Delivering Digital Britain

by danhon

Lord Carter Keynote Speech at NESTA, Tuesday 24 February 2009

Speakers:

  • Lord Carter, Minister for Communications, Technology and Broadcasting
  • Neil Berkett, CEO, Virgin Media
  • Peter Bazalgette, Media Expert
  • Jonathan Kestenbaum, CEO, Nesta.

Jonathan Kestenbaum: welcome on behalf of the NESTA team. Stephen’s first set of public comments since the publication of the interim report. I think there are lots of new faces here, drawn by Stephen and a comitment to what we’re all sensing around this particular area of our interest, this convergence of infrastructure, networks, telecoms and content. When those four things begin to come together, we have a new set of drivers for the economy. I look around and see a good sense for how people are passionate about those four hings. We’ve learnt one or two things, distinctive things: increasing role of users and consumers in driving new content, new applications and – Stephen and his team – getting a sense of the importance of those users. As a result, this review has come at such an important time, probably balances the critical short term economic emergencies with long term profound economic challenges. There rests some real challenges as next publication is anticipated in a few months. So many people here have started building a partnership with hus her at Nesta to understand a distinctive role – unusual combination between deep research and profound insights and experimental research. Radical research producing unusual policy insighst and interesting experimentation. That’s produced somet things you’ve read recently, work in creative industry, funding roll-out of high speed broadband.

I guess one of the moments in which you know when you’ve arrived, you finally have a review named after you, then you know it’s starting to happen. The Carter Review, as we’ve come to call it, although CHris Powell did notice, there’s another coming of age – the arrival into grand ministerial office, meant that you had to posh up your name, Stephen Carter is many things, the youngest CEO at JWT, director at NTL, founding chief exec of Ofcom and last had lunch Christmas before, final sentence he said, – last Christmas – we must get together, there’s lots that we need to talk about, I’ll call you. I never heard anything. So eventually, I called him, his office was mysterious, unfriendly, said he’d left, they don’t know where he’s gone. The next thing, he’s at Number 10 and he’s achieved ministerial office, as I mentioned to him – what happened? Not quite sure how I got here, here I am.

 

Carter: Thank you Jonathan. I have a pre-prepared speech which I had, but think I’ll talk for 10-15 minutes and then have a debate with the panel. It’s not the Carter Review, it’s the Digital Britain report. It’s not semantics, it’s a piece of substance. One of the options was for it to be the Carter Review – could do a report to Govt, and many of you will have seen lots of reports to government in different areas. It’s not the Carter Review, but I’m holding junior office, it’s not a report to, it’s a report of government. It’s therefore government policy. That comes with privileges, but also restrictions. The development of policy is done in a series of ways, not least it has to be considered across government. There are plenty of reports that contain searing analysis of what MUST be done tomorrow in the full knowledge that they won’t be implemented – they’re just reports to government, this is of government, this is in the real world, how you can make changes given issues, opoprtunities, limitations and ambitions. On that basis that I accepted the PM’s offer to spend time looking at this sector. Because like many of you in this room I’ve earned my living out of this sector, it’s fundamentally important, economically, culturally, politically. 

 

We’ve tried to get people to come to the debate objectively, analytically, trying to get people in a time where being a naysayer/pessimist is a national activity. 

Looking at one of the news broadcasts, there are sub-brands called The Recession – every news item gets branded under that, – I wonder when it will change to The Recovery? This is not a period of time when people are predisposed to having open-minded positive debate about the government. This is a political report. Politics can be made out of anything, often for the sake of it. I am not doing this for that. I am trying to engage in what the questions and issues are so we can where possible see if we can identify palces where market meets public policy and how they can be best married together. Why this timescale? Because it seemed to me when the PM asked me from last summer to this summer we could ahve a useful and constructive engagement through the next period of this summer/next summer. It’s a truncated timescale. One member of the opposition said it had not done enough in 10 weeks. Most of the companies have said we’re trying to come to conclusions too fast, and are not following the necessary levels of public consultation and engagement. Too slow/too fast. The timescale is the timescale.

 

Why an interim report? To try and force people to come to the debate and discussions in an engaged way, allow us to put on table the key issues where we had clarity, but also to posit ideas where we didn’t have clear ideas. That’s the stage we’re in now. 

 

What did we say? 5 things, we missed 2. First: infrastructure. We wanted to see if we could lay out a roadmap for upgrading of wired and wireless infrastructure. Deluge of commentary and analysis – either not necessary (market will provide), or having a universal service obligation 2mbit floor is ludicrously low. That misses both points: if you look at the physical and wireless infrastructure, it has all come about through a mixture of public markets – capital markets – meeting public policy, with the exception of BT’s original network, a natural monopoly. Neil’s business a function of public policy. The conservatives laud that cable was invented under public policy administration, but it took 24 years to become a coherent business – if you design policy in a poor way, you can rave about a market, but it won’t produce the benefits, at a vast expense to shareholder or taxpayer. Wireless networks are public policy – number of networks, licences, level of interoperabity, etc. Sohrthand media debate is superficial misunderstanding of how we’ve got to we are. Doesn’t merit how we’ve got to where we are – how do we marry public policy and markets in physical infrastructure for next-gen capabilities. Well: why don’t you concentrate on applications and demand side, rather than supply side? 

 

I find this amusing – as though that’s what happened last time – how many people remember narrow-band Friaco, LLU first time, second time, these things happened by policy – intervention created demand. Evidence around the world – 13 countries, of significance, that have laid out their view as to how they’ll approach NG fixed/wireless networks. Unarguable that we, as a knowledge based economy with unhealthy dependence on financial services – how we get incentivised, hasn’t been new cable home built in 10 years. Cable networks only goes to 50% of counrty, BT only go to 40% with fiber. Not universal provision, economic provision – how do we get to 80-90%? Personally at least worth doing analysis to see how we accelerate.

 

2. Content – two issues here – tactical and strategic. Tactical – Channel 4. I read Philip Stephens’ excellent column in the FT. I think he’s quite right. He said – two things we can agree on – completion of switchover to digital terrestrial and broadband will completely overturn the broadcasting ecosystem in passive audience analogue world- he’s right. What he failed – was both of those decisions, decision to trun off analogue was regulatory, and broadband takeup was policy and market. Those are the realities, at the time they were first decided upon, someone took a policy decision basedo n what competitive advantages would be. Broadcasting: question from C4, which we are seeking to answer. At the same time, seeking to answer alternative public content do we believe it makes sense for us to take a view on givent aht wea re not deisgning a system in the last century, one for this century. Trying to do those two things simultaneously. That involves compromise. A pure tactical answer – would be unsatisfactory. A theoretical ideal answer won’t solve the tactical issues.

 

 

3. Third thing – legal protection, online safeguards. Proficiency – least formed and clear in our ideas, in obligations, priority, in most need of engagement. Aggresive first ammendmenters – this is a frontier future, we should just let it roll out, no regulation, controls, no frameworks, bright future, forcing old-fashioned business to find new models and new chances to other end – world of untrammeled ilelgality, rampant piracy destroying creative industries and cultural future. In my view, there are legitimacies in both sides, but comparative, but no protection for profound change.

 

2 last areas – digital government. Much good work – whether HMRC, DVLA, local authorities, different parts of the health service, enormous array of very good examples of digitisation of public services. One of the reasons why I have come to the conclusion that universal service broadband is critical building block is that absenst universal service, we can’t ever move to analogue switch-off of other services other than television broadcasting. Essential building block decision to turning off analogue signal was public intervention and commercial players build out DTT to pretty close to universal provision, or use Freesat/IP. No way government would agree otherwise to turn off analogue signal. If you can’t get universal basic level cannot consider moving to situation where analogue turn-off of other services. Public services have a universality element to them.  2mbit most services at acceptable levels, not “internet”. Universal service negotiated through Europe – amendment to telecoms directive to redefine universal service obligation 56kbits – European law, transposed to UK – only universal service is 56kbits. Trying to change that to give us flexibility to roll out at higher level. Key building block to give us platform – biggest prize – digital govt, public services, digital delivery. Easier to access, easier to use, cheaper to deliver, in hands and conrtol of user than provider – essential prerequisite is provider.

Have given why we’re doing this report, what we want to achieve, responses by 12 March, why we want what we want to achieve. Then go through government, then get to point where we get collective govt buy-in to what we recommend in May/June. Did I ever think all answers to all questions? No, never. Perfect summary of digital nirvana? For everyone? No. Potential to make a contribution to development of sectory of economy to be twice size than half size it is today – yes. The thing that will make the difference between positive and negative contribution – atmosphere within which debate conducted.

Jonathan: Neil known to everyone, career in finance services, then at NTL. COO at NTL, merges with Telewest, acquisitions of Virgin Mobile, ultimately ended up as CEO Virgin Media, platform from which view all of this.

 

Neil: thanks Jonathan, Stephen. Our perspective quite simple. Digital Britain as a report embraces all of the questions. First time, govt has recognised that this is a complex world we’re living in. Most of us not born into it, reborn into it. Therefore you need to take a holistic view. By definition, it’s complicated. Stephen and team done super job. Like Stephen said, next step around engagement critical – Chinese Warlord 500bc, art of strategy is execution. THis is execution – doing – not writing huge volumes of what could be, it’s what can we do now to make a difference. Couple of brief comments.

 

First – infrastructure. We are next-gen access, we did announce last november, 500,000 home build we’re starting. Lot of building. Will take us longer. Pre-Xmas, 50mbits, commercial decision, could’ve done 100, yesterday, entry level tier will be a real 10, double speed of up-to-8 DSL, real NG access. Doing that with shareholders money. Need to believe that we demonstrate that we believe what the commercial model of NG access looks like. Ultimately funding will come from pubilc markets, proving the commercial model is absolutely essential, and not disrupting those already invested, absolutely essential. having spent £13b reaosnable at last shareholders can reap return in infrastructure.

 

Content – in itself, content is complex. Yes there are issues in terms of public service broadcasting, role of BBC can start to play, esp in economic climate – same article in FT – something we need to be conscious of – boundaries and governance of BBC in that world. Importantly, ensuring that content is available for al paltforms. Not given away, just economically viable in availability no one has right to acquire content and put it in wardrobe because they don’t ahve tech to use that.

 

Third – protection – copmlexicty of managing a digital framework. I agree with Stephen – area which has had least thought in the sector – no criticism. We automatically can understand pictures, infrastructure, seem to have reluctance to understand that the digital world and way in which you manage it is different to the way you manage the analogue world – traffic management, child protection. Fundamental change in all business models – content, regulation, so that we can take advantage of world we’re evolving to. Area that we as Virgin Media as infrastrucutre, content, want to provide thought leadership because we’re leading NG access.

Jonathan – Peter – does you tremendous disservice – Media Consultant. Brought to Britain most brilliant TV programmes, CCO Endemol and the man who brought Big Brother to the UK. Friend of Nesta, fantastic insight into Stephen’s views.

 

Peter: Everyone’s mentioned FT – Stephen who was in that photo? [Other Lord Carter]. Haven’t been replaced?

 

We understand that part of PM’s thinking is that if there’s such a thing as a digital dividend – can that replace some loss earning from financial sector over 10 years? onus on work of digital britain. Paradox – vast amount of activity, very little revenue online. Observe 3 stresses at heart of digital Britain. Then 3 other points.

 

1. What I would call Public Utility vs boosting economy. Talked about universality/near universality – one issue is should we put resources, energy into making online world as afst as possible, or is it more important that it goes to ever household. can you deliver both? Boosting economy more important than total universality at the moment, my opinion.

 

2. Distribution vs content. Govt acts on comms industry – tend to be obssessed with distribution, not content. But you did talk abotu content this morning.

 

3. Old organisations vs new organisations. If Digital Britain spends its time propping up old, then that would be missing an opportunity. 

 

1. Utility – in addition to my belief that the speed/capacity is most important thing of all, lots of small wins that can be done to boost revenue flows. Product placement in television. Assist revenue into content. Behavioural advertising. In future, most of us will purchase content “free” by paying for it with two things we have – attenitno and perosnal data. Can only unleash power if we sort out policy around behavioural advertising, and privacy lobby want to stop that. 

 

2. Distribution vs content – tv content, high-end content that people enjoy, it’s contracting. At peak 3.5bn into content each year, contracting for reasons we all understand, nearer to 3bn, important to survey what’s happening in that market – statistics and trends, see how to create flows of revenue. Steve Morrison all3media – looking at how content exploited, windows charged, more sophisticated in Europe than in Britain. Digital Rights Agency – good idea, like its agenda, but don’t like protection for old industry methods. Loved selling units of stuff in shops, and so exploring future for IP should not mean protecting old business models that will not sustain.

 

3. Old orgs vs new orgs – This is PSB – not just about one organisation, not just two ogranisations, if you succeed in re-energising or re-funding C4. In the new era, lots of arts and education organisations which are producing PS content distributing themselves as they have means to do – ROH, Tate, National Opera, Philosophy Bites, 3m podcast downloads. Pieces of classic PSB not coming from those two sources, fine – happening anyway, why does it need help? Those orgs should be given assistance, money, training to really unleash that world – not take too narrow view. 

 

3 other issues.

 

1. Training and education – John Denham – done volte face to push resources back to excellent in education world. Parallel in our world – need to make sure that digital Britain – people creating businesses in future, wealth, stimulation are trained and assisted – context where skillset in danger of losing industry funding – may lose half of its lottery funding via film council. Deputy Chair NFTS, allumni go out, win oscars, Nick Park, Steve Morrison – severe pressure on funding, people we’re training best of best, will create future.

 

2. Computer games industry. We are now liding downt he top 10 – 5th/6th, Canada, Singapore have much more favourable tax regimes. That’s protectionism. We can’t sort international trade issues, but how to maintain compettiviesness? 

 

3. Use of public money and BBC – in era of severe recession, public moneyworth twice what it was worth 2-3 years ago. Can do twice as much good – spent when private money not spent. Important that resources that exist in BBC are deployed. Not saying break-up BBC – Kangaroo, or Canvas, must find ways that those resources and when BBC want to put money into local video – whatever competition. Competition suspended on public interest ground for HBOS/LLoyds.

Q: Dougal Goodman. Foundation for Science and Tech. Key issue we looked at – rapid pace of change. 10-5 years, forecasting in 2000. 

 

Q. Agenda for digital literacy as opposed to locking down?

 

Q. Daily Telegraph – C4/PSB2 – Andy Burnham, tie-up between C4 and BBCWW, and letter seeking Carter expression of interest. No merger of BBCWW, can we conclude that PSB2 must include people other than C4/BBCWW?

 

Rates of change:

 

Neil: Taken bets – are we future-proofing? Our tech – easiest way – Fiber closer to where you want your fixed line, thought of a long time ago. As true today as it was when created 20-30 years ago. In 10 years, GigE both ways, with our infrastructure. Need to ensure that you have thought through infrastructure development, will never get it 100% right. Too often leap to tech solution before business solution – what do we want? OK Mr/Ms CTO, go find technical solution. Quite often miss that in technology – quite often, create something and drop into market and create demand.

 

Stephen: forecasting tricky. Some narrow areas, in relation to our report where we’ve made tech choice – e.g. DAB. ONly choice made there Would be mistake. DAB has limitations. Case for having digital transmissino network for soundr adio, things that can be done, transmission owners and operators to give DAB a future. No calls on tech choices, beyond that. Try to avoid that. Interesting debate – across Europe, 4G mobile. 2G mobile, clear tech choice, GSM. Devised largely in UK, one of contributing factors to success. 3G mobile, tech neutral, agnostic, lots of people saying for 4G need to move along harmonisation. Do think harmonisatino of spectrum: timing, availablity, band structure. But not hard tech choices. 

 

Digital literacy in schools – can’t agree more. Digital govt and skills 2 areas where interim report was weakest or quietest. Only plea for tolerance/forgiveness – when doing what I’m doing, treading on deaprtmental toes. GOvt not organised in a converged way, department al – just the way it is. Touch on responsibilities people feel passionate about – can’t agree more we need a radical review. Marker in report. Commissinoed further work by eskills and skillset. 

 

Not depressed by question re PSB2, never. We are at a stage where trying to find the answer, understand that people want to write the story – the story is we don’t know. What do we know – know what we’ve said – ne to find structural solution to C4. Clearly easier by looking at assets in public sector. Your suggestion that insight into Michael Lyons – may do. All parties trying to see whether there’s a combination that makes sense. Andy Burnham supports this – laid out what trying to do , trying to find other interested parties. No preferred option. 

 

Open invitation to all parties, steering board once a week – Ofcom, Treasurry, Shareholder Exec, UBS Walburg, chairing it – 2 things. Try to find answer to important tactical question. Advertiser funded broadcast business devised as business model in 1980s. World radically different. Trying to find answer in 09. Eye to future, multiplatform future. Where are PS Content gaps/priorities? At the moment, optimistic we can do both things, but as we get nearer, will ahve to call it out. Depressed by how people try to protect existing institutions.

 

Q: Nico Macdonald – first conference design and internet. No models for creating visions/imaginations – kind of services/products using internet in future – how understand desires/ What about people case? Want better govt online, but won’t make bad govt beter.

 

Q: Charlie Leadbeater, Nesta Fellow – ask panel 3 questions. 1. If Britain not leading in speed, coverage in broadband, is it the case that we have to lead in how we use it? Creative consumption, etc. Welcome Stephen’s interest in public service and goods – delivery. Broadband can deliver things, but it allow things to share, collaborate, create. That’s the big opportunity. Not a delivery mechanism. Missing a bit point. Where’s the dividend? Create something that isn’t there yet. More turmoil, not less?

 

Q: Joiningthedots.tv – positive atmosphere will improve if Virgin, Sky, BT, open up access to alternative PSB content providers?

Q: Dougal Goodman. Foundation for Science and Tech. Key issue we looked at – rapid pace of change. 10-5 years, forecasting in 2000. 

 

Q. Agenda for digital literacy as opposed to locking down?

 

Q. Daily Telegraph – C4/PSB2 – Andy Burnham, tie-up between C4 and BBCWW, and letter seeking Carter expression of interest. No merger of BBCWW, can we conclude that PSB2 must include people other than C4/BBCWW?

 

Rates of change:

 

Neil: Taken bets – are we future-proofing? Our tech – easiest way – Fiber closer to where you want your fixed line, thought of a long time ago. As true today as it was when created 20-30 years ago. In 10 years, GigE both ways, with our infrastructure. Need to ensure that you have thought through infrastructure development, will never get it 100% right. Too often leap to tech solution before business solution – what do we want? OK Mr/Ms CTO, go find technical solution. Quite often miss that in technology – quite often, create something and drop into market and create demand.

 

Stephen: forecasting tricky. Some narrow areas, in relation to our report where we’ve made tech choice – e.g. DAB. ONly choice made there Would be mistake. DAB has limitations. Case for having digital transmissino network for soundr adio, things that can be done, transmission owners and operators to give DAB a future. No calls on tech choices, beyond that. Try to avoid that. Interesting debate – across Europe, 4G mobile. 2G mobile, clear tech choice, GSM. Devised largely in UK, one of contributing factors to success. 3G mobile, tech neutral, agnostic, lots of people saying for 4G need to move along harmonisation. Do think harmonisatino of spectrum: timing, availablity, band structure. But not hard tech choices. 

 

Digital literacy in schools – can’t agree more. Digital govt and skills 2 areas where interim report was weakest or quietest. Only plea for tolerance/forgiveness – when doing what I’m doing, treading on deaprtmental toes. GOvt not organised in a converged way, department al – just the way it is. Touch on responsibilities people feel passionate about – can’t agree more we need a radical review. Marker in report. Commissinoed further work by eskills and skillset. 

 

Not depressed by question re PSB2, never. We are at a stage where trying to find the answer, understand that people want to write the story – the story is we don’t know. What do we know – know what we’ve said – ne to find structural solution to C4. Clearly easier by looking at assets in public sector. Your suggestion that insight into Michael Lyons – may do. All parties trying to see whether there’s a combination that makes sense. Andy Burnham supports this – laid out what trying to do , trying to find other interested parties. No preferred option. 

 

Open invitation to all parties, steering board once a week – Ofcom, Treasurry, Shareholder Exec, UBS Walburg, chairing it – 2 things. Try to find answer to important tactical question. Advertiser funded broadcast business devised as business model in 1980s. World radically different. Trying to find answer in 09. Eye to future, multiplatform future. Where are PS Content gaps/priorities? At the moment, optimistic we can do both things, but as we get nearer, will ahve to call it out. Depressed by how people try to protect existing institutions.

 

Q: Nico Macdonald – first conference design and internet. No models for creating visions/imaginations – kind of services/products using internet in future – how understand desires/ What about people case? Want better govt online, but won’t make bad govt beter.

 

Q: Charlie Leadbeater, Nesta Fellow – ask panel 3 questions. 1. If Britain not leading in speed, coverage in broadband, is it the case that we have to lead in how we use it? Creative consumption, etc. Welcome Stephen’s interest in public service and goods – delivery. Broadband can deliver things, but it allow things to share, collaborate, create. That’s the big opportunity. Not a delivery mechanism. Missing a bit point. Where’s the dividend? Create something that isn’t there yet. More turmoil, not less?

 

Q: Joiningthedots.tv – positive atmosphere will improve if Virgin, Sky, BT, open up access to alternative PSB content providers?

 

Peter: Creative use, already there, creativity, already there. I don’t think it’s Stephen’s job in govt to try and supplant/be part of that. What concerns me is trying to get economic dividend. Social dividend is there and will develop in its own right. Revenue models not there. Public policy issues around developing flows. 

 

Stephen: Dividend and open access. Charlie – read your paper, great paper. Listening to questions, I’m not sure I can answer them. Can make observation:. Engagement, user control, platforms, collaboration, data, etc. Really important questions. But when you’re doing what I’m diong, need to draw the line somewhere, when doing thematic reports, boiling the ocean. Legitimate question didn’t get close to muscle/bone on skills questions. Is one I would try to answer first. More evident govt levers to pull. Profound questions – structure of govt, design of public service. Role of user, private data, publicly owned data, create access who owns it etc. Not sure my report has enough freight room to carry and do other things it needs to do. Not trying to dodge bullet, but honest answer given time available. Platforms – they are different platforms. Interesting to describe BBC as platform, not contesting,can legitimately describe it as that as an operator. That’s a change. Sooner that’s recognised the better. Not a bad thing but undoubtedly platform operator. BBC recognises that, moves toward partnership, open source access, not enough yet, should/could be bolder. Peter makes valid point, public sector pound is 200c on dollar in today’s market. BT’s network highly regulated network. Built as public monopoly. Subject to regulated access. Sky’s network, access regime v different. Cable network in different category. Duct access questions raised, real questions. To do future backwards thinking, unarguable period of time – in 10 years – open source platforms, will ahve to be – how soon, and how happen?

Q: Twitter – Fiona Ramsey, Marketing Magazine – educate public about public services, how to encourage takeup?

 

Stephen: I might disappoint Twitterer – at the moment, doing best-in-class examples. Not sure we are afggregating them in a way that makes them as easy to access or as easy to understand/transfer data inputs frmo one to another as might be possible to do. Partly to Charles – configuration of government. Plough own furrows. Some shining examples – put together in a way holistically? Not sure they have.

 

Neil: Dividend. This is about the consumer and business enterprise. Not here for fun, here to create a market. If we ignore desires and needs and don’t take in principle the consumer with us then we will not make a commercial success. Up to business to create models that generate dividend within constraints/desires  of what consumer wants. Easy to say, difficult to execute. Sectors coming together. As Peter said – content sector still in this space – must take a turn every time I produce a disc. That world is fundamdentally gone. Unless we all step up and govt helps and creates legislative environment that protects all parties, then won’t work. Third era of protection – completely agree. But if we don’t crack it, all infrastructure, content, whether free/open will be irrelevant. Won’t create business models.

 

Peter: there isn’t a single media company represented in this room that knows what its model is going to be in 10 years time. Wouldn’t say that 20 years ago, 100 years ago. That’s how big the stakes are for assisting the development of this new company.

Q: Twitter – Fiona Ramsey, Marketing Magazine – educate public about public services, how to encourage takeup?

 

Stephen: I might disappoint Twitterer – at the moment, doing best-in-class examples. Not sure we are afggregating them in a way that makes them as easy to access or as easy to understand/transfer data inputs frmo one to another as might be possible to do. Partly to Charles – configuration of government. Plough own furrows. Some shining examples – put together in a way holistically? Not sure they have.

 

Neil: Dividend. This is about the consumer and business enterprise. Not here for fun, here to create a market. If we ignore desires and needs and don’t take in principle the consumer with us then we will not make a commercial success. Up to business to create models that generate dividend within constraints/desires  of what consumer wants. Easy to say, difficult to execute. Sectors coming together. As Peter said – content sector still in this space – must take a turn every time I produce a disc. That world is fundamdentally gone. Unless we all step up and govt helps and creates legislative environment that protects all parties, then won’t work. Third era of protection – completely agree. But if we don’t crack it, all infrastructure, content, whether free/open will be irrelevant. Won’t create business models.

 

Peter: there isn’t a single media company represented in this room that knows what its model is going to be in 10 years time. Wouldn’t say that 20 years ago, 100 years ago. That’s how big the stakes are for assisting the development of this new company. 

 

Stephen: if not competing on speed/capability, then how do we do it on creative? Not sure we know. Korea undobtedly ahead in deployment – had meeting only 2 weeks ago, believe significant lessons to learn either side. Pursue two things in parallel – legitimate ambitinos for infrastructure in this market, contest Neil’s pure view that solely matter for market, don’t think it’s as neat as that, probably true for 60-70% market for geographical, not true for last 30%, not willing to leave them behind for mop-up solution. Not economically sensible or democratically. If you believe connectivity is sum of contributinos of participants, maximum connectivity isa  good thing. Creative side – Peter’s right, turning point for creative industries. UK plc’s point of view – we are good at these industries. Not an industrial sector where we don’t have global capability, not a sector where we’re not renowned.