Well, folks, another year has passed in Ofcom’s life. Where did the time go? It seems like only a month ago that the BBC was airing ‘Jerry Springer: The Opera’. Memories...

How did Ofcom do in 2005? Read on.

Probably the most fun I had watching Ofcom in 2005 was traveling to Budapest on behalf of OfcomWatch to give a lecture on Ofcom to masters students at the Central European University. I think I was their second (or lower) choice, because Ofcom could not send someone to speak! Initially, I had a difficult time coming up with anything terribly meaningful to say about Ofcom that could otherwise not also be downloaded from Ofcom’s website. But then I thought of a simple but useful question my Oxford mentor tends to ask:

‘Do the contents of the tin match what is on the label?’

Ah! Okay, so that was my plan. On Ofcom’s label, we could probably imagine a number of ‘nutritional’ claims: (i) independent; (ii) light-touch; (iii) principled; (iv) evidence-based; and (v) converged. My lecture went through each of these claims one-by-one and I generally concluded that—in most respects—Ofcom falls somewhat short of its claims.

And, standing there in front of these students, I challenged them to think about the issue two different ways. First, assume I am incorrect and that all of Ofcom’s claims about itself are true. Assume that Ofcom is everything that it thinks it is or that it pretends to be. So what? If Ofcom still cannot deliver lower prices, more competition, and innovation, it has still failed in its overall mission and will be remembered in history as a failure. On the other hand, assume I am correct and that none of Ofcom’s claims about itself are true. Assume Ofcom is completely values-based, or political and unprincipled, captured by Number 10 or the industry, etc. So what? If Ofcom were still able to achieve spectacular results, nobody other than perhaps me would really care about how political they were. So, after almost three years of Ofcom watching, maybe we can come to one conclusion: Concepts like ‘better regulation’ are in some ways only labels we associate with successful economic and social outcomes. Nothing succeeds like success.

OfcomWatch, to the extent we can be accused of having any editorial bent, generally believes in the benefits of transparent and inclusive regulation. This forms a large part of our mission and makes what we do possible. In 2005, Ofcom’s record in this area was uneven. To Ofcom’s credit its website saw continual improvement and the regulator now permits the electronic submission of consultation responses using a pre-formatted system. With respect to Ofcom’s failings, we have specified them in great detail on OfcomWatch: (i) the frightening lack of procedures dealing with ex parte contacts on pending matters of policy; (ii) no publication of FOI decisions; (iii) confusing situations when third-parties produce research on Ofcom’s behalf; (iv) no system of codified regulations for ease of industry / consumer reference; and (v) consultation procedures that foster secrecy in the administrative process and discourage robust debate. Despite our frequent attempts to encourage Ofcom to be more transparent and inclusive, one gets the feeling that Ofcom believe that they have done enough in this respect. They haven’t, of course, and we’ll continue to remind them of that.

Otherwise, I think that Ofcom had a good year. Folks, you can credibly argue for almost any policy outcome but it is hard to question Ofcom’s reasonableness in most cases (I say most cases; consider the poorly reasoned R18 ban as a counter-example). The BT settlement wasn’t perfect, but it was about the best that Ofcom could do under the circumstances. Ofcom also stood its ground on the BBC governance / PSB matters that the government was considering. And Ofcom generally continue to impress me with their professionalism, responsiveness, and attention to detail. This is particularly true with respect to Ofcom’s management of its finances and resources, and Ofcom’s commitment to avoid administrative delays and inefficiencies that plague other regulators. Was I the only person that has Ofcom to thank for learning what a ‘KPI’ was in 2005?



And it also bears noting that some of the biggest media and communications developments of 2005 fall completely or partially outside Ofcom’s remit or influence: (i) in the marketplace, the iPod went video and much smaller; (ii) the EC half-heartedly attempted to reinvent media regulation for the internet age; (iii) London got the Olympics (by the way, the best source for this on the moment it was announced was an online betting site I was following); (iv) the BBC charter review was initiated; and (v) the government’s digital switchover plans were finalised. In all or most of these areas where government was involved, New Labour continued its tradition of appointing some distinguished man (it’s hardly ever a woman) to move accountability for failure outside Whitehall. Case in point: SwitchCo / Digital UK.

And OfcomWatch? Well, it was a big year for us too. We added some outstanding writers. We redesigned our website. We spoke at some great conferences and industry events. But there’s more to come: Ofcom watching is still our favourite indoor sport and it looks like 2006 will be even more exciting and change-filled than 2005.



So stay tuned… and see you in 2006…