by Derek Morrison (originally posted 18 June 2009, updated 21 June, and 8 July 2009)
The UK government’s Department of Culture Media and Sport (DCMS) published the final version of its Digital Britain report yesterday (16 June 2009). Under normal circumstances it would perhaps merit some passing interest from media watchers but I think recent political changes and economic pressures should make us pay a little more attention to this one. To feed the paranoia there is specific mention of Higher Education buried in there.
The report was conceived when we were relatively free of global financial collapse and recessionary concerns and the Parliamentary election horizon was much further away; consequently, it will be interesting to see what can actually realised in these much changed times. The key elements from the report or its auxillary documents of potential direct relevance UK HE could be “digital participation”, “digital piracy”, “peer-to-peer file sharing”, “universal access to broadband” and “Developing the nation’s digital skills at all levels” (para 10).
My eyes immediately focused on para 6 of the executive summary which states:
Broadband at increasing speeds – the next generation of which, already available to nearly half Britain’s homes, allows us to send or receive 200 mp3 music files in five minutes, an entire Star Wars DVD in 3 minutes and the total digitised works of Charles Dickens in less than 10 minutes.
Do you know anyone from the “available to nearly half Britain’s homes” who can do this? I tracked the foonote reference for the quote which was the May 2009 University College, London CIBER report Copycats? Digital Consumers in the Online Age(PDF). The quote or at least part of it can be found on page 5 of the CIBER report. I say “part of” the quote because I could find no reference to “half Britain’s homes” in that source so we must assume that it has been added by some other Digital Britain author while leaving the impression it originates from the CIBER source.
But such excitement! If half of Britain can theoretically do all of this then we are nearly there. But no!
On para 15 depite highlighting other nation’s high speed networks the report then kicks the big vision into the long grass with the frankly pathetic:
“To ensure all can access and benefit from the network of today, we confirm our intention to deliver the Universal Service Broadband Commitment at 2Mbps by 2012” (para 21). This is percevied as a GBP 200 million project (para 24).
Any of the millions of the UK’s victims of the current “up to 8Mbps” promise of their ISPs will know that this usually translates into something around half of the “up to …” or less.
But to be fair para 21 also promises “jam tomorrow” without specifying when the “jam” is expected to arrive. Rather confusingly, Digital Britain then makes a conceptual leap by conflating the development of a Next Generation Network with reaching what they call the Final Third, i.e. those who will not be reached by the market. Para 26 does nothing to clarify why these are conflated concepts before defining the Final Third concept in para 28. It strikes me that everyone never mind the Final Third would be really happy to have a Next Generation Network with, say, “up to 100 Mbps” 🙂 We might then get something really good, a point para 28 seems to acknowledge.
And how is this to be paid for? Well ladies and gentlemen please welcome the Next Generation Fund which will be:
“… based on a supplement of 50 pence per month on all fixed copper lines.” (para 30)
The Next Generation Fund is intended as a subsidy for operators but I can kind of feel that the 50p may just be the starter because operators will eventually argue that their costs are much higher than they first anticipated.
The methodology of the Digital Britain Unconferences makes for an interesting read (para 11) in that they were designed to:
“… generate a representative “people’s response†and gather a set of positive, realistic contributions for the report.”
Presumably “negative responses” were not welcomed and those already comfortable in the use of of social media tools are to be considered “representative”. But let me give credit where credit is due, despite the risk of biasing towards the already digitally literate the approach was imaginative and no less efficacious than focus groups, probably.
I am always interested in statements that embue technology with inherent transformational powers, e.g. “… the transformational power of the Internet” (para 12). People should be doing the transforming not the technology. A tractor is simply a hunk of shaped metal until a human with intent powers and applies it in the context for which it was designed. Some of course may choose to argue that a tractor in the wrong context, e.g. placed at the top of a hill with the hand brake off is still “transformational” although in an unpredictable way.
Para 19 highlights the intention to recycle PCs to the UK’s low income households? I wonder how the low income households will feel about this? Or if Microsoft will be so happy about their operating systems being so recycled? Perhaps the low income households will be happy to use Linux? 🙂 There is perhaps utility in the principle of such recycling particuarly when even obsolete comptuers are likely to have much useful life in them; but promulgating it as a “low income” solution risks stigmatising a perfectly good idea that will have the “low income” heading for the hills.
And those short sighted auctions are back (para 32). The last time the UK government auctioned spectrum it patted itself on the back for leveraging so much income from the operators. The problem was that the premium cost of the licenses was reflected in the premium cost of the services the operators offered. That impeded, not stimulated development. Other countries gave the spectrum away or at low cost on the understanding that services had to be affordable by the majority.
It looks like the intention that UK radio will be digital only by 2015 (para 39) and that ultra-local community provision is in the offing (para 41).
But it’s at para 65 that explicit HE reference kicks in:
“In Higher Education we will shortly publish a new HE Framework which will set out how industrial activism and a sectoral focus will be applied in HE, which will be particularly significant for Digital Britain both as a very significant and growing sector in its own right and as vital underpinning for the wider economy. It will set out how Government will establish clear signals and incentives to universities so that new programmes are established in priority areas and existing programmes re-focused. It will also include the creation of the Skills Funding Agency to ensure that the skills system is prioritising the things that sectors such as digital technology and digital media need.”
Read the above paragrpah carefully, particularly that “existing programmes re-focused” and the “new HE Framework” and then reflect on the impending demise of the UK government Department for Innovation Universities and Skills (DIUS) and the announcement of a new super-minstry for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS). Note also that the foreword to the Digital Britain report was co-authored by the Rt Hon Lord Mandelson; he willl be heading up the new super-ministry that will incorporate Universities and Colleges into his departmental Borg.
Update (21 June, and 8 July 2009)
For the really time poor wanting a quick overview of the Digital Britain report the short briefing Internet Access: Broadband Britain (Sunday Times, 21 June 2009) might be of interest.
Some thoughtful and polemical commentary was offered in Digital Britain? We haven’t even got decent digital radio (Guardian, 8 July 2009)
