The government plans to direct Ofcom (the first it has ever done this) to implement the, glamorously titled, Wireless Spectrum Modernisation Programme. Through it, The Digital Dividend is about to become a reality, as analogue TV is switched off by the end of 2011. You, civil servants, parliamentarians and their researchers look on, slightly bemused, as those of us who live and breathe spectrum (it is thin air after all…) thrash out the GHz, the MHz, The LTE’s, The WiMax, the DVB T2’s, and all that go with them. All too often, the debate bypasses why these kinds of issues are crucial to Mr. Joe Voter, why real parliamentary engagement is so important and why UK Citizens need representation. Part of this process is making these issues understandable for those representatives.

So why is spectrum, and by implication the digital dividend, so important to your every day man, or woman, on the street? (more…)

Despite what my colleagues may think, I really do make an effort to keep my desk clear. It’s becoming increasingly difficult. The government is simply producing so much paper on telecoms at the moment. There are no less than five meaty consultations, a select committee inquiry and, lets not forget, the mighty tome that is the Digital Britain report, (along with its little brother, the Digital Britain implementation plan), all stacked up and teetering over into my neighbours territory. I have added first and second draft responses. On Friday, the whole stack of paper fell on my foot. It hurt.

So is my bruised toe worth it? Or, more specifically, is all this frantic policy making actually producing the end results we hoped for? Well, from a legislative perspective, things are definitely moving along well. We are hearing reassuring noises that despite the upcoming general election, the digital economy bill is taking shape broadly as we hoped it would and there isn’t much appetite for playing around with it in parliament. The much hyped “broadband tax’”is likely to make it into the finance bill. An additional statutory duty for Ofcom (“to promote efficient investment”) is almost certainly on the way. If they can work out what “efficient” actually means, this can only be good. Although, DCMS seems to have got jealous and decided that it wants to add a duty for Ofcom as well, probably without consulting. Anything BIS can do DCMS can do better. Whitehall in action.

On the negative side, there appears to be, much to industries concern, clear momentum for ISPs to be required to cut off their customers for sharing files illegally. I have great respect for right-holders. In another life, perhaps I could have created some content worth possessing the rights to… But the fact remains that industry, or ISPs, are effectively being contracted out as a law enforcement agency. There is absolutely no direct benefit, or proposed recompense, for them under these proposals. Instead, they incur huge additional admin costs and may well lose revenue as well. Right holders share none of this burden. That is apart from the fact that the whole system is likely to be unenforceable and likely to be superseded by the Telecoms framework directive, which, dogged by infamous “Amendement 138″ controversy, is currently grinding its way through Brussels as we speak.

We also wonder where all the non-legislative (or partially legislative) proposals are going. Already, large elements of the Digital Britain spectrum modernisation programme are probably going to need to be looked at again. T-Mobile and Orange, unless the competition commission intervenes, are to merge. This means that Kip Meeks valuable work, which Mandleson recently got involved with and was near to completion, will most likely be delayed and revised. While the government hasn’t missed its target yet, the ‘arms length’ entity responsible for procuring the capabilities to deliver a 2Mb/s USC currently has no CEO and hasn’t been formally established. We hope that whoever is appointed will talk to industry in a language it understands. Not quite time to worry, but the way the procurement is run is crucial.

Then there are the Tories. We still don’t really know (apart from the short term point scoring we saw immediately post publication) where they stand. The vaunted Review of the Creative Industries appears no closer to publication. This could all be for nothing if they choose to take a different direction on all these issues. Apart from the fact that we are last starting to get some coherency and traction on these issues in Government, this would mean a new wodge of paper hitting my desk. And a visit from HR about health and safety and Intellects ‘clear desk’ policy. I think I will just blame the government. I normally do.

Spectrum. Mention the word and most peoples eyes (and sometimes mine) glaze over. However, when you tell them just how much the ‘thin air’ around us is worth, they tend to open again. In 2003, the Government sold the spectrum used to operate Mobile 3G networks to operators for £22bn. Never mind that the mobile industry was almost bankrupted in the process, and that no-one is likely to pay anywhere near that much again. This is big money. The Treasury, through Ofcom, has taken notice ever since.

In today’s world of yawning budget deficits and scrambling efforts to bridge the divide, spectrum is seen as prime candidate for raising revenue. The Ministry of Defence, whose budget is of course particularly tight at the moment, jumped on the bandwagon earlier than most. Since the end of 2008, they have been busily setting out their wares. And what wares they are. MoD currently ‘owns’ 35% of all spectrum below 15 GHz, a lot which is usable for commercial operations. Commercial users haven’t previously had access to it or been able to pay for rights to use it. Since the 2005 Cave Review, plans have been in the works for it to lease large parts of its current holdings to commercial users and keep all the proceeds. Except when it actually needs to use it in times of national crisis. Then, all bets are off.

All of this has taken up much time at Intellect recently. Renting spectrum is much like renting land in many ways. The landlord needs to be good at sharing information with current and prospective tenants and be able act as a conduit for it. They need to have the ability to actively manage the land they own so that the tenant can use it effectively and, finally, they need to be able to put in place measures to stop trespassers from interfering with what the land is being used. Like land, a given piece of spectrum should ideally have one user. Its possible to share, but it gets a whole lot more complicated when you do. All of this requires resources. If Intellect members are going to rent spectrum from the MoD, they need to have the confidence that MoD can effectively manage and place a value on the spectrum that it owns. In much the same way that Ofcom currently does.

Intellect takes its role as the spectrum ‘tenants’ guardian seriously. A number of members have substantial interests in how it is allocated and used. After all, most of them manufacture devices that need access to spectrum to operate. There is a role for industry in educating the MoD on how to value its spectrum, and how to lease it in a way that actually maximises the potential uses that commercial users can make of it, thereby determining how much they will be willing to pay. Our position paper, MoD Spectrum Divestment: The Intellect Perspective, lays out how we believe MoD can optimise its release process to ensure that the UK gains maximum economic and societal benefit from what is an unprecedent release of spectrum on to the market, and how will we continue to work with them to enable maximum benefits for UK plc to be realised. Our continuing engagement with MoD on these issues is being handled by the Intellect Wireless Council. If you are an Intellect member with interests in spectrum issues, you should be involved.

As Dan Smyth very presciently points out , Stephen Carter got a lot of undeserved criticism in the media when Digital Britain when it came out. Sure, it could have gone further in a number of areas. No-one likes a new tax. There could have been more mention of the role for satellite networks in delivering some of the commitments in it. This is especially the case for Intellect, given our position as the only major European trade body that representing all major European satellite network operators. But I like my DAB radio, and I think I could handle £6 a year as my contribution towards NGA deployment and giving everyone a legal right to broadband.

Regardless of what could have been said in Digital Britain, the key point is: Almost alone in Europe (with the exception of France) the UK now knows what direction its communications infrastructure, and associated industries, is going in in a very comprehensive way. We do have a set of policies to build on. The legislative tools to implement them are about to start making their way through parliament. I know for a fact that many other EU member states see Digital Britain as being far ahead of their own plans and are looking enviously at us. The Tories could do with noting this, rather than simply scoring political points over what could or might have been said in it. Maybe I will be forced to eat my words when the Tory Review of the Creative Industries comes out, but as I haven’t seen a draft yet I’d just urge them to be a bit more constructive.

This is why, more than most ministers in the current Government, I will be particularly sad when Carter steps down. His speech at our Consumer Electronics Conference was particular short, snappy and free of meaningless jargon. My view of it was helped by him name-checking Intellect heavily of course, but regardless of that it was definitely one of the highlights of the day. When asked, by the chair Maggie Philbin, what he thought his most important piece of technology would be in 20 years, his answer, “a pacemaker”, was pretty sharp. He also publicly confirmed that Intellect will be working with Government to ensure the recommendations outlined in Digital Britain are implemented. However much praise Intellect got yesterday, there is no denying that Carter simply gets ‘it’, whatever ‘it’ is. Some stand-outs included his statement that “the key role for Government in its relations with business is clarity” and his firm implication that the best policy comes from ministers who aren’t political careerists and therefore don’t care what enemies they make. I couldn’t agree more. We do of course need as many democratically elected ministers as we can get. But we also know how difficult it is for Labour to find them at the moment. There is no denying that peers can sometimes be really effective at policy making and implementation because they aren’t always climbing the greasy pole.

I also know a number of the civil servants who’ve worked under Carter as a minister fairly well. Gushing is not too strong a word. In the words of one I was talking too - “When we wrote Digital Britain, Carter actually had us all effectively co-ordinated and working towards a common goal, we felt like we were achieving something”. Anyone who talks to civil servants regularly knows that, in their language, this is tantamount to them voting him as the greatest Briton of all time. Not that I would. But you get the message. Carter was that rare beast- a politician who really does know what he is talking about. Somehow we need to get hold of more of them.

So I guess the question now is, will we get a replacement? And who will it be? In fact, will Labour be able to find someone to pilot the related Digital Economy Bill through parliament? We can but wonder. But whether Carter gets his mooted role as Chief Executive at ITV or not, he has done a lot to move the debate on how Government supports ICT development forward. For that, he should be applauded.

We all know that reviews are a necessary part of Government. Policy makers need the facts in front of them in order to make objective decisions. That can’t be disputed. I even did my own for them recently.

However, the sheer volume of reviews launched by Government is certainly a trend that commentators have latched onto. I have to say the relevant bandwagon has now hit me as well. Its as if they are the panacea for every issue, every strategy and every crisis that confronts the Government. They even tried to avert a defeat in the Commons yesterday over the Ghurkas with, you guessed it, offering a review. But this was not just to be any old review. This was to be a review that concluded by August. I don’t know how many MP’s that shifted into the ‘right’ division lobby.

So it was with some trepidation that I opened the Government’s latest review on support for industry last week: New Industry, New Jobs. All well and good I thought, apart from the fact that this appeared to be a review covering virtually the same territory that the recent Manufacturing Strategy covered in July 2008. Driven through by Baroness Vadera, that particular review was seen by many as a rare example of a review that did actually have some firm proposals for action. The latest version of BERR’s ‘strategic vision’ for UK industry and its development decidedly was not.

In fact, it seemed to be me to be a symptom of that other rapidly spreading condition- Reviewitis. Not quite as deadly as Swine Flu, but equally as perplexing. For what we are with faced with as a strategy for pulling UK industry out of recession? A review that announces, or in some cases reannouces, further reviews.

While reading its basic conclusions, I was pleased to see advanced manufacturing, in particular plastic electronics, get a heavy namecheck. Likewise the reference to Digital Britain, and the crucial role it has to play in rolling out improved digital networks. At the same time, it was telling for me that no less than four out of the five major conclusions announced plans for ‘further assessment’ or made statements to the effect that future Government policy would be based on, you guessed it, an ongoing or upcoming review. In fact the only new action that I could determine that the report actually announced was- a new review into industrial opportunities in an ageing society.

This week, I will be moving on to the latest missive from BERR to hit my inbox: A Consultation on Effective Consultation. . It doesn’t bode well for my current views on these mechanisms…

One element of recession coverage that really gets under my skin is the oft repeated view that UK Manufacturing has ‘fallen off a cliff’ recently. Firstly, what cliff are we talking about? Dover? Or, as one commentator recently put it, ‘not so much a cliff, more Mount Everest!”. In fact, the keener the author is to get coverage, the more dramatic the metaphor that is used.

I’m not denying that large elements of the sector are in trouble. It is not a good time to be making cars in the UK. But at the same time, to talk about all manufacturing in this light is at best a generalization and, at worst, simply incorrect.

If you talk to the electronics manufacturers involved with Intellect, and read the data we collect from them on a monthly basis, you get quite a different story. Many members in this area are lower down the supply chain and sell on a business to business basis, rather than directly to consumers. In general, their business model revolves around outsourcing, or contract manufacture of some kind. A recent poll of their customers noted that 59% of expected to increase outsourcing in 2009. There is every sign that their markets are actually growing, rather than contracting. Customers want low-cost added value manufacturing options. Moving production away from in-house facilities saves money. And everyone wants to save money at the moment. Some members are even opening new facilities and expanding capacity to meet new demand.

Those electronics manufacturers even lower down the supply chain, especially those that make items like circuit boards (the base material of all technology products) are little bit more reticent. We’ve seen layoffs here, and order books are generally fairly flat. But there has been certainly been no crash in the same way there apparently has been in other manufacturing industries.

In essence, I’d say that UK Electronics Manufacturing is engaged in a bit of light down-hill skiing (probably on a blue slope) rather than, as the analysts would have us believe, involuntarily base-jumping off Mount Everest. Hopefully as the rest of UK Manufacturing catches up, analysts metaphors will as well.

Thankfully, the most recent data shows that perhaps this process is beginning.