Slashdot Mirror

16 (a) Product placement is defined for this purpose as the reference to a product or service within editorial material in return for payment or other valuable consideration to any ITC licensee (or any representative or associate of either). This is prohibited.

(b) A reference to a product or service may be included in editorial material only where it is clearly justified by the editorial needs of the licensed service. This is not product placement but no undue prominence may be given to the product or service.

Er, no, they haven't. Ofcom investigated mobile termination fees, the fees that mobile networks charge other phone companies for calling them. Ofcom ordered them to cut prices, by 2005, so no prices have changed yet. Remember, these are fees that some phone companies charge other phone companies, so no prices that you or I pay have to change.

To directly quote from the Register article on the subject:

Vodafone and O2 must reduce average termination charges from around 8p a minute to 5.63p a minute, while T-Mobile and Orange must cut their charges from 9.5p to 6.31p a minute. All four must implement the cuts by March 2005.

"richer digital content"

I don't know if you've tried it but the digital content is *worse* than teletext, for subtitling. On a teletext enabled tv you just press the text button to surf to 888 for the subtitles. They appear pretty much instantaneously, and are easy to toggle on and off.

On Sky (and apparently freeview) you have to:
- press services, to get this menu
- press 4 to get this menu
- press 3 to get this menu
- press down to select the subtitles
- press right to change the language.

And the menus are sloooooooooooow. While you're doing this the program you were watching is interrupted and some crappy background music plays. They're designed to be permanently on or permanently off. Believe it or not, this is putting me off switching to digital.

Googling to see if anyone else has commented on the problem, I found it's actually in the Ofcom checklist for DTV equipement suppliers (see C.3)... which obviously none of them have read.

In the UK we don't have control over the laws on this sort of thing anymore, we are just waiting for European guidence to be issued which we will then have to follow if it's in our interests or not. This is just intermediatry guidence while we wait for the European machine to come up with something - though perhaps it does put us in a good position to shape what that something is.

The story for us Brits here is not the rather waffly statement that ofcom "seem to be welcoming" VoIP, it's the hard fact that they are having a consultation period on it.

They want to know our views on issues such as mandatory provision of free 999 calls (our emergency number, equivalent to 911 in the USA).

The consultation ends on the 15th November. Here is how to respond. If we want a sensible VoIP policy in Britain, now would be a good time to ask the regulatory body for it.

Which include - What does the future hold? and Have we forgotton about anything?

One thing I'd say they don't discuss is vunerbility to things like DDOS attacks... they also don't comment on phone tapping (Though that's covered in other legislation it would be good to have included the relavant pointer here)

How many people have a connection which is so bad they really benefit from this?

Yeah, what morons. Imagine if TV shows and movies used real phone numbers (instead of the agreed 555 prefix). Interestingly, the UK also has reserved numbers for dramatic purposes, but they're not quite so obviously fake. See here for details.

Out of interest, what do you mean when you say that BT is "to a certain extent" controlled by the UK government?

There is certainly regulation of the telecommunications industry, but I struggle to see how it can be called control.

The burden of proof should lie with the accuser (even though, let's not forget, we're actually discussing an administrative procedure, rather than a criminal prosecution). That means that they should be able to present evidence in support of their case. That's really a separate issue from "who has to maintain the historical record". I think that it's perfectly appropriate that the braodcasters should bear that responsibility.

If the historical record contains evidence which supports the accuser's case, I think that they should be able to call upon it (similar, I suppose, to subpoenaing it). The broadcasters aren't being forced to incriminate themselves: the tape might be incriminating evidence, but that's a different thing.

It's also worth noting that in most cases there seems to be little or no dispute about what was broadcast (I'm basing this on a cursory study of the FCC's website, and particularly this pdf, and a marginally more detailed look at its UK equivalent's website). The dispute is much more often about whether what was broadcast was or was not indecent or offensive in context.

(although they do have to support 9600bps data rates, who wants to surf at that speed.)

I think it only has to be 2400bps here (UK), at least thats what I remember being told and what this suggests on page 11 (pdf), but I didnt read all of it :)

It works the same way over here, with the IT^H^HOfcom. Ofcom are not allowed to investigate any programme or TV advert until somebody complains. In the past, Mary Whitehouse's Mediawatch almost always complained about everything, but they've given up on that now (too costly and pointless).

It does give rise to some fairly funny complaints, such as that time when a TV commercial for toilet paper which showed lots of adult asses was complained about for being "attractive to paedophiles"...aye, that person was a cretin...

Cell-phone jammers are illegal in the UK - end of story. Quote :

In the last two years the Radiocommunications Agency has become aware of devices, being marketed around the world, that can block mobile phone calls. These devices transmit radio signals that prevent communications between cellular handsets and cellular base stations. It is illegal to install or use these devices in the UK. Use of these devices constitutes an offence contrary to sections 1 (unlicensed use) and 13 (deliberate interference) of the Wireless Telegraphy 1949 Act. Any outlets marketing such devices in the UK may be prosecuted for inciting the public to commit offences. The cellular operators are licensed to provide a mobile telephone service throughout the UK. Cellular phones are used for a variety of business and public applications, and cellular customers expect to be able to make and receive telephone calls within the coverage areas provided by the operators. The Agency will take all necessary steps to ensure that cellphone jammers are not used in the UK.

Key quote here is : Any outlets marketing such devices in the UK may be prosecuted for inciting the public to commit offences..

Anyone trying to sell these in the UK would be due a visit from the OFCOM Storm Troopers.

As our name suggests, we're independent of the Government and of the broadcasters. We are funded by fees from our licensees, of which there are around 300 who between them hold nearly 600 licences.

The Radio Authority licenses commercial radio broadcasts in the UK.
The Radiocommuniactions Agency is "responsible for the management of the non-military radio spectrum in the UK."
At some point this year both jobs are due to be taken over by the new OFCOM, which will also take on the roles currently performed by OFTEL, the Broadcasting Standards Commission, and the Independent Television Commission (see their sites for what they do.)