking inclusion of the first strong Network Neutrality language yet seen in any broadband regulations."

"AT&T capitulated to supporters of an open and neutral Internet," added Ben Scott, policy director of Free Press, which coordinates the SavetheInternet.com Coalition. "The agreement once and for all puts to rest the bogus argument that no one can define Net Neutrality. The FCC just did it, and the sky hasn't fallen. The conditions placed on this merger will show irrefutably that Net Neutrality and phone company profits are not mutually exclusive."

Late Thursday night, AT&T filed a "letter of commitment" with the FCC in which it agreed to strict Net Neutrality requirements for at least 24 months. According to the letter, AT&T "commits that it will maintain a neutral network and neutral routing in its wireline broadband Internet access service" and pledges "not to provide or to sell to Internet content, application, or service providers, including those affiliated with AT&T/BellSouth, any service that privileges, degrades or prioritizes any packet transmitted over AT&T/BellSouth's wireline broadband Internet access service based on its source, ownership or destination."

"This means AT&T can't sell Yahoo or CNN priority access to its customers over its broadband networks," Wu explained, "or favor those content sources over unaffiliated blogs or search engines."

Professor Wu's detailed analysis of the merger condition is available at www.savetheinternet.com/=wu

AT&T's concessions followed heated negotiations with FCC Commissioners Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein. Their firm stance in placing conditions on the deal was backed by tens of thousands of letters from citizens who demanded that the FCC block any merger without Net Neutrality.

"AT&T showed no interest in allowing Net Neutrality to be included in this deal," said Mark Cooper, director of research for the Consumer Federation of America. "But their feet were held to the fire and, in the end, they had no choice but to accept terms that will protect the Internet and keep a bad merger from being much, much worse."

The deal also requires AT&T to guarantee low-cost DSL access for 30 months.

"This merger endangers long-term competition," said Gene Kimmelman, vice president of Consumers Union. "But by making AT&T's high-speed Internet service available to consumers for less than $20 a month, the FCC opens the door for consumers to connect low-cost Internet telephone service to broadband and thereby pressure the market to keep delivering lower prices for all telecom services. And those consumers who cannot afford DSL today, or who cannot afford to pay AT&T's high package fees for combined Internet and phone service, can now get fast connections to the Internet at a reasonable price."

"Today's decision makes the best of a bad situation by minimizing potential harm to the public interest," added Andrew Jay Schwartzman of the Media Access Project. "There will be more competition and more innovation than would have been the case without the conditions imposed today by the FCC. In addition, this agreement requires AT&T to divest a large swath of wireless spectrum. While the future of this WiMax technology remains unclear, it has the potential to offer wireless broadband competition over the next few years."

The Net Neutrality provisions will last for at least 24 months — or until Congress passes meaningful, enforceable Net Neutrality under the law. Internet freedom advocates at the SavetheInternet.com Coalition pledged to push the new Congress for legislation when it convenes next week.

"Today's merger agreement sets the bar for the entire industry," Scott said. "We are no longer having a debate about whether Net Neutrality should be the law of the land. We are having a debate about how and when."

Savethe internet.com | FAQ net neutrality

(...)

What is this about?

This is about Internet freedom. "Network Neutrality" -- the First Amendment of the Internet -- ensures that the public can view the smallest blog just as easily as the largest corporate Web site by preventing Internet companies like AT&T from rigging the playing field for only the highest-paying sites.

But Internet providers like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast are spending millions of dollars lobbying Congress to gut Net Neutrality. If Congress doesn't take action now to implement meaningful Net Neutrality provisions, the future of the Internet is at risk.

To learn more, read Network Neutrality: Fact vs. Fiction

What is Network Neutrality?

Network Neutrality — or "Net Neutrality" for short — is the guiding principle that preserves the free and open Internet.

Net Neutrality ensures that all users can access the content or run the applications and devices of their choice. With Net Neutrality, the network's only job is to move data — not choose which data to privilege with higher quality service. Net Neutrality prevents the companies that control the wires from discriminating against content based on its source or ownership.

Net Neutrality is the reason why the Internet has driven economic innovation, democratic participation, and free speech online. It's why the Internet has become an unrivaled environment for open communications, civic involvement and free speech.

Learn more in Net Neutrality 101.

Who wants to get rid of Net Neutrality?

The nation's largest telephone and cable companies — including AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner — want to be Internet gatekeepers, deciding which Web sites go fast or slow and which won't load at all.

They want to tax content providers to guarantee speedy delivery of their data. They want to discriminate in favor of their own search engines, Internet phone services, and streaming video — while slowing down or blocking their competitors.

These companies have a new vision for the Internet. Instead of an even playing field, they want to reserve express lanes for their own content and services — or those from big corporations that can afford the steep tolls — and leave the rest of us on a winding dirt road.

What's at stake?

Decisions being made now will shape the future of the Internet for a generation. Before long, all media — TV, phone and the Web — will come to your home via the same broadband connection. The dispute over Net Neutrality is about who'll control access to new and emerging technologies.

On the Internet, consumers are in ultimate control — deciding between content, applications and services available anywhere, no matter who owns the network. There's no middleman. But without Net Neutrality, the Internet will look more like cable TV. Network owners will decide which channels, content and applications are available; consumers will have to choose from their menu.

The Internet has always been driven by innovation. Web sites and services succeeded or failed on their own merit. Without Net Neutrality, decisions now made collectively by millions of users will be made in corporate boardrooms. The choice we face now is whether we can choose the content and services we want, or whether the broadband barons will choose for us.

(...)

* savetheinternet.com |House Leaders Tell FCC to Support Net Neutrality March 15th, 2007 by tkarr

Members of the House on Wednesday pressed FCC Chairman Kevin Martin to take a stronger position in support of Net Neutrality, calling it “indispensable policy for the future of the Internet.”

Telecommunications and Internet Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) promised that this would be just one among many hearings focused on the Net Neutrality issue.

Markey, who authored a pro-Net Neutrality bill in 2006, has pledged to protect Net Neutrality in the 110th Congress.

Over the course of Wednesday’s often contentious hearing, representatives grilled the FCC chairman on a range of issues – from caps on cable ownership to an overhaul of the Universal Service Fund – but they frequently returned to the issue of Net Neutrality as fundamentally important to the progress of the Internet. (...)

* savetheinternet.com |

Web Inventor Tells Congress: Net Neutrality a Priority

Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web told U.S. House members Thursday that protecting Net Neutrality should be one of their top priorities.

Testifying today before the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, Sir Tim called upon Congress to ensure that the explosion of innovations happening on the Web not be slowed by limits imposed by Internet gatekeepers.

His prescription for the Web’s continued success includes the preservation of Net Neutrality and the thwarting of new royalty systems that would “constrain what people can read or publish online.”

Net Neutrality an ‘Obvious Requirement’

Rep. Greg Walden (R-Oregon) asked Berners-Lee to prioritize the one or two policy priorities that Congress should solve in the short term.

“I hope that the Net Neutrality thing is a short-term thing,” Sir Tim replied. “In most of the world people regard Net Neutrality as such an obvious requirement that I hope [the solution] will be short term.”

“The Web took off in all its glory because it was a royalty-free infrastructure,” Sir Tim said, reiterating his earlier warnings against threats by phone and cable companies to impose new tolls on Web traffic.

Freeing Up the Connection

“Non-discriminatory Internet provision is very important for a society based on the World Wide Web. I think that is very important,” Sir Tim said in response to Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-California), who asked for an explanation of how an absence of non-discrimination rules would impact the development of the Web.

“The communication medium is so important to society we have to give it a special treatment … I will always be in favor of erring on the side of keeping the medium to be the blank sheet — of allowing me, if I connect to the Internet, to connect to everyone else.”

In June 2006, Sir Lee said that he was concerned about threats by phone and cable companies to constrain access to Web sites that don’t pay their extortionate fees:

“When I invented the Web, I didn’t have to ask anyone’s permission,” he said. “Now, hundreds of millions of people are using it freely. I am worried that that is going end in the USA.”

During his testimony today Sir Lee, who is now based in the US as a senior researcher at MIT, expanded upon these concerns from the perspective of a Web-based business:

“If we had a situation in which the U.S. had serious flaws in its Net Neutrality … and [a country in] Europe did have Net Neutrality and I were trying to start a company, then I would be very tempted to move.”

The Human Web

Subcommittee chair Ed Markey (D-Mass.) asked Sir Lee to elaborate on his concerns about royalty-free proposals for the Web and how such royalties might have affected his work had they been a part of his original design for the Web.

Lee replied:

“Chairman Markey let me assure you that if I had charged from the word go, per click, the World Wide Web would not have taken off at all. We would not be here talking about it.

“Had there been a fee there would have been no investment. The investment people made in the Web was made by volunteers in their garages late at night. … I myself was allowed by my boss to do it in spare time. People did it in their ten percent time. And if there had been any pay-per-click, if there had been any form of fee, they would not have gone anywhere near it.”

Net Neutrality in the UK | Final programme

Net Neutrality in the UK

Guests of Honour: Claire Hobson, Head of UK Telecoms Policy, DTI; and Dougal Scott, Director of Policy Development, Ofcom

Timing: Morning, 20th March 2007 |Venue: Lewis Media Centre Millbank Tower London SW1P 4RS

Sponsor: AT&T

As the debate around net neutrality in the US continues, this meeting will bring together key stakeholders to discuss the possible implications for the UK, and the future of the Internet.

Its purpose is to provide a timely opportunity to consider some of the major issues that affect UK business and consumers, including unhindered access to the Internet as a civil right, what the Internet of the future may look like, and the international scope of the net neutrality debate.

We are delighted that Claire Hobson, Head of UK Telecoms Policy, DTI, and Dougal Scott, Director of Policy Development, Ofcom, will be giving keynote addresses at this event.

Other confirmed speakers so far include: Richard Allan, Head of Government Affairs, Cisco Systems UK and Ireland; Dorothy Attwood, Senior Vice President, Regulatory Planning and Policy, AT&T; Professor William Dutton, Director, and Professor of Internet Studies, Oxford Internet Institute; David Harrington, Leader, Regulatory Affairs, Communications Management Association; Andy May, Director of Regulatory Affairs, Cable & Wireless; Graeme Maguire, Partner, Bird & Bird; Andrew Murray, Senior Lecturer in Law, London School of Economics; Stefano Nicoletti, Principal Analyst, Ovum; Andrew Orlowski, Editor at Large, The Register; Chip Shooshan, Principal Consultant, Analysys Consulting; John Wilson, Internet advocate; and Christopher Wolf, Partner, Proskauer Rose.

Charles Hendry MP, Shadow Minister for Trade and Industry, and Rt Hon Alun Michael MP, former Minister for Trade and Industry, will be chairing this seminar.

Supported by AT&T, this important meeting is organised on the basis of strict impartiality by the Westminster eForum.

To view a full Live Agenda for this event click here.

http://westminsterforumprojects.co.uk/eforum/nn.pdf

Westminster eForum Keynote Seminar: Net Neutrality in the UK
Venue: Lewis Media Centre, Millbank Tower, Millbank, SW1P 4RS
Timing: morning, Tuesday 20th March 2007
Draft agenda subject to change

8.45 – 9.00 Registration
9.00 – 9.05 Chairman’s opening remarks
Charles Hendry MP, Shadow Minister for Trade and Industry

9.05 – 9.35 Net Neutrality in the UK: the view from DTI
Theme: An overview of the UK position on net neutrality. Where do we stand, and what is the likely future response to these emerging issues?
Claire Hobson, Head of UK Telecoms Policy, DTI
Questions and comments from the floor

9.35 – 10.20 Net neutrality: an overview
Theme: What does the term “net neutrality” actually mean? In whose interests is net neutrality, and in whose interests is a tiered internet system? Is
unhindered access to content on the internet a basic civil right, or is the prioritisation of content the only way to administer a limited resource?
Dorothy Attwood, Senior Vice President, Regulatory Planning and Policy, AT&T
Rhys Williams, Partner, Bird &Bird
Chip Shooshan, Principal Consultant, Analysys Consulting
John Wilson, Internet advocate
Andrew Orlowski, Editor at Large, The Register
Questions and comments from the floor

10.20 – 11.05 The future of the Internet: what does a net-neutral (or not) future look like?
Theme: How would net neutrality or lack thereof, affect business and consumers in the UK? How might the Internet evolve, and what does a net
neutral (or not) future look like?
Richard Allan, Head of Government Affairs, Cisco Systems UK and Ireland
Christopher Wolf, Partner, Proskauer Rose, and Co-Chair, Hands Off The Internet
Paul Myers, Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Wippit
Philip Virgo, Secretary General, EURIM
Professor William Dutton, Director, and Professor of Internet Studies, Oxford Internet Institute
Questions and comments from the floor

11.05 – 11.10 Chairman’s closing remarks
Charles Hendry MP, Shadow Minister for Trade and Industry
11.10 – 11.30 Coffee

11.30 – 11.35 Chairman’s opening remarks
Rt Hon Alun Michael MP, former Minister for Trade and Industry

11.35 – 12.00 Regulating the Internet
Theme: Ofcom’s view on net neutrality.
Dougal Scott, Director of Policy Development, Ofcom
Questions and comments from the floor

12.00 – 12.45 Regulating the Internet: Are current regulatory systems appropriate to deal with net neutrality?
Theme: Is the current regulatory system adequate and appropriate to tackle net neutrality issues? If not, what should be done to fix it?
Andy May, Director of Regulatory Affairs, Cable & Wireless
David Harrington, Leader, Regulatory Affairs, Communications Management Association
Andrew Murray, Senior Lecturer, Department of Law, London School of Economics
Stefano Nicoletti, Principal Analyst, Ovum
Questions and comments from the floor

12.45 – 12.55 Closing thoughts from DTI
Theme: A response to the morning from DTI.
Claire Hobson, Head of UK Telecoms Policy, DTI

12.55 – 13.00 Chairman’s and WeF closing remarks
Rt Hon Alun Michael MP, former Minister for Trade and Industry
Peter van Gelder, Director, Westminster eForum

Digital Dividend Review _ Westminster e-forum

Digital Dividend Review

Guest of Honour: Philip Rutnam, Partner for Spectrum Policy, Ofcom

Timing: all day, 28th February 2007

Venue: The Brit Oval, Kennington, London SE11 5SS

With digital switchover on track for 2012, Ofcom are looking at options for the spectrum previously used for analogue broadcasting. This seminar will give key stakeholders an opportunity to discuss the many factors that Ofcom will have to consider when auctioning and allocated the spectrum, possible uses for this additional spectrum, and how it can be allocated for the public good.

We are delighted that Philip Rutnam, Partner for Spectrum Policy, Ofcom will be giving a keynote address at this seminar.

Other confirmed speakers so far include: Bob Brace, Board Director, Mobile Data Association; Martin Cave, Director, Centre for Management under Regulation, University of Warwick; Barry Flynn, Associate Editor, New Media Markets; Paul Gill, Managing Director, JFMG; Clare Healy, Chief Operating Officer, Teachers' TV Matthew Horsman, Joint Managing Director, Mediatique; Richard Lindsay-Davies, Director General, Digital TV Group;Michael Marcus, Open Spectrum UK; Simon Mason, Head of New Product Development, Arqiva; Lars Mouritzen, Head of Media, Strategic and Commercial Intelligence, KPMG Transaction Services; Adrian Northover-Smith, Head of Products and Services Development, Sony; Dave Rushton, Director, Institute of Local Television & Public Interest Fellow, University of Strathclyde; Paul Senior, Vice President of Marketing and Product Management, Airspan Networks; Dr Damian Tambini, Senior Lecturer, London School of Economics; Simon Terrington, Founding Director, Human Capital; Peter Wickson, Head of Engineering, Police IT Organisation (PITO); and a senior representative from Voice of the Listener and Viewer.

Don Foster MP, Liberal Democrat Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, and John Whittingdale MP, Chairman, Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, will be chairing part of this seminar.

[Programme]

See google cache version here

(...)

Auction vs. assignment: how can the digital dividend be best divided
Theme: is an auction the best way to allocate spectrum, or should more uses be given preferred access?
* Richard Lindsay-Davies, Director General, Digital TV Group
* Michael Marcus, Director, Marcus Spectrum Solutions on behalf of Open Spectrum UK
(...)

Net Neutrality in the UK

[1] Westminster e-forum

Net Neutrality in the UK

Guests of Honour: Claire Hobson, Head of UK Telecoms Policy, DTI; and Dougal Scott, Director of Policy Development, Ofcom

Timing: Morning, 20th March 2007

Venue: Westminster SW1

Sponsor: AT&T

As the debate around net neutrality in the US continues, this meeting will bring together key stakeholders to discuss the possible implications for the UK, and the future of the Internet.

Its purpose is to provide a timely opportunity to consider some of the major issues that affect UK business and consumers, including unhindered access to the Internet as a fundamental right, what the Internet of the future may look like, and the international scope of the net neutrality debate.

We are delighted that Claire Hobson, Head of UK Telecoms Policy, DTI, and Dougal Scott, Director of Policy Development, Ofcom, will be giving keynote addresses at this event.

Other confirmed speakers so far include: Richard Allan, Head of Government Affairs, Cisco Systems UK and Ireland; Dorothy Attwood, Senior Vice President, Regulatory Planning and Policy, AT&T; Professor William Dutton, Director, and Professor of Internet Studies, Oxford Internet Institute; Andy May, Director of Regulatory Affairs, Cable & Wireless; Graeme Maguire, Partner, Bird & Bird; Andrew Murray, Senior Lecturer in Law, London School of Economics; Stefano Nicoletti, Principal Analyst, Ovum; Chip Shooshan, Principal Consultant, Analysys Consulting; Bill Thompson, Technology journalist; and Christopher Wolf, Partner, Proskauer Rose. Further senior speakers have been approached, and we are awaiting confirmation of availability.

Charles Hendry MP, Shadow Minister for Trade and Industry, and Rt Hon Alun Michael MP will be chairing this seminar.

[2]

The Cambridge-MIT Institute:

11/12/06

A CRN Workshop: Net Neutrality - Battle for a New World Order or Much Ado About Nothing?

Related events:

01/03/07 Is it time to re-invent the Internet?

28/02/07 The end-to-end argument in today's world: Do we have to destroy the principle to save it?