Broadband News
News, views and analysis
Digital Britain: journalists don't get Carter
22 Jun 2009 | 16.43 Europe/London
Lord Carter says around ninety per cent of the journalists writing about Digital Britain just aren't on the same page as him - in fact, he thinks they haven't read his report at all. And in the wake of all the speculation about his own future, it has emerged that the communications minister - who's very much on his way out of Government thanks to his own choosing - will be heading off to France in the summer.
"I think 90% of the people that are writing these articles have not read the report," Lord Carter told The Guardian. "But that does not stop them producing 2,500 [articles], almost all of which are inaccurate. There is a conflation of what we are recommending on broadband, there is a blatant inaccuracy in [covering] what we are saying on local news, there is no attempt to read what is laid out [regarding delivery] in complete detail in chapter nine."
While his Lordship could be on the right track, you have to wonder how much thought was put into the PR aspect of launching the report: it seems unlikely the failings of the press to "get" Carter could solely rest with the reporters themselves - why else do press officers exist? "Yes, it's a complicated subject and it covers a lot of ground, but I would have expected some people to have said 'this is a long and complicated subject and I have not read it all', as opposed to 'here are 700 words that I have cranked out because I have got a deadline,'" he continues.
You have to wonder whether Carter wanted any press coverage at all - ninety per cent of journalists wouldn't have time to read his report thoroughly. Did he want to switch on the TV and have a newsreader tell him "Digital Britain's out today and nobody's had time to read it. We don't know what it's about - and neither does anyone else - but at least the "Digital Britain" USB stick graphic is less controversial that the 2012 Olympics logo"? Not reading 238 page reports is what keeps journalists in jobs these days - hardly anyone can afford to pay them to do it. (Which isn't to say that journalists aren't guilty of cutting corners; we've heard reports of them hounding the anointed Digital Britain "experts" for a quote - "anything at all.")
Carter's already feeling philosophical about the job that's still his: "The truth of the matter is you cannot win, so you do what you think is right." “New ministers arrive, take a brief and run with it,” he told The Times. "The next stage [of Digital Britain] is a much more traditional role of political and Whitehall delivery. I am not a professional politician and I have never had an ambition to be one.” And to The Guardian, he gave a more succinct: "I will finish this job and then I will go to France." In reality, whether he had always planned to leave at this juncture or not, the news that he was quitting - emerging just days before Digital Britain was published - may have done more damage to his report's credibility than any journalist could.
Further details at [The Guardian] & [The Times]
"I think 90% of the people that are writing these articles have not read the report," Lord Carter told The Guardian. "But that does not stop them producing 2,500 [articles], almost all of which are inaccurate. There is a conflation of what we are recommending on broadband, there is a blatant inaccuracy in [covering] what we are saying on local news, there is no attempt to read what is laid out [regarding delivery] in complete detail in chapter nine."
While his Lordship could be on the right track, you have to wonder how much thought was put into the PR aspect of launching the report: it seems unlikely the failings of the press to "get" Carter could solely rest with the reporters themselves - why else do press officers exist? "Yes, it's a complicated subject and it covers a lot of ground, but I would have expected some people to have said 'this is a long and complicated subject and I have not read it all', as opposed to 'here are 700 words that I have cranked out because I have got a deadline,'" he continues.
You have to wonder whether Carter wanted any press coverage at all - ninety per cent of journalists wouldn't have time to read his report thoroughly. Did he want to switch on the TV and have a newsreader tell him "Digital Britain's out today and nobody's had time to read it. We don't know what it's about - and neither does anyone else - but at least the "Digital Britain" USB stick graphic is less controversial that the 2012 Olympics logo"? Not reading 238 page reports is what keeps journalists in jobs these days - hardly anyone can afford to pay them to do it. (Which isn't to say that journalists aren't guilty of cutting corners; we've heard reports of them hounding the anointed Digital Britain "experts" for a quote - "anything at all.")
Carter's already feeling philosophical about the job that's still his: "The truth of the matter is you cannot win, so you do what you think is right." “New ministers arrive, take a brief and run with it,” he told The Times. "The next stage [of Digital Britain] is a much more traditional role of political and Whitehall delivery. I am not a professional politician and I have never had an ambition to be one.” And to The Guardian, he gave a more succinct: "I will finish this job and then I will go to France." In reality, whether he had always planned to leave at this juncture or not, the news that he was quitting - emerging just days before Digital Britain was published - may have done more damage to his report's credibility than any journalist could.
Further details at [The Guardian] & [The Times]
For once I actually totally agree with Lord Carter. In the aftermath of the report being published I have read many articles written by so called 'tech' reporters who don't know a bit from a byte. I read one the other day by the bbc who said a village in ireland had fibre to the home delivered by 'carbon fibre' haha.
The trouble is that not many people actually understand what broadband is, they don't want to know either... they just expect to get it if they pay for it, just like water and electric. Broadband is now a utility.
Also whilst we are on the subject of Lord Carter, I am not sure he has listened to the right people in making his report. Ofcom and BT have their own agendas to address, and providing next gen access is obviously not one of them otherwise they would have done it. Generating revenue from an obsolete legacy phone network is more their style. If they thought more about the future instead of their shareholders we might get somewhere. Lord Carter needs to bring them to book. Then he can go to france.
29 Jun 2009 | 09.17 Europe/London
"If they thought more about the future instead of their shareholders" - they should be fired. They're employed by the shareholders after all.
29 Jun 2009 | 20.42 Europe/London
My thoughts on the report, and yes I have read it, is that it’s a step in the right direction albeit the direction most of us in the industry would have preferred to avoid. The simple point is that this country is so far behind when it comes to digital services that we are simply a laughing stock. I recently meet with two professors from Tokyo University who came over to Britain to discuss our approach to digital services to new homes. As we are a major government regeneration agency it was interesting to get their views on our approach. Needless to say that the approach the professors had is something that would be impossible in the UK purely due to money and politics, but the interesting fact to the professors was we could not guarantee broadband or digital services to any of our developments. They found this incredible that something as important as broadband for all its uses is not consider as requirement but more of an opportunity to generate cash or if fortunate enough for BT and others to be interested. I felt embarrassed at this point to say that’s the unfortunate predicament the UK is facing. However the digital report has moved us closer to that dream of all housing both existing and new will receive an infrastructure to support the digital age. But I must say that this is the only part I agree with, stating 2Mb as a minimum is a poor target in anyone’s standard particularly the ridicules contention and asymmetrical setup this country has. I do believe the report could have been more adventures and instead of stating 2Mb and worrying about copyright laws it could have set us one step above the rest, but alas it didn’t.
30 Jun 2009 | 13.27 Europe/London
I have to disagree that "we could not guarantee broadband or digital services to any of our developments.". You can have any amount of connectivity anywhere if you're prepared to pay for it. If you are a major regeneration agency why are you not providing such a service or mandating that it is provided by the contractors that build your developments. It is you that are failing here, don't try to pass it on to someone else.
01 Jul 2009 | 10.01 Europe/London
Just how many shares in BT have you got Phil? If the govt say we have next gen broadband then that is what should be provided. If they came clean and said you can only have it if you are prepared to pay for it yourselves then fine, we know where we stand. It is time somebody stood up and told the truth. The current infrastructure is not capable of delivering Next Gen Access. End of.
03 Jul 2009 | 11.52 Europe/London
If the Government wants something it can either pay for it or try to make it a legal obligation. They don't have any real control ove rmany issues including this one.
If WGuile isin "a major government regeneration agency" why are they not providing the infrastructure ?
04 Jul 2009 | 10.37 Europe/London