Ofcom’s consultation document on how to report to government on ‘the state of the health of the communications infrastructure’ (as required by the Digital Economy Act) gives rise to some questions.

There is no need, of course, to ask why Ofcom (or the government) does not already have this vital information; the requirement underscores and clarifies the distinction between  governance (i.e. policy development for which evidence is required) and the regulation needed to deliver policy conformance.

The much bigger, more useful, question is: What should we expect of these ‘health’ reports?

In the eight weeks since the Digital Economy Act was passed (and six months from when it was drafted) the context has changed.  The government, this new coalition government, accepts the dire state of the UK's broadband infrastructure and is not afraid of saying it loud and clear.  There is no need to prop up the claim of being  ‘an advanced digital nation’ but instead demand a greater determination to get over it and move on.  The government has already declared its intention to shift the UK from laggard to leader and, by 2015, to go well beyond recovery from the last decade of delay.

And, for those of you sleeping at the back, the route this government has chosen – their new dimension, in everything from housing, green power, societal engagement, education and all manner of infrastructure investment - is a long-overdue shift of the levers away from the national (and sector-led lightly-touched substitutes for policy) and towards local action by local stakeholders.

I would wager that, if the specification were written now, eight weeks into the new politics, the word ‘communities’ would be added to the requirement of the Act to ‘provide Government, industry and consumers with a clear indication of the state of the health of the communications infrastructure’.

This may turn out to be fortuitous timing as evidence builds from overseas to show that the greatest benefits from the switchover from copper to fibre are found where investment in the design and management of the utility fibre access network is directed by local stakeholders.  As noted in an earlier editorial, this conversion is much more than an upgrade.  Being in a position to learn from the experiences of others may turn out to be a great advantage.

Meanwhile Ofcom’s consultation is based on the specific requirements of the Act – and seems not to respond to the change of context and fresh aspirations.  The data collection is intended to inform policy direction but policy itself is in the melting pot.

Does this mean that in 2015 we can expect local communications access utilities to be, overall, better than those in each of the 37 countries currently ahead of the UK?

Does it mean the banishment of rural not-spots?  Does it mean better regulation of unjustifiable marketing claims?

Does it mean measuring the economic growth attributable to better infrastructure along with  the impacts on health, education, transport, societal cohesion, local media and community services?  Does it mean encouraging the engagement of communities, local government and local enterprise in developing local access and local services ?

Technologically, does it mean more symmetric access, lower latency, proper seperation of Access and Services and a plan to switch off copper lines ?

Does the government's aspiration mean that we will see a transformation in the way we do things around here – such that the UK is once again seen as a place in which to invest ?

Does it mean that we will have a better handle on infrastructure realities rather than the spurious claims of advanced wishful thinkers?

Do the proposals reflect the urgent need for sleepless nights whilst we tackle the last great overdue infrastructure transformation of the 20^th century – or will it all magically happen whilst we are dreaming?

Do the answers to these questions provide any basis for assessing the adequacy of Ofcom’s proposals to report to government every 3 years by gathering data from the dominant last-generation suppliers ?  Or should we expect something more-dynamic, more-frequent, more community-focused and more-reflective of the fast-changing world of data networks and what our competitors can do with them?

These questions surface because Ofcom’s consultation document ‘The UK Communications Infrastructure Report’ is the natural consequence of a brief Treasury consultation ahead of the Digital Economy Act.  That earlier consultation was directed at large Telco’s and Service Providers and focused on the practicality and cost burdens of data collection.  The consultation passed relatively unnoticed by the wider community of stakeholders who were more concerned about the unforeseen consequences of other provisions in the Act.

So, with this background, it is not surprising that Ofcom’s proposals seem not to reflect the massive change of context – the new coalition government and emergent policy direction.

One conclusion might be that Ofcom can carry on regardless, observing the letter of this last-generation law, but not be expected by government to provide much in the way of evidence that might inform next generation policy development.

The alternative approach is that Ofcom could be encouraged to respond to the change of context and engage with government to adapt the old brief to align with what may now be required.

Ministers Eric Pickles and Dr Vince Cable are doing a fine job in re-awakening the need for local enterprise partnerships and for encouraging a new wave of local investment in infrastructure designed to meet the needs of local people with locally-relevant services.   Maybe this a good time to pause and reflect on ‘who are the stakeholders?’   Local media?  Local community leaders?  Local businesses?  Local citizens? Local Trading Standards Officers who can spot marketing fibs at twenty paces?

Anyone attempting to reply to the Ofcom consultation from a local or community stakeholder viewpoint will need to decide whether to constrain their views to answering the questions on the paper or to question whether a series of 3-yearly technocratic reports will be of any value at all to a new government intent on overcoming the legacy of a huge gulf between the UK and its overseas competitors following a decade of delay.

You have, stakeholders, until 30^th September to think about it.

____________________________

Readers of this editorial also read:  Communicating Communications and 'This is not an upgrade'.

See also:  'Community Study Tours'