Radiohead

Radiohead, one of the biggest bands in the world, are making their new album available for free download.

This follows Prince's giveaway of his latest album in a newspaper. Other bands are said to be following Radiohead's example.

I'm worried.

Knowledge Politics looked in detail about the intellectual property regime of the music industry in our Frontiers of Freedom reports. Many would like to see this regime become more restrictive, including Pete Wishart MP, who wrote a chapter of the first publication in this series.

Wishart said artists' livelihood depended on being able to explot that intellectual property. With this move, Radiohead willingly give up the chance to make money out of their IP.

Like I said, I'm worried. Even the most avid music fans probably wouldn't buy more than one album a week: there just isn't enough time in the day to listen to more than that. Which would you 'buy' this week - the one you have to pay a tenner for, or the one being given away?

New, unsigned artists give away their music for free all of the time, whether it is a CD handed out at a gig or on the obligatory myspace page. But they do this in the hope it will help them make money out of it at some point in the future, to build up a fan base willing to pay for their material.

Radiohead have absolutely no need to do this. Their fans will gladly pay for their new album. And I fear that the effect of their stunt will be that, this week, at least some of those people who would otherwise have paid for an album for a band that really needed it have decided instead to download Radiohead's album.

Maybe the impact is marginal, but sometimes marginal is important - it can be the difference between a record company droppping a band or investing in a second album.

If Thom Yorke and the other millionaires in his band really wanted to make a point about how they feel tainted by making money out of music, they should have charged a regular price and given the proceeds to charity.

Localism and the information society

Last week saw the publication of KP’s most recent pamphlet, ‘Localism and the Information Society’, in which we argue that the information society and its tools need not be regarded as purely for global use.

Considering, as it does, the newly developing trend of localism from different angles, this pamphlet demonstrates that there is a coherent and substantial argument for a change in the way we approach the information society. Our existing picture – of a virtual space entirely dislocated from its physical counterpart, where small-interest sites with global reach move like flotsam on a sea of generic domain names and where people mainly interact with others many miles away – is inadequate.

The contributions from Edward Andersson, Gordon Dabinett, Shaun Fensom and Helen Goulden each demonstrate how the tools of the information society that have hitherto been used to address issues on a global level can be manipulated with great effect in the local arena. The range of areas discussed in these papers, from social inclusion to town planning, demonstrates the viability and value of recognising the place of the information society at the local level.

Recognition for the developing trend in localism in relation to the information society is given a more solid foundation in the discussion on City TLDs, in the second section of this publication. The detailed proposals from the Connecting.nyc and dotBERLIN campaigns indicate that there is demand for an alteration in the way we think about the information society and the internet in particular. As Richard points out in his introduction, City TLDs are not the only solution to bringing localism to the internet, and this is made clear in Monika Ermert’s article, in which she highlights many oppositional arguments to this scheme.

This report, then, shows what we at KP believe: that the information society can be a tool for local use; the diverse range of subjects approached in the first part of this pamphlet, and the different opinions of City TLDs from the second, bear this out.

DM

Ofcom's PSB review

It seems there may be the possibility of a significant shift in the future of public sector broadcasting. Ofcom has recently set in process its second review of PSB, with the findings to be published in 2009. Ofcom's last review, in 2005, concluded that while there was a continued demand for PSB, the existing model (particularly provision by commercially-funded channels) would no longer be relevant in a multichannel world; the smaller audiences associated with multichannel television, and the corresponding fall in advertising revenue, mean that commercial PSBs have an uncertain financial future, threatening their ability to meet public service objectives in the future.

Whilst the new review will consider the future of traditional public service television services - provided by the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Five, S4C and Teletext - during and after digital switchover, perhaps equally significant is the emphasis it will place on new media. Crucially, the terms of reference for the review suggest that Ofcom recognises the blurring of the distinctions between TV and non-TV content, and the potential there is for internet and mobile networks to provide public service content. As a consequence, the review will examine what intervention may be necessary in the future to support 'new, alternative or complementary methods of delivering the purposes of public service broadcasting'- including user-generated content, video file sharing services, videogames, interactive services, and social networking sites.

JC

Face off

I think Facebook are making a mistake. Making (limited) profiles of their
members available to the public will backfire.

Critics have argued that there is now a privacy problem and that Facebook is now
more like the Yellow Pages than a social networking site. There is a privacy
problem, but it is not this. MySpace profiles, for instance, have always been
public. This is what social networking sites are really about; it is why people
make so many 'Facebook friends' - they want people to see their profile.

So individuals don't really have a privacy problem. This move perhaps makes it
easier for individuals to make mistakes, like giving away their date of birth,
for example. But if people concerned about privacy can adjust their settings,
or not use facebook at all. Nobody expects or wants Facebook to be private.

However, what users do expect is that it is user-driven. Such is the promise of
Web 2.0. Advertising demeans this to some extent, by removing individuals'
choice about what is on the webpages they visit, or indeed compile. But we can
live with advertising: you don't get owt for nowt, not in this life.

But Facebook's latest move certainly undermines the site's user-driven nature.
Facebook believes it will be more popular if its content is more accessible -
this move is its own form of advertising. But the beauty of Facebook was that
it was not accessible. Users had to make friends with each other, join groups
and networks. There was an element of reciprocity in that you had to have your
own profile to use the site. People like this, and although it has not
disappeared, it has been threatened.

Think about this. I may want to know whether an old friend of mine is on
facebook. I search for them, but can't find them. Should I assume they are not
on the site? Perhaps they have adjusted their privacy settings. Oh well, I
won't bother joining; maybe they are on Friends Reuinited.

I don't care if Facebook falters. It serves a purpose, but if it is failing to
provide, somebody else will replace it. It's just a shame that corporate greed
leads sites like Facebook to put the interests of profit above the experiences
of members, without whom they would never have grown as such in the first
place.

CB

Vint Cerf, regulation and the new Wild West

Vint Cerf, one of the scientists credited with helping to creat the internet and now in the pay of Google, was interviewed on the Today programme on Radio 4 this morning, discussing the regulation of the internet.

Broadly, he was put on there to argue against regulation. Although we're delighted to see the issue getting air time, the level of the debate was not as high as it could have been. o be fair to John Humphreys though, it was Vint Cerf who was most at fault for not engaging with the question being put to him.

The idea that the internet is not currently 'regulated' is a bit daft. Of course it is, in many of the same ways that any other form of communication is. Harrassing or abusing someone by email is as much a crime as doing it by phone, if a little harder to detect.

But Cerf, responding to accusations that You Tube (owned by Google) often showcased inappropriate matetrial, said that the website would always stay within the law, and that was enough. Very true, the company cannot really be accused of flagrant abuse of the law (leaving copyright aside for the moment).

He also says that parents can filter internet searches to prevent certain material from being available to children (provided the filters are effective).

Is this enough? After all, we don't ask parents to filter pre-watershed television broadcasting to stop children seeing sex and violence. Instead we impose a rule to say that it can't be shown. When similar things appear on the web, why expect parents (who may not have the know-how to filter) to take on this extra responsibility?

Cerf says the web is a mirror of our society, and can't be divorced from what happens in the real world. Of course it can - China does it, with Google's full complicity.

In my opinion it is Cerf who is trying to divorce the web from the real world. In the real world, responsible people take care of the vulnerable and protect the innocent. We do this within our families, our workplaces, and our media - or at least we try to.

Cerf is suggesting that the web is detached from all of this, and not subject to these norms.

He's right to say the web is the greatest communication tool we've ever seen. Untold opportunities exist there - just like they said about the wild west.

Scottish Broadcasting Corporation?

The SNP's victory in Scottish Parliament elections in May has now brought to a head a debate that has been rumbling for, well, forever. The issue is the degree of independence public service broadcasting in Scotland should have from UK provision.

The SNP have long disliked the BBC. They say it represents English cultural dominance of the union. Others dispute this, pointing to the many examples of Scottish talent flourishing within the BBC, and arguing that this shining example of harmony on the island is what the SNP really object. (More coverage here.)

The first target for the SNP is news coverage. They want the main news programmes broadcast in Scotland to be Scottish productions (that is, they wouldn't get the main Six O'Clock news on terrestial TV, but rather a 'Scottish Six'). Beyond this, the SNP would like to remove Scotland from the BBC altogether, setting up their own equivalent.

Now, as an Englishman who strongly supports the union, I still find myself entirely comfortable comfortable with talk of Scottish independence. I would advise them against it, and if the English ever proposed breaking up the UK I would vote against it. However, Scotland's future is up to Scotland, and they can do whatever they like.

I think the idea of a main Scottish-produced news bulletin is a perfectly reasonable one. With digital switchover coming, people will have access to news from wherever they want anyway, so those who want a UK focus can get it easily. With more decisions being made in Edinburgh now, it makes sense to have these up front at the top of the bulletin.

But would Scotland be better off with its own public service broadcaster? This is more difficult to back. On the one hand it would guarantee more air time for Scottish talent - with the "SBC" more able to fund and air Scottish productions. Hoever, I question whether this means more Scottish talent finding its way onto Scottish TV. The pull of the much larger BBC is still going to be very strong for Scottish production companies, writers, actors, filmmakers, and so on. Look at the Scottish Premier League in football - completely independent from England, but it is still routine for the best Scottish players to travel south where a bigger stage (and more money) is available.

The viewers are likely to go this way too. Here it will be even worse than it is with football. People will always follow their local football team, so Scottish clubs are guaranteed a captive audience even if their brightest stars leave. The public has no such loyalty to the favourite sitcom for instance. Unless Alex Salmond is going to 'do a China' and block English/British television from being transmitted into Scotland, he will be unable to stop people from tuning in to Eastenders, however much he may want to promote the Scottish alternative.

I don't believe bigger always equals better, but the fact is that Britain remains a distint cultural entity, its population still sharing a single cultural speace (although contested and overlapping with many others). The goal of policy should be to help our creative talent to exploit this cultural space, not creative artificial structures intended to help politicians hive people off into silos.

Oxford Internet Survey: The End of the Beginning

I know you won't mind our multiple posting on the publication of the Oxford Internet Survey. It's a big issue. In the world of an information society think-tank, it's as big as they get.

We welcome the Survey. We are extremely grateful for the work of the Oxford Internet Institute over the past several years. But the Survey seems to ask more questions than it answers. Knowing what is happening on the world wide web is not the same as knowing what to do about it. We don't claim to have all the answers either, but the time has come to look for them.

We now know that the digital divide persists, in Britain let alone the world in general. It is time to act on this. The internet - the most brilliant technological development of modern times - is not being made accessible fast enough to the worst off. The Survey was largely reticent, for one thing, on the class dimension to internet usage.

I think the main issue surrounding internet usage we are going to have to confront is the power of the private sector. We need to abandon the romantic image of the internet as a network of individuals. It is not. It is just as much another means for private firms to make money. There is nothing wrong with that, in principle. But there is a need to assess how the internet is affecting economic activity and outcomes in practice. E-commerce is a particualr concern, especially since the UK government is supporting its development so strongly.

Social networking sites are another concern. There is nothing wrong with individuals using such sites to communicate in new ways - but what about the rights to privacy we are unwittingly giving away, on these sites and through various other services. It is up to democratically elected representatives to discuss such concerns.

The Survey, to reiterate, is very welcome. It is the end of the beginning for the internet - we know now more clearly than ever how it is being used. It is up to us as a society to decide what happens next.

CB

What the Oxford Internet Survey can tell us

In a valuable contribution to the debate surrounding the 'Digital Divide', the Oxford Internet Survey (OIS) 2007 results have been released by the Oxford Internet Institute. This follows on from their 2003 and 2005 reports.

Some unsurprising trends crop up in the report, such as the increase in Internet usage, the greater use of broadband connections and the fact that you are more likely to use the internet if you are male, a student, educated to a higher level and have an above-average income.
However, there are also some interesting trends, beyond the 'Digital Divide', which are likely to raise questions about the direction of online scrutiny of M.P's, the internet as a wider communication forum and just how such a vast, fragmented and ever-changing web of knowledge should be regulated.

17% of internet users have created a profile on a social networking website in the past year. Considering the substantial growth in websites such as Facebook, which now boosts over 30 million members, this seems an accurate percentage of those online. Given its growing popularity among students (42% having created a profile), and the likelihood that they will continue to use the service as a way of keeping in contact with others, this is sure to grow by the time of the 2009 survey.

Barely a day goes by without Facebook itself hitting the headlines in the mainstream media, and it is increasingly being used as an investigate tool. The daughter of Rudolph Giuliani, nominee for the Republican nomination for U.S President, was recently challenged over her profile showing her as a both a 'liberal' and a member of a group supporting Democratic nominee Barack Obama. Many M.P's are also creating online profiles in addition to the many parliamentary blogs already being written. The effect this will have on UK politics has yet to be fully tested, but providing such platforms are used as an accountable tool, rather than just an online soap box, a useful contribution could be in the making. However, as the survey also points out, participation in civic society online remains low.

An additional debate that the OIS provides useful statistics on is that of Internet regulation. Caution seems to be exercised by those not using the Internet to a much greater extent than individuals who are actually online! 'Non-users' are more keen on government regulation and greater protection for children using the Internet. While the latter is certainly of importance, government regulation would have some users crying 'censorship' on blogs and forums before a law was even passed. If the OIS makes one point clear, it is that internet users are now in the majority, and should not be sidelined as too irresponsible for a spot of self-regulation. Although problems certainly do exist, the benefits are too great to be missed.

KC

Frontiers conquered

Today, 7 August, Knowledge Politics finished off in style our groundbeaking series of publications on the future of intellectual property rights in the digital age.

View the whole series here, or download the latest pamphlet here.

Vera Franz of the Open Society Institute, Dr Duncan Matthews of Queen Mary College and Tove Gerhardsen of Intellectual Property Watch were our contributors for this pamphlet, which is the culmination of many months' work. We argue for greater attention to be paid to how the developing world is affected by the global IP regime.

The debate goes to the very heart of theoretical concerns about what knowledge is and what rights it's creators have. Our Western assumptions simply may not apply elsewhere in the world. There's also a political argument - whatever the philosophical issues involved, the goal of any global policy regime should have as an end-goal the advancement of the interests of the world's poor and marginalised. IP is no different - in fact in an information society it will become all the more important.

We've come full circle, then, with these reports. We think recent months have seen the development of a stronger consensus about IP and development, with even the likes of the US acquiescing, albeit reluctantly. Progress on policy is always painfully slow, but there are reasons for optimism.

Thank you to all of our contributors in this series, and also to those who've helped put the publications together, including Laura Smith and Dave McLaughlin on this final instalment.

RB

Back to the future in Russia?

Russia's plans to be a 'world leader' in the information society: doomed to fail?

 

In the past few days, President Putin has declared that he wants Russia to be the world's leader in information production, and in the information society, by 2015. His declarations of the importance of 'technology transfers' and 'increasing democracy' appear at first to make this bold statement seem to be nothing more than an attempt to move on from the controversy surrounding Russia's recent diplomatic relations with Britain. Considering the British media dubbed the expulsion of two Russian spies from England as a return to 'Cold War diplomacy', it would be in Russia's interest to reaffirm its position as a player in the democratic, integrated West.

 

But these new proposals by Putin have more than a shade of the rhetoric and manoeuvrings of Russia's Communist past. The calls for 'parity of technology' and the appointment of a panel at the highest levels of government to deal with the problem are reminiscent of the days when the Politburo dealt with questions of farm management in the Urals region, and when nuclear parity was the dream of Khrushchev. Not only that but the problems that beset the Communist Party in the fulfilment of its aims are poised to rear their heads and stall Putin's wishes too.

 

As a recent report by the think tank 'Government on the Web' shows, Putin's belief that the government can direct the information potential of Russia's business world neglects the fact that in the more greatly developed Knowledge Economies, it is the world of e-Commerce that is leading governments in the implementation of user-friendly services and getting results.

 

It is important that Government on the Web has highlighted the tailoring of information towards personal needs as a triumph and model to be taken from the world of e-Commerce, as it is this area of democracy and individualism that could be the greatest obstacle to Russia's success as a world information leader. Just as in the days of Khrushchev and Solzhenitsyn's One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, the empowerment of the individual that is made possible by the information society (for example, the influence of blogs) could prove a fatal blow to such a controlled, top-down society such as Russia's, in which Putin controls the vast majority of government appointments, and is (according to a recent article in the New York Times) expanding his influence in the populous through youth organisations.

 

Finally, as the debates at ICANN and in the cities in question heat up over the question of city-specific Top Level Domains, the question must be asked, is Russia too late in stepping in to the information society as a global player? The arguments of the New York and Berlin lobbies for city TLDs reflect the movement in the information society towards a more localised focus on information, a move that may not be taken into account by Russia's government in its rush to move from 57th on the Economist's 'e-Readiness' rankings 2007, into world leader, in just eight years.

One wonders if Putin has not bitten off more than he can chew.

DM

 

 

Purnell at DCMS

The dust has settled now on Gordon Brown's reshuffle of government ministers. Among the host of young up-and-comers, the biggest winner (excluding Ed Balls) seems to be James Purnell, who was promoted to Culture Secretary.

Great respect to Tessa Jowell for her work, but I think we can safely say the debate on the future of public service broadcasting is now going up a gear.

Purnell is as close as they come to a media policy specialist, having worked in the area at IPPR (where he is credited with 'inventing Ofcom'), advised Tony Blair on it, and been at the BBC. He has decided to retain personal charge of broadcasting in his brief as Culture Secretary.

What this points to surely, is that we are entering the end-game for this debate. There is no-one in political life more equipped to oversee it than Purnell, no-one with a better grasp of the issues. He will be keen not just to leave his mark but to finalise the fundamental direction of PSB for another generation. Let the games begin.

Journalistic responsibility? No thanks, we’re British

The ongoing discussions for the future of the European Union prompted a swathe of criticism from Britain’s tabloid newspapers, using any feint notion that negotiations had not proved successful to accuse the organisation of bureaucratic failure and the British government of failing to protect the national interest. Irrespective of one’s views regarding European integration, the overt Euroscepticism exhibited by both the black- and red-top rags presents worrying challenges to the potential for balanced political debate in a country where tabloids are read by in excess of 8 million people every day.

The left-leaning journal, Social Europe, was particularly critical of the Daily Mail’s reporting of the recent EU summit, commenting that “it really is sad that irrelevant facts and rumours are obviously more important to some parts of the British media than real politics”. True enough, the fact that Blair and Sarkosy dined at the exclusive Thiou restaurant has little to do with the intricacies of supranational cooperation and diplomacy, but more worrying are the factual inaccuracies in the same article, which suggest that the EU may be controlled by the French as and when they see fit and cut the number of member states from 27 to 25.

Sure, the Franco-German axis wields significant influence in Brussels, but in the British context, where despite constant scandal, the print media is generally trusted as a primary source of political knowledge for a significant proportion of the country’s population, the tabloid press should be more aware of its responsibilities to provide accurate information to its readers. The exaggeration of intra-European rivalries does little for the prospects for balanced debate, leaving governments torn between being seen to be pro-Britain domestically and pro-European in supranational negotiations.

Neutrality is not a goal the press has ever aspired to, nor should it, but factual accuracy is a cause worth striving for, even if we never will know the true impact of President Sarkosy’s choice of dessert on the balance of power in Europe.

SL

ICANN't?

Ridiculous pun for a headline, apologies. Some of you will be aware that ICANN, the American firm which governs certain aspects of the internet's technical infrastructure, has been having its latest public meeting in Puerto Rico over recent days.

Bill Thompson has produced an excellent piece for the BBC (read it here) on the issues raised, certainly in more detail than I can provide here.

ICANN has many critics, not only for its strange position as a private 'silicon valley' firm established by the US government in the late 80s (many question its legitimacy as global regulator) but also for some of the bungled decision-making coming out of the organisation.

One key aspect is the opaqueness of ICANN. We have seen alterneative developments, notably the UN-led Internet Governance Forum that point the way forward to a more open, even democratic way of governing the web. This is not to say the two can't co-exist, but we do need to look at the issue. Anyway, read Bill Thompson's report for some more discussion.

We'll be contributing to the debate (in terms of the domain name system ICANN regulates) in the near future with our much anticipated report on localism and the information society. This will have a special focus on the campaigns for city-based domains (.london, .berlin, etc). Interesting stuff - watch this space.

A brief update on something else. The think-tank Compass will shortly be publishing a new pamphlet by our Head of Policy Craig Berry on public service broadcasting in the digital age. More details will follow.

RB

Jon Cruddas on the Knowledge Economy

I came across an article by Jon Cruddas about immigration on his home page and thought these paragraphs taken from it show another viewpoint on the 'Knowledge Economy'.

'Globalisation and the information and communication technologies have been widely cited as the key contemporary levers of change that are reshaping the labour markets of the future. Yet, the fundamental problem with this conception of the 'new knowledge economy' is one of evidence. On the basis of both the empirical changes over the last ten years and the best projections for the future, it is clear that we are witnessing an ever more pronounced polarisation within the labour market – and wider society – often described as the 'hour glass' economy.

On the one hand, there exists a primary labour market – the knowledge economy. On the other, there is an expanding secondary labour market where the largest growth is occurring – in service-related elementary occupations, administrative and clerical occupations, sales occupations, caring, personal service jobs and the like. In terms of absolute employment growth since the early 1990s, the fastest growing occupations have been in four long-established services (sales assistants, data input clerks, storekeepers and receptionists); in state dominated education and health services; and the caring occupations (care assistants, welfare and community workers, and nursery nurses).

In short, employment growth has been concentrated in occupations that could scarcely be judged new, still less the fulcrum of a 'new economy'.'

JS

Puttnam speaks out on digitally divided schools

Last week, Lord Puttman voiced his concerns regarding the ‘digital divide’ at an event hosted by the Bristol-based Futurelab research organisation, with a particular focus on access within education. It is easy for those of us familiar with the Internet and ICT-based learning to forget that many in the UK are lacking both the access to these technologies, and the skills necessary to use them, in addition to making the assumption that as software advances, such inequalities will be eroded. Puttman actually suggests that those who already use technology will continue to benefit from new developments, while those left behind will remain at the starting point.

Puttman is keen to point out the skills which schoolchildren can develop through the use of ICT technology, however there is an additional aspect which was mentioned neither in his speech, nor extensively in Futurelab’s accompanying report ‘Beyond the Digital Divide’. This is of the social impact of some students having access to technology, and others being left behind.

Sean Coughlan, an education reporter for the BBC explains that students who use the internet, 3G phones and online social networks are likely to interact with those who use the same platforms, and this take place in an increasingly insular fashion. If the desperation of undergraduates when they find themselves without the internet or sufficient phone battery, as well as the digitalisation of many educational resources, is anything to go by, the UK already has one section of the population for whom such advanced technologies are a learning necessity. As (some) schoolchildren are exposed to technology at an increasingly early age, this will have a social impact, creating a divide between those in the playground who have seen the latest YouTube video or participated in last night's MSN conversation, and those who have not. The Futurelab report states that

‘Whilst ICT use is certainly not a pre-requisite to surviving in 21st society, therefore, it is almost certainly an integral element of thriving in 21st century society’.

What should be remembered is that thriving on a social basis is as much a reason to challenge the digital divide as academic discrepancies which can arise.

The Futurelab report itself contains some surprising statistics for a self-proclaimed techno-dependent individual such as myself. Although the UK’s uptake of broadband as been increasing since its introduction, over half of all households in Scotland and Northern Ireland have no internet access at all. However, this can be connected to overall wealth and quality of life, and indeed the richest areas of the UK (the Southwest and London) unsurprisingly have the highest uptake.

As a student who has been lucky enough to have had access to the Internet at home from an early age, I can state that the benefits on an educational (and, not forgetting, on a social level) are immeasurable. Therefore, if the government is serious about its educational targets (such as more students from poorer backgrounds going to University), then it needs to make sure that access to ICT platforms is not a dividing line. Investment into technology at schools is not enough- access at home, and the development of life-long skills, also needs attention. Lord Puttman’s comments on the subject are a welcome sign that this issue is being taken seriously by the political elite- after all, if they are going to be able to use Blackberries in Parliament, shouldn’t the future generation get in on the action as well?

KC

IN G00GLE WE TRUST?

Can you keep a secret? Google can. Or so they say. For some reason, I want to believe them. The EU and the BBC (don’t call it a vendetta) clearly have their doubts. Obviously, I’m not saying I have more faith in Google than I do in the EU and the BBC. But to be honest, I wouldn’t trust any of them as far as I could throw them (which isn’t very far, since they are very big, and Knowledge Politics is very small).

The core of the latest Google dispute is precisely this: Google amasses – and has an unsurpassable capacity to amass – a large amount of information about our personal proclivities. There is no solid law stopping them. The EU, the only thing we have that passes for a global regulator, and the BBC, the only thing we have that passes for a reputable global media corporation, are keeping an eye on things. EU ‘pressure’ has – thankfully – led to a magnanimous Google decision to reduce the time they keep certain information from two years to eighteen months.

Eighteen months? That’s still an eternity, in the virtual world. Two years, said the EU, could have been against the law (assuming one can break a law which was made before the crime in question had hardly been imagined). Eighteen months is ok though, is it? Well it would be, under certain circumstances.

But surely those circumstances don’t include a scenario in which Google’s own global privacy counsel admits the firm’s privacy policy is ‘vague’. The vague bits he was referring to refer to Google’s policies on sharing information with third parties. They say “oh, well, er, sometimes we have to help the police with investigations.” Knowledge Politics says “what about the rest?” Are the ad companies benefiting from Google’s vague privacy policy? Google has actually just paid £1.6bn for Doubleclick – the ad firms aren’t even third parties anymore; Google likes to keep its data-sharing in-house.

I like Google. I use it countless times every day (actually, I’m sure somebody is counting!). They provide a brilliant service, they are challenging Microsoft, they provide some assistance to FOSS, and their technological expertise is extremely impressive. But power must be checked, as simple as that. Not by political grandstanding, or by journalists, but by law. As Google gets bigger (it is currently advancing full steam ahead into the higher education ‘sector’), regulations must be in place to mean that information, the most valuable commodity of the information society, is only ever used in accordance with the public interest and individual rights.

Don’t hate Google. Why bother? I don’t want to have to trust them. Let’s just empower public authorities to meaningfully regulate them. Then all we need to do is work on trusting public authorities.

CB

The information straightjacket

The information society has no frontier. Not even backstreet Indian takeaways. Wherever you look, you can find ordinary people trying to deal with the benefits and drawbacks of technological development. A couple of days ago, I was waiting impatiently for my order in Jeera's curry house in Sheffield (highly recommended, by the way), when a young, confident and slightly sleazy salesman bounded in, and asked to see the manager.

Cue manager: highly dubious (he conducted the meeting over the counter, which was fortunate for the readers of Knowledge Politics' blog, if irksome to the salesman), but polite nonetheless. The brochure in the briefcase had nothing to do with vacuum cleaners or double glazing windows, but rather a website. The salesman worked for an online firm whose sole product - it appears - is a site that allows restaurants to take orders online. A prospective customer, in the mood for a Balti, wouldn't bother with the Yellow Pages or the stack of junk mail on the floor, they would click straight to said site, search for Indian restaurants in deliverable distance, and have an ordered placed in moments, without the hassle of human interaction.

Fantastic, yes? Jeera's would get a lot more business. Well, here at Knowledge Politics, we have an annoying habit of looking at the bigger picture. Jeera's would have to pay this online firm 9% of every order (for a very simple online function). Not so bad, we may suppose, if Jeera's is doing a lot more business. But it is bad if all of their orders start coming in online (once you hear its possible, why would you ever use the phone to order a curry from them?), and they lose 9% of their revenue (and a much higher proportion of their profit margin) - surely it would take a huge surge in business to cover the loss of such a huge chunk.

So what? Jeera's doesn't have to pay this firm, do they? They could keep faith in the telephone and their passing trade. Their food is excellent, they don't need this new fad. But what if one of their local rivals does decide 9% is a price worth paying? If people prefer online ordering (the evidence is that they do, emphatically), they will choose the rival over Jeera's. Jeera's choice, therefore, is stark: potentially give up 9% of their revenue, or lose custom to the higher-tech rival. Jeera didn't ask for this choice: curry making is a low-tech industry, and rightly so. But capital has been pumped into some new internet device, and its owners are thirsty for returns.

Not all the Indian restaurants can win: we aren't suddenly going to be eating more curry, just because its easier to order it. As we miss out more and more on the exertion involved in picking up the phone, or even walking to collect our food, we'll probably start eating less. The only winner is the firm with the website. They probably have a patent. Even if they don't, they have some basic technical expertise that Jeera's doesn't. Is this all the information society can do for us: providing a service we don't really need, and which minimises human interaction, so that the Indian food industry becomes more profitable for a non-curry making company at the expense of the curry makers?

I think we can expect more. But it'll take a lot more than technology itself to realise the best of the information society. We need to work a lot harder to manage technologies like the internet to make them productive rather than destructive.

Reaction to Blair media speech

Tony Blair's attack on the media has been rightly derided. I agree with many of the sentiments, having despaired routinely at the nature of much news coverage, which resembles a competition between banility and sensationalism (Doctor Who Is Not News). But like almost all politicians, Blair cares far, far, far too much about what the media. They assume all of the following:

• everyone reads the papers in as much detail as they do
• news journalists speak for the country
• public pereception of politicians is determined entirely by the media

None of these things are true to anything like the extent Blair et al believe they are. These assumptions have even proved fatal. Dr David Kelly was pursued as the source of a leak because of a slight factual inaccuracy in an early morning radio report from a third division reporter. In the US Lewis Libby has been convicted because (allegedly) Dick Cheney devotes himself to rebutting and ridiculing any journalist speaking about him, regardless of the fact that not a single vote is going to be swayed by the articles they've written.

Anyway. Blair's speech contained a reference to an old friend of ours, the Audiovisual Media Services Directive. He basically welcomed the fact that 'television' news streamed over the net would be subject to the same regulation as regular news. Here's an extract:

"OFCOM regulate broadcasting, except for the BBC, which largely has its own system of regulation. But under the new European regulations all television streamed over the internet may be covered by OFCOM. As the technology blurs the distinction between papers and television, it becomes increasingly irrational to have different systems of accountability based on technology that no longer can be differentiated in the old way."

Interesting. Find out more about the issue by reading our report on the Directive, here.

On Freedland

Sam Bourne aka Jonathan Freedland wrote an interesting piece for the Guardian yesterday. You should read it here, because this post will be pretty meaningless otherwise.

I assume you've read it now. The article is all about how the internet will "revolutionise politics". The point he is making is that the internet will not just provide new forms of communicating about politicsm, but possibly alter the structure of politics altogther.

He says the internet is certainly being used as a new ways of communicating, but not yet much more than this:
"The technology is cool and fast, but it still tends to be about sending men to sit in wood-panelled parliaments and marble-floored senates."

His argument is taken a step further:
"I wonder too about the very units in which we now participate. Currently, geography matters a lot: we vote in the areas we physically inhabit. But if millions of people are linked by MySpace, why is that not a political community? I can foresee a future in which national diasporas, for example, operate the way territorial societies do now. If ever there is a peace agreement to ratify, perhaps the entire Palestinian people, dispersed across the world, would take part in a referendum. The current iron link between democracy and territoriality might grow weaker."

I wonder about this. It could happen, of course it could. But if it does, the causes of it won't simply be the fact that a new technology exists to enable it.

Freedland's argument is founded on technological determinism, unfortunately. I'm not interested in criticising Freedland directly - I wouldn't expect him to cover every factor behind sweeping social chaneg in one article.

In general terms, we do have to be careful about thinking things will change just because of the internet. The reality is that the internet will develop according to the wishes of its users, not vice versa.

For instance, you won't get lots more young people voting in elections just because politicians have a Myspace profile. The reasons for non-voting are deeper than this. Perhaps we will see new non-territorial political communities develop - and maybe the people involved will even use Myspace to communicate. But the internet will only ever be a facilitating tool. People aren't going to create a new political superstructure just because they can.

CB

Does my divide look big in this?

Another week ends, and we have yet another study into the size of the digital divide. First there was the Economist Intelligence Unit report saying that in global terms the divide has decreased. Then we had the European Commission saying the divide had increased within Europe. Now we have Ofcom saying that the digital divide within the UK is narrowing.

The Ofcom study was geographical, looking at differences between the UK's four nations. Their 'narrowing' announcement is based on the fact that Northern Ireland seems to be catching up with the other nations in terms the number of the number of homes with broadband and digital TV.

The gap in broadband take-up between first and last was reduced from 12 percentage points in 2005 to 3 points in 2006:
England 45%, Scotland 42%, Wales 42%, NI 42%

The gap in digital TV take-up is down from 19 to 13 points, with Wales still in front:
Wales 82%, Scotland 76%, England 75%, NI 69%

Congratulations to Northern Ireland, but also to Wales... which was also found to have more WiFi access points per person than the US, Japan and Germany.

It's possible all three studies (Ofcom, Commision, EIU) are correct. However, if I had to say which was the most significant and worthy of serious consideration, I'd have to say it was the negative one - the Commission findings that the divide is growing in Europe.

RB

Can you read this?

Apparently, the internet is being censored like never before. At least, that is the finding of a report into net filtering by the Open Net Initiative.

Worryingly, the found that while only a couple of countries filtered web content five years ago, now there are at least 25 countries doing this (including China, India, Ethiopia Pakistan, Tunisia, Morocco, Thailand and South Korea). Researchers also see evidence of many new techniques being applied to circumvent state sponsorship.

The internet clearly remains a place where traditional battles between state and citizen take place, only in new ways. This, it has to be said, has a positive interpretation to it. Please forgive me while I go off on a tangent, I am sure there is a grain of truth to what I say.

I am thinking of the sci-fi writer Ursula Le Guin. Her Hainish series of novels described a piece of equipment called an 'ansible'. This technology allowed instantaneous communication between any two points in the universe - but not, crucially, the movement of people or objects.

The internet is our ansible. The point is, it is an inherently peaceful means of communicating, and a far more peaceful way to conduct political conflict. In the past, campaigners for any cause might have met in person, and demonstrated on the streets. This would often be met with violent opposition by the authorities.

With the internet, campaigns can be organised without this physical presence. In many respects, campaigning has become about the distribution of ideas rather than the mobilisation of force. And when the authorities want to clamp down they use computers, not guns. So, while humans fight each other like they always have, we can at least hold out that in the future they'll do it in a less destructive way.

worrying trends?

Two bits of bad news so far this week. Viviane Reding, EU Commissioner for the information society, got us started with a warning on Monday that the digital divide in Europe is increasing. Read the speech here. She noted that the broadband penetration rate differed between the highest and lowest countries in Europe by a massive 26.5%, and that this gap was widening. Rural areas were even further behind.

This contradicted the promising research from the Economist recently showing the global divide is lessening. The solutions proposed by Reding were mainly about improving the technological infrastructure throughout Europe, but also about allowing more enablingin the industry. These are urgent calls that Knowledge Politics endorses. It may not be all that is needed, but it is a good start.

The other news came from Ofcom, whose director of market research reported a big drop in investment in children's TV. Read more here. Despite the volume of children's programming tripling since 2002 (with new digital channels launched), the total spend is down from £110, to £90m. This is actually quite shocking. (Obviously my outrage is qualified by my glee at the fact it may mean more repeats of Saved by the Bell.)

There are no doubt many factors involved but its clearly something that needs addressing. Other forms of entertainment might be attracting kids, but I'm sceptical whether we've had a overall increase in quality.

Oh well. If it was all peaches and cream, Knowledge Politics probably wouldn't exist. Here's to tragedy and despair...

RB

The post-industrial Prime Minister?

Impossible to avoid talking about the imminent change at the top of the British government. As ever, these events provide a focus for thinking about a new direction for public policy. Will we get this?

Bill Clinton was famously described as the Post-Modern President, although the term described his style of presidency rather than policy focus. If anything Al Gore (COME BACK AL!!!!) was the driving policy force in the info-soc area. Even if he didn't quite invent the internet, he was instrumental in its emergence and later gave much attention to getting everyone on the information superhighway.

What kind of focus can we expect from Brown? We don't know. At first glance he's not the most modern of politicians, although surely nowhere near as cavemanish as John "never sent an email" Prescott (GO AWAY JOHN!!!!).

Brown was the man responsible for slashing the BBC budget, and indeed wanted an even bigger cut than the one we got. We can only guess at what his thoughts were in doing this, but my guess is he doesn't see an active role for the state in cultural enhancement. Then again, he did announce his leadership campaign in an art gallery.

These are just mere scraps of information, as we don't have much to go on. What is disappointing is there doesn't seem to be anyone among current ministers who is ready to take this issue and really get hold of it. Among backbenchers there are some much more active and interested MPs, and we hope to see some promising promotions after June 28th.

CB

Bectu the future

Broadcasting union Bectu has attacked ITV for its continuing series of redundancies while it pays massive salaries to its celebrity 'talent'. See the Guardian's coverage of the row here.

You have to say Bectu have a point, and there's a more general relevance too. For most theorists who first noticed/heralded the birth of an information society, the expansion of the cultural industries was a definitive factor.

But for the more enlightened, quantitative growth alone was not enough. The crucial qualitative factor was important too. Okay, so you might still call what we have an information society, but it's nothing to email home about.

Why is reality TV so prevalent? Because, put simply, it's cheaper. Why are imported (US) shows so prevalent? Because, put simply, they are cheaper. I don't deny either of these has a place in the broadcasting landscape, but we all know it's far too much. Daniel Bell never thought things would be like this.

Time travel

A new survey by Motorola has revealed the extent of television viewing over the internet, with 45% of European broadband users now watching shows online. The most interesting finding from the research, however, has to be that by 2012, 35% of people want to be able to pause, rewind or FAST FORWARD live broadcasts. Technology can do a lot (it fact it can already do the first two on that list), but I think taking you forward in time might be a little beyond the average PC for a while yet.

Rarely a week goes by without an announcement about a new internet TV service. Channel 4 launched 4OD recently, the BBC's iPlayer has been approved, while ITV are also now making plans.

I still don't think we know how the average home will look in a few years. These moves toward making more services available through computers are interesting, but I'd keep an eye out for how the traditional television set develops. According to the Motorola survey, 45% of people to be making videophone calls through their TV within five years. We're probably at a crossroads with the TV, and it will be interesting to see if the next big leap can be taken.

LW

YouTube Vs Viacom

When two multinational conglomerates go head-to-head, it's always difficult to choose who to support. The new legal battle between Viacom and YouTube/Google is no different (more info here).

At Knowledge Politics we have very much been in favour of more openness in the intellectual property regime, butI don't think it's appropriate to look at this case in those terms. In fact, the case actually underlines the need for a new, more coherent IP framework appropriate for the digital age.

Basically, Viacom wants YouTube to stop people from publishing copyrighted material (i.e. from Viacom's television stations) on the internet without permission. YouTube's response is the "safe harbour" defence - that they are not responsible for material uploaded without their knowledge on the site. I cannot agree with the YouTube position - they implicitly admit that the practice is illegal (and morally wrong), and also admit that they provide the means through which the illegal act is committed. But they wash their hands of it by saying they just don't pay attention to the way people use the website.

There is no real public interest in 100 different people uploading the same clip from a television show. The people doing so - while not making any personal profit - are helping to undermine the risk-reward regime for broadcasters. Would anyone go to buy the Comic Relief DVD (benefiting performers, the BBC and many needy causes) after seeing Catherine Tate-Tony Blair sketch on the internet? I know I was desperate to see the sketch after hearing about it, and YouTube is the first place I looked. Sorry, Africa.

Maybe we should change the risk-reward regime. I'd certainly be up for that discussion. In fact, we're right in the middle of that discussion at Knowledge Politics (details here). YouTube, MySpace and similar sites have revolutionised the cultural industries. Performers who have no interest in protecting their copyright are finding they are able to reach new audiences, enhancing their potential to make a decent living out of their art in the future.

But there has to be some kind of coherent system for copyright protections. And I'd prefer it was a legal regime, because Viacom are threatening a technological solution: 'watermarking', which is similar to the dreaded digitial rights management system in music. We need to avoid this eventuality.

RB

KNOWLEDGE POLITICS QUARTERLY

Knowledge Politics is launching a journal.

We are open to submission from anybody and everybody, but we specifically expect to provide a forum for postgraduate research students working on subjects related to the Knowledge Politics remit. Media, internet, broadcasting, technological development, social implications - in terms of theory, policy or practice.

Instructions for authors:

2500 - 8000 words.

Times New Roman, size 12, single-spaced, justified.

Harvard system of referencing, eg (Author, YEAR: 45).

Bibliography at the end of the article.
BOOK Author, A (YEAR) Title (Place: Publisher).
ARTICLE Author, A (YEAR) 'Title', Journal (40/4), pp300-325.
CHAPTER Author, A. (YEAR) 'Title' in Book Title, Editor Name, A. (ed.) (Place: Publisher), pp30-55.

Headings. Section headings should be lower-case and emboldened. Sub-section headings should be lower-case and italicised.

Acknowledgements. Seperate section at end of the article, before the bibliography.

Please include also an abstract (approx 100 words) and a biography (approx 30-50 words).

Authors retain ALL copyrights at ALL times.

For further information email c.berry@knowledgepolitics.org.uk

e-readiness rankings

The Economist Intelligence Unit has published its 2007 E-Readiness Rankings, which you can find here. This is effectively a league table of countries, ranked according to internet accessibility. This year there are some interesting findings.

The first thing to note is the change in methodology by the EIU this year. Instead of just the availability of the internet in a country, rankings depend on the speed, security and affordability of internet connections. And the use of high-speed, safe internet is not enough to secure a high spot - the actual delivery and consumption of services online is given greater weight now. Overall, it's a more complex picture of e-readiness, but it's a more accurate one.

In terms of the rankings, the Scandinavians are the big winners - Denmark are 1st, Sweden joint 2nd, Finland 10thand Norway 12th. The US is joint 2nd, while Britain lies in 7th. Scandinavian nations have long led the world in digital development - Manuel Castells wrote of this a decade ago and it remains true today. Hopefully Knowledge Politics will be examining the reasons for their continuig success in a forthcoming report.

The most improved nations in the rankings were from Asia. Hong Kong (4th), Singapore (6th), South Korea (16th), Taiwan (17th), and Japan (18th) all increased their positions. The EIU puts the change down to governmental commitment to the development of the digital infrastructure. African nations also made good progress.

Overall findings were encouraging, with the report showing that broadband is becoming more affordable around the world and the digital divide is falling. Finally, most governments are waking up to the fact that the information society doesn't just happen, it is made to happen.

Lonesome no more

There have been a few changes to the Knowlege Politics website recently, and we'd like to give people a brief explanation. First of all, we've decided against providing a news service on the site. With our resources severely stretched, the news coverage was taken up most of our time - and we didn't think we added much value to what was already available elsewhere on the web.

So we're focusing efforts on what we always wanted our core business to be - providing access to a wide range of information society resources for researchers interested in this area. Some of these resources will be those we directly produce, and we have interesting plans for publications on localism and on the Finnish model in the near future. And - let this be the start of the rumour - we are making provisional plans to launch our own online journal.

As for the external resources (still, I believe, our main priority), we have redesigned the way visitors can access these. There is now a dedicated Gateway page on the site. This is the direct route for anyone looking for new research, links elsewhere or details on events.

Of course the day to day news still matters to us. But instead of telling visitors things they already know, we're going to concentrate on responding to new stories, in particular through this blog. We hope to be posting on a more regular basis - in our comfortable new surroundings - and to make this a more integral part of our work.

RB

RIP Kurt Vonnegut. Thanks for the logo.

Really new localism

Knowledge Politics' blog is back after an enforced layoff. The more observant among you will have noticed the change of setting.

Our absence has coincided with some interesting information society-related developments, in particular regarding the global/local relationship. Norwich put the final touches on its free wi-fi initiative, following a path set by some US cities and certainly showing the way forward for others in Britian. This comes weeks after an achievement gaining less recogition, when Sunderland was recognised nationally for its success in enhancing social inclusion through the application of information technology - including extra support for carers and disabled people. And recently we heard more about campaigns in some major cities (London included) for the creation of a new top-level domain for that city (i.e. a website might end in .london rather than .uk).

For me this all shows the importance of local political action in advancing the information society. Some of it is fantastic, like in Sunderland, while some of it might be relatively meaningless, like the London campaign. But overall it reveals that locality (and local government) will remain vital components of an information society.

What we are seeing are local solutions to national or global issues. This happens in many other policy areas, such as the environment, and there is no reason why it can't happen for the information society too. This is a theme we'd like to explore further in our work, and we're open to suggestions as to how we might do this.

RB

AMS goes down to the wire

The debate over the AMS Directive seems to have been going on forever. Indeed, the EU has been trying to do something similar for over a decade, and AMS is actually its most successful attempt to date (assuming it finally comes into force) to get a grip on 'convergence' in the media sector.

But of course the debate is not over yet, as our new pamphlet shows quite clearly. The Commission still has some way to go to win over much of the media industry, as well as the British government. Although it has to be said that they have performed well so far in exploding some of the more extreme myths about the Directive (while amending the Directive accordingly) as Mary Honeyball MEP ably explains in the pamphlet.

The piece in the pamphlet from Sonia Livingstone and Andrea Millwood Hargrave is key to understanding the motivation behind the legislation, and we are grateful for their contribution on this. But we mut listen also to the points put forward by Vicky Read of the BSG - the nascent industry of internet broadcasting is somewhat fragile (without a settled business model as yet), and nobody has any interest whatsoever in preventing its growth and development.

As ever, we thank all of our contributors and welcome your comments on this publication, which you can find at www.knowledgepolitics.org.uk/publications.

CB

Human capital

Recently I came across a very interesting quote by the political philosopher John Gray of the London School of Economics, which summed up perfectly a lot of incoherent ideas I had been having about why the knowledge/media economy is becoming increasingly prevalent in developed Western nations like our own.

Western nations are increasingly de-industrialised due to manufacturing being outsourced to developing countries because of their low labour costs, where for all intents and purposes exploited human beings are treated as if they are machines. Western nations are therefore forced to move more and more of their economy up the ‘value chain’ of production and into the knowledge economy where their highly developed technology/communications networks, education institutions, and R & D investment can still give an economic advantage. Hence:

“…new technologies are steadily stripping away the functions of the labour force that the Industrial Revolution has created…An economy whose core tasks are done by machines will value human labour only in so far as it cannot be replaced…we are approaching a time when…almost all humans work to amuse other humans.” (John Gray, Straw Dogs, p159-160)

For what are the ‘creative’ industries of the media and knowledge economies but the one realm of human experience that cannot yet be replicated by technology?

JS

'Friends' United?

Back in 1999, the highly successful Friends Reunited website was launched. ‘What a great idea!’ millions of new web users thought, ‘I’ll be able to find out what my friends from school are doing’ and they did. They logged on, found old friends, emailed a few perhaps, but largely (a few flings aside) most people didn’t revive old friendships. Now however, with Facebook and Myspace the opposite is true. It would appear we will never be able to leave some old friends behind.

Regardless of whether we got on with people, it’s not purely chance that we stay in touch with some friends and drift away from others each time we move job or home for example. Social networking sites invite the possibility/horror of staying e-friends forever with everyone!

There is an important point in the hipster phrase ‘Myspace used to be good, now everyone is on there’. The novelty of Friends Reunited is in comparing the sharp contrast between past and present. This will be lost on the ‘Web 2.0’ generation. Any break with the past diminishes each time someone from your school or job adds you as a ‘friend’. These sites mean we can permanently stay within an ever growing network of people we know and have known. I don’t think it’s antisocial to want to cut a few wires and say goodbye to some people.

TH

PSB and national identity

It feel likes time for a recap and reassessment of Kowledge Politics' ongoing campaign in defence of public service broadcasting. Why do we think it's so important?

Well, it's not just about the BBC as an institution, but growing up in Britain, I do feel strongly about the BBC. It is one of the few UK institutions that makes me proud to be British. Not in some narrow minded ‘Little Englander’ sense, but as part of something that helps binds us together as an inclusive multicultural nation.

In the multi-channel multimedia world of ‘narrowcasting’ to ever more focused demographics, the British Broadcasting Corporation transmits to as broad a demographic as possible, an entire nation.

Furthermore, the BBC presents a positive aspect of Britain to the world in its reporting; that of openness, objectivity, and self-criticism. As Will Hutton has recently said:

‘what goes on in the minds of the BBC’s overseas listeners and viewers is highly complex. To the casual observer it appears that they are being presented with a Western, and indeed specifically Britsih, view of the world. In a sense this is true, but over a period they come to appreciate tht this view which is alos both consistent and honest. As a result, in many countries in the Middle East, for example, the BBC is trusted more than local news services. People know that the corporation is prepared to give bad news as well as the good news about Britain; because of this, they trust it to tell the truth about their own societies.’

It is in this way that an organisation created in the 1920’s can play a role in 2007 and beyond.

JS

Yes, Prime Minister

It's not often we get to include a news story about the Prime Minister on this website - he usually spends his time chasing hoodies and illegal immigrants off council estates, and that's not really our thing - so we thought we'd mark the occasion in our blog, too. Tony Blair gave a speech at the tate Modern yesterday: in fact, the speech has been described as the longest period of time a British Prime Minister has spent talking about the arts for decades.

The Tories and the Lib Dems have been complaining for a while about funding for the arts being cut. The Tories say that £200m a year has been lost for the arts and heritage. It is true that Arts Council funding has been frozen, and we all know that Lottery money is being diverted toward the Olympics. But overall you'd have to say this Government has helped our cultural industries a great deal, including with money.

The speech, of course, was full of platitudes, and little in the way of firm commitments or strategy, but then he is on his way out. I sincerely hope I have the opportunity to write a similar post to this one in the early days of Gordon Brown's premiership.

LW

Watch this (digital) space, if you can

Issue of the week (and a bit) has to be digital television, with three relatively big stories finding their way on to our news pages. The first two were, unfortunately, all about the Sky/Virgin spat, although the third gave us hope of a more serious debate about the future of the media.

The battle between Richard Branson and Rupert/James Murdoch has been criticised heavily by almost every commentator. I'm sure the National Consumer Council are right to defend the interests of Virgin customers who have lost some channels from their cable package, but in general I think the whole thing has been taken a little too seriously. Two rival companies trying to outdo each other in pursuit of market share - welcome to capitalism.

Obviously, it looks like Sky are winning. They've prevented Virgin taking over ITV, and also forced some popular channels off the Virgin platform. Two caveats, however. a) Ofcom will be reviewing Sky's ITV purchase... doubtless it will lead to not very much, but the investigation alone will encourage other new companies to enter the market with some assurance that Sky's monopoly will be limited. b) If Sky really think that generalist channels like Sky One and Sky News are really most successful when they restrict access to them, they're mistaken... and I bet we'll find more than adequate replacements soon enough. (This episode also helps explode the myth that BBC News 24 isn't worthwhile, by the way.)

Then there was the EDM tabled by John Grogan, calling for spectrum to be available to put HDTV on Freeview after the digital switchover. Good move - it will be interesting to see how this one turns out... one suspects Branson and Murdoch might manage to find some common ground.

RB

New Knowledge Politics pamphlet

I write as we prepare to finally launch Knowledge Politics' first publication, an e-pamphlet written by the Polish academic and until recently the chair of the mass media committee at the Council of Europe, Karol Jakubowicz. We would like to think Karol for his efforts in doing this - very much appreciated, and we'll do our best to make sure the message gets heard. And thanks also to Andrew Gwynne, an old friend of Knowledge Politics' from Reddish, Stockport, aka the motherland, for providing the foreword. I could also thank our Head of Research for his introductory piece, and I would love to do so but I haven't actually read that bit yet so I can't really comment.

What I have read, though, is probably the only sustained, coherent, and wide-ranging account of public service broadcasting's future coming out of British political debate I can remember reading in recent years. Politicians pay lip service to the concept, but no one outside those intimately involved really takes the issue seriously. Hopefully, we can start to change that now, because we might just regret losing what we have if we are not careful.

CB

Are you a Big I or a little i person?

It is time to address what is surely the central issue of the contemporary era. This is an issue we have been grappling with a great deal ever since the launch of Knowledge Politics, and has come to a head in a viscious confrontation among our researchers as we put the final touches to our first official publication (more tomorrow).

When writing the word 'internet', shold we use a upper case letter 'I', or a lower case 'i'? You may think this is pretty meaningless, and you may be right about this, but I'm starting to think there's something deeper lurking behind this. The use of the upper or lower case, surely, is determined by the extent to which the person thinks that the internet is something 'separate'. Separate from what? Perhaps from the physical world, or from the traditional media. Or perhaps a separate entity altogether, like a new nation-state.

As you can see, I lean towards using the lower case. For me, this is partly an act of willing... I don't want all those people who are not yet connected to the internet to be scared of something that is entirely new, distinct and "outside the realms of comprehension". I want them to see it as just another means of communication. After all, we wouldn't write 'Television', or 'Radio', so why 'Internet'? Especially as the internet is supposed to be the most democratic of mediums, open for everyone to contribute to.

Answers on a postcard please.

RB