Thursday 31 May 2007

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

Friday 25 May 2007

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

Monday 21 May 2007

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.

Wednesday 16 May 2007

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

Friday 11 May 2007

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

Thursday 10 May 2007

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.

Friday 4 May 2007

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

Wednesday 2 May 2007

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