Last week MEPs voted through a report by my Estonian MEP colleague Marianne Mikko. The report was on the importance of media pluralism. The report covered problems with the concentration of media ownership into a small number of companies. It also called for more transparency about media ownership as well as encouraging use of the 'digital dividend' spectrum to promote media plurality.
These are important issues, but as often happens with Parliamentary reports, the main issues were overshadowed at the last moment by other concerns. The report turned into a debate about proposals to register bloggers.
Marcel Berlins wrote about this in the Guardian last week, although he may have slightly misrepresented Marianne Mikko's position.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/24/blogging.internet
I was one of a number of MEPs who strongly argued that the blogosphere should be kept open. There are already existing legal measures to deal with illegal content online. We should not be restricting or registering bloggers who play a vital role in our democracy.
Of course those who express concern that bloggers have hidden agendas and can hide behind anonymity are right to be concerned. But the solution is for us to improve media literacy in the public at large, not to demand registration of bloggers.
A compromise was made on the report before the final vote. The report, as adopted, simply encourages an open debate about clarifying the legal status of blogs.
Surely we can all agree to that. I'm sure much of that debate will take place on blogs themselves.
You can read the final report here:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu//sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P6-TA-2008-0459+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN
There's also more on the position of other MEPs here:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu//news/public/story_page/058-31021-161-06-24-909-20080605STO30955-2008-09-06-2008/default_en.htm
Showing posts with label Media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Media. Show all posts
Friday, 3 October 2008
Monday, 21 July 2008
MEDIA AND CLIMATE CHANGE
Last year a Conservative MEP organised a screening in the European Parliament of the discredited Channel 4 documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle".
The documentary caused a huge controversy when it was broadcast on TV and it caused a similar stir when it was shown in Parliament.
Following Channel 4's broadcast of the programme last year, there were some 265 complaints to Ofcom, the UK's media regulator. Ofcom have just ruled that the documentary did break broadcast rules and was "unjust and unfair" in the way it represented individuals' views in the documentary. The ruling went on to say that "the programme made some significant allegations without offering an appropriate and timely opportunity to respond"
Whilst some of the complains were upheld, Bob Ward, the former head of media at the Royal Society said that "The programme has been let off the hook on a highly questionable technicality".
He was complaining because Ofcom defines a misleading programme as one where the audience is "materially misled so as to cause harm or offence" and the ruling said the programme didn't meet that test.
However, Channel 4 has been ordered to broadcast a summary of Ofcom's findings about the programme. I don't expect the Tory MEP to acknowledge the programmes' errors though.
It's a shame that some Tory MEPs are still questioning the existance or cause of climate change.
On balance I think I'll take my scientific advice from Britain's Royal Society rather than a bunch discredited Tory MEPs!
You can read more about Ofcom's ruling at the following links:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/21/climatechange.carbonemissions
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7517509.stm
The documentary caused a huge controversy when it was broadcast on TV and it caused a similar stir when it was shown in Parliament.
Following Channel 4's broadcast of the programme last year, there were some 265 complaints to Ofcom, the UK's media regulator. Ofcom have just ruled that the documentary did break broadcast rules and was "unjust and unfair" in the way it represented individuals' views in the documentary. The ruling went on to say that "the programme made some significant allegations without offering an appropriate and timely opportunity to respond"
Whilst some of the complains were upheld, Bob Ward, the former head of media at the Royal Society said that "The programme has been let off the hook on a highly questionable technicality".
He was complaining because Ofcom defines a misleading programme as one where the audience is "materially misled so as to cause harm or offence" and the ruling said the programme didn't meet that test.
However, Channel 4 has been ordered to broadcast a summary of Ofcom's findings about the programme. I don't expect the Tory MEP to acknowledge the programmes' errors though.
It's a shame that some Tory MEPs are still questioning the existance or cause of climate change.
On balance I think I'll take my scientific advice from Britain's Royal Society rather than a bunch discredited Tory MEPs!
You can read more about Ofcom's ruling at the following links:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/21/climatechange.carbonemissions
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7517509.stm
Thursday, 5 June 2008
Broadband Speed
Whichever way you look at it, broadband internet connections are a massive step forward. But not all broadband connections are created equal.
Broadband speeds are normally advertised as being "up to" a certain speed. However, that "up to" speed is only under ideal conditions. The speed of a broadband connection is often limited by your distance from the telephone exchange - the further away you live, the slower your connection will be. This can mean that people subscribe to an internet connection that turns out to be much slower than they expected.
Today Ofcom published a voluntary code for internet providers so that the advertised speed more accurately reflects the speed a customer could expect (based on their distance from the exchange).
But there is another problem which can limit broadband speeds - the capacity of the whole broadband network. Like the road network, broadband networks have a limited capacity. If everyone tries to use them at the same time, in the same place, they can grind to a halt.
Internet traffic has increased hugely in recent months. As people watch more television and use more complicated website online, the networks can get congested. The only solution is that internet providers must invest more in their network infrastructure to improve capacity.
Ultimately these costs will have to be passed on to the consumer. It's right that those who use the internet heavily should pay more than those who only do a little "light surfing".
I very much welcome Ofcom's new move. But in the future it might also be necessary to more accurately label the type of broadband connections that are sold.
People are using the internet for many different purposes. Someone who watches hours of TV online will need a more heavy duty internet connection than someone who just checks their emails a couple of times a week. It's only fair that the costs are fairly passed on to the heaviest users. We must make sure that customers are sold the broadband connection they need, not necessarily the most expensive product.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7437097.stm
Broadband speeds are normally advertised as being "up to" a certain speed. However, that "up to" speed is only under ideal conditions. The speed of a broadband connection is often limited by your distance from the telephone exchange - the further away you live, the slower your connection will be. This can mean that people subscribe to an internet connection that turns out to be much slower than they expected.
Today Ofcom published a voluntary code for internet providers so that the advertised speed more accurately reflects the speed a customer could expect (based on their distance from the exchange).
But there is another problem which can limit broadband speeds - the capacity of the whole broadband network. Like the road network, broadband networks have a limited capacity. If everyone tries to use them at the same time, in the same place, they can grind to a halt.
Internet traffic has increased hugely in recent months. As people watch more television and use more complicated website online, the networks can get congested. The only solution is that internet providers must invest more in their network infrastructure to improve capacity.
Ultimately these costs will have to be passed on to the consumer. It's right that those who use the internet heavily should pay more than those who only do a little "light surfing".
I very much welcome Ofcom's new move. But in the future it might also be necessary to more accurately label the type of broadband connections that are sold.
People are using the internet for many different purposes. Someone who watches hours of TV online will need a more heavy duty internet connection than someone who just checks their emails a couple of times a week. It's only fair that the costs are fairly passed on to the heaviest users. We must make sure that customers are sold the broadband connection they need, not necessarily the most expensive product.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7437097.stm
Tuesday, 3 June 2008
Broadband in the City
Today the BBC reported that Londoners enjoy some of the fastest broadband speeds in the country. This is great news, but doesn't tell the whole story.
There are still too many people in the Capital who struggle to get high speed internet access because their buildings have not had the required cables installed. Other people in large apartment buildings also struggle to get satellite or cable television installed because of the costs of rewiring the building. I hope that new wireless services can give these people more options for receiving broadband and digital television.
With that in mind, I tabled a couple of amendments today to a report on the "Digital Dividend" (see my blog from last Thursday) which seek to make these new wireless services more likely and offer the consumer more choice.
You can read the BBC's story here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7431336.stm
There are still too many people in the Capital who struggle to get high speed internet access because their buildings have not had the required cables installed. Other people in large apartment buildings also struggle to get satellite or cable television installed because of the costs of rewiring the building. I hope that new wireless services can give these people more options for receiving broadband and digital television.
With that in mind, I tabled a couple of amendments today to a report on the "Digital Dividend" (see my blog from last Thursday) which seek to make these new wireless services more likely and offer the consumer more choice.
You can read the BBC's story here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7431336.stm
Monday, 2 June 2008
The iPlayer
In my last blog I wrote about the digital dividend and closing the so called 'digital divide'. Broadcasters are obviously keen to hang on to as much spectrum as possible for new channels or high definition TV. But some broadcasters are already investing in new ways of distributing their content - over the internet.
You may be interested in this article from the Guardian on how the BBC's iPlayer is changing the way we watch television.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jun/02/bbc.itv
You may be interested in this article from the Guardian on how the BBC's iPlayer is changing the way we watch television.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jun/02/bbc.itv
Thursday, 29 May 2008
Digital Dividend
The airwaves - or radio spectrum - are a finite resource. Radio spectrum is used to carry mobile phone signals, radio, analogue television, freeview, satellite signals, radar and much, much more.
A large amount of this spectrum is currently used for analogue broadcasting of the five terrestrial television channels in the UK (BBC 1 and 2, ITV, Channels 4 and 5).
Digital broadcasting, like freeview, makes more efficient use of the radio spectrum. This means more channels can be broadcast in a smaller part of the spectrum.
The Government hopes that everyone will switch over to digital television by 2012. This will free up a lot of the old spectrum for new uses. This is called the 'digital dividend'.
The European Parliament's Industry Committee, of which I am a member, is currently considering some of the best ways of reusing this spectrum.
I spoke in Committee on Tuesday and said that I am keen to see at least part of this spectrum used to end the so called 'digital divide' whereby some people have excellent access to the internet and other people struggle to get connected. This is sometimes because they are in remote areas or in older buildings which are difficult to fit with the required cabling. This is particularly important for London where it's difficult to wire-up many older tower blocks. Wireless broadband could certainly help.
Access to the internet is becoming so important in everyday life, for access to the media, for internet banking, email and access to government services. We must make sure that no one gets left behind without proper access to the net.
A large amount of this spectrum is currently used for analogue broadcasting of the five terrestrial television channels in the UK (BBC 1 and 2, ITV, Channels 4 and 5).
Digital broadcasting, like freeview, makes more efficient use of the radio spectrum. This means more channels can be broadcast in a smaller part of the spectrum.
The Government hopes that everyone will switch over to digital television by 2012. This will free up a lot of the old spectrum for new uses. This is called the 'digital dividend'.
The European Parliament's Industry Committee, of which I am a member, is currently considering some of the best ways of reusing this spectrum.
I spoke in Committee on Tuesday and said that I am keen to see at least part of this spectrum used to end the so called 'digital divide' whereby some people have excellent access to the internet and other people struggle to get connected. This is sometimes because they are in remote areas or in older buildings which are difficult to fit with the required cabling. This is particularly important for London where it's difficult to wire-up many older tower blocks. Wireless broadband could certainly help.
Access to the internet is becoming so important in everyday life, for access to the media, for internet banking, email and access to government services. We must make sure that no one gets left behind without proper access to the net.
Thursday, 3 April 2008
MOBILE TV VERSUS FACEBOOK
According to a recent report from Ofcom, a quarter of 8-11 year olds who are online in the UK have a profile on a social network
Earlier this week the European Parliament Culture and Education Committee referred to media literacy amongst young people in a discussion of new media technologies such as mobile TV. Technology is moving fast and could have enormous educational benefits.
I have always taken an interest in the advancement of new technologies, particularly with regard to how we can protect children from associated dangers. I will be keeping a close eye on the Parliament's discussions on the regulation of such new technologies, being careful to protect young people without generating fear about their use.
I would be very interested to hear whether you think mobile TV could replace Facebook as the next technological fad or will it flop? Please contact me with your response.
Earlier this week the European Parliament Culture and Education Committee referred to media literacy amongst young people in a discussion of new media technologies such as mobile TV. Technology is moving fast and could have enormous educational benefits.
I have always taken an interest in the advancement of new technologies, particularly with regard to how we can protect children from associated dangers. I will be keeping a close eye on the Parliament's discussions on the regulation of such new technologies, being careful to protect young people without generating fear about their use.
I would be very interested to hear whether you think mobile TV could replace Facebook as the next technological fad or will it flop? Please contact me with your response.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
