r-tr

CONTENTS

INTERMEDIAEDITORIAL BOARD

HOPETON S. DUNN Ph.D.University of the West Indies

SHEHINA FAZAlLondon Metropolitan University

GARY GUMPERTProfessor Emeritus,

Queens College, New York

Dr. MARK HUKillUniversity of Hawaii

GUNNUlF B. MARTENSONEpstar Ltd, Finland

IAN McGillAustralian telecomsand media lawyer

HANS-WERNER MORITZGerman lawyer

PROFESSOR VINCENT PORTERUniversity of Westminster (Ret'd)

AUGUSTO PRETAItalian communications consultant

ANTHONY SMITHPresident of Magdalen College,

Oxford

TIMOSAARIDirector of Research at Finland's

Alma Media corporation

REX WINSBURYJournalist and consultant

ANDREW TAUSSIGEx Director of Foreign Language

Services, BBC World Service

Dr PETROS IOSIFIDISCity University, UK

Policy news

4 A round-up of worldwide developments

Special report: content for mobiles

6 A case of deja vu?New proposals on audiovisual content go over the same groundcovered in the debate over regulating the internet. By Intermediaeditor, Martin Sims

8 Happy slaps: problem or panic?Articles about happy slapping - the supposed new craze ofvideoing assaults on a mobile phone - Ilave dominated the UKmedia in recent months. Are new policies needed to tackle thisalarming consequence of teenage enthusiasm for new mobiletechnologies? Graham Barnfield urges caution

12 Another attempt to regulate the internet?Plans to modernise the Television without Frontiers Directive by2007 are coming under increasing scrutiny with both memberstates and industry voicing serious concern. By Pamela Whitby

16 The 3G roadmap3G growtll is being driven by customers desire to see movingimages. And music videos, sports clips and gaming are just thestart says Bob Fuller, Chief Executive of 3

21 Protecting minors, offering choice and max-imising commercial opportunitiesConcert about mobile content posing risks to children hasprompted co-regulatory and self regulatory initiatives by opera-tors. Caroline Dewing explains Vodafone's approach

Telecoms

26 Linking mobile phone ownership and use tosocial capital in rural South Africa andTanzaniaIn the second of two extracts from a Vodafone report DavidGoodman considers the impact of mobile phones on socialnorms and networks.

2 October 2005 Volume 33 Number 4 www.iicom.or

EDITORIAL

Regulating mobile content

l{)

ooN

~C:>E§uc(1l

~e:>

W@

~.ca.

time this was mooted. (see Caroline Dewing's article)On the other hand as the supremacy of TV is toppledby new technologies don't we have to ensure thatthe protection of minors and the consumer is notcompromised?

Graham Barnfield's article points to what is per-haps the the most difficult part of the whole debate.What do you do about self-generated content? Atwhat point does a keen forwarder of mobile videofootage become a broadcaster? Complex issuescertainly, and ones that will stimulate debate waybeyond the 2007 deadline for updating the Directive.

Due to a shortage of space the follow up to BillJames' article on digital media will appear in ournext issue.

ew policy proposals can have caused as big-ger stir as the recent framework proposed byEuropean Commissioner Viviane Reding for

updating the Television without Fontiers Directive. Tocut a long story short they recommend imposing mini-mum requirements on the delivery of audiovisual con-tent via new media i.e. mobiles, the internet and anyother future means of delivery. There has been strongopposition from industry, who argue this is resurrectingthe same proposals for regulating the internet whichwere ditched as impractical only a few years ago. (Fordetails see Policy News section and Pamela Whitby'sstory) In this issue we concentrate on the problemsposed by regulating mobile content.

There are certainly huge problems with enforcingregulation of internet and mobile services - not justin terms of jurisdiction, but also the sheer volume ofcomplaints which could be generated. Industry selfregulation was widely seen as the answer the last Martin Sims martin@iicom.org

...as thesupremacy oftv is toppled bynew technolo-gies, don't wehave to ensurethat the protec-tion of minorsand the con-sumer is notcompromised?

Editor: MartinSims Contributing Editor: PamelaWhitby Design: VictoriaHogg

Annual subscriptions: 1:169.00for 12 months and 1:310.00for 24 months.Middle and low income countries: L75.oo for 12 months.

InternationallnstiMe of Communications, Regent House, 24-25 Nutfon! Place, London W1H 5YN,UKTelephone: +44 (0)20 7323 9622 Facsimile: +44 (0)20 7323 9623

Intermedia online: http://www.iicom.org Archive password: halibut

Printed in Englandby H. Charlesworth& Co Ltd, 254 DeightonRoad,Huddersffeld,HD21JJThe IICpublishesIntermediato providea forum for a wide rangeof peopleand views;

Intermediadoes not necessanlyreflectthe opinionsof IICofficers,trusteesand members.Credit quotationsas source: Intermedia,the Journalof the InternationalInstituteof Communications© 2002 ISSN0309 11 ax

www.iicom.or April 2005 Volume 33 Number 2 3

POLICY NEWS

Creativity of UK TV underthreat claims new reportThe winning formula

of UK broadcasting- a mixed economy

grounded by a strong publicservice broadcaster is beingthreatened by the BBC's lackof control over content rights,according to a new report.

'The Tipping Point: HowMuch is Broadca t Creativityat Risk?' has been produced byThe Work Foundation researdlcon ultancy and commissionedby the BBC. It argues thataudiences are shifting awayfrom passively consumingprogrammes at set time andincreasingly want to acce sandinteract witll content throughn w platforms. For a broad-caster to be able to deliver crea-tive programmiJlg in this newcontext, it must own the rightto the content.

However, the Communica-tions Act 2003 ha seen thebalance tip in favour of theindependent ector a thebroadcaster has to pay forright on top. With the intro-duction of the Window ofCreative Competition (WoCC)that will open up a further 25%of th.e BBC programming toindependents, the balance willtip further and risks damagingin-house creativity.

The internationaltrade in rights hasshifted the incen-

tivesforindependentproducers to seekreturnable formatswith rights that canbe exploited interna-

tionally.

'For the BB , digitali ationcreate gr at pportunitito u e all typ of content indiver e way thr ugh a pi th-ora of ne, platform. Howeverto be master of it. own de. -tiny in thi r gard r quir itto have control over. uffi ientcontent,' say th r port' co-author atalie Turn r

The intcrnati nal trade inrights ha hift d the incentivfor indep ndent producers toe k r turnable f rmats with

right that can be exploit dinternationally. This has impli-cations for th creativity ofthe sector, particularly if thehareholders of n wly float d

companies insist on a buinesmod I that mphasi' . 1 wri k, r -sellabl format V the tgives quick r turns on theirinveshll nt.

A further pot ntial conquenc of th e chang . in thebroadca tiJlg land. cape i , thereport conclud , that a tippingpoint will bra h d wh r iti difficul t to ju tify in-h u.production at th BB andexclu jv acc to the licencfee in the run up to th nextCharter R vi w. Th ri k i thatthe BBC will b hollow d outas a creative organi ation, 10 -ing tal nt to th independ ntector, unabl to b innova-

tive with th ir rvice a th yown few night and p ndingmore of their budg t on buyingback right.

A Aine O'K He, report co-author, ay, 'It i importantthat policy mak r recognisethe ri ks of th current mar-ket dynamic to publi valuebroadca ting and attempt to

...a tipping point willbe reached where itis difficult to justifyin-house produc-

tion at the BBCandexclusive access to

the licence fee

r balance some of the elementswithin the current architec-ture.'

The report concludes thatthe potential consequencesmerit a r - xamination of theWo and proposes a numberof measure to enhance thecreativity of the broadcasting. ector. The danger is that thereha been set in train a numberof 'v nt' that will ultimatelydamage the UK' capacity to bea world leader in the industry.

The report ugge ts that then w commissioning frame-work - the WoCC - is rebal-anc d within a narrower tota.lcommissioned output downfrom 50% to a.round 40% or30% with some flexibilityacross genre .

'Thi would allow the inde-pendent ector to grow with-out harming the organisationaland individua.1 O'eativity of theBB ,'say Will Hutton, TheWork Foundahon's Chief Exec-uti ve and report co-au thor.'Looking to 2016 and the nextcharter renewal this will helpen ure the optiJnum outcome- more and better public valuebroadcasting and a thrivingand growing creative inde-pendent sector.'

4 Volume 33 Number 4 October 2005 www.iicom.or

POLICY NEWS

Mobile and DSL playersangry over TWF reform

The rural/urbandigital divide

ew content player ar con-cerned that extendiJ1g th Tele-vision without Fron ti.er Dir c-tive to all deliv ry sy tern willmean extra r gul.ati n with uttackling the real prohl. m hin-dering the growth of a Europ -wide e-content indu try.

Acce to 01 dia c nt ntright i a critical a pect tothe development of any n waudio-vi ual policy, but ommobil and internet play· rfeel thi ha b en ov rlook d inrecent European Commi ionproposals to mod rni andupdate exi ting legi lation.

The Television withoutFrontiers (TWF) dir cti v of1989 currently appl.i only toervice under th traditional

broadcasting umbr 11a(whatthe Ee ha defined as "linear").Plan are now af ot to tendthe net to non traditional rv-ices - these are more difficult todefine but include tho d liv-ered via mobile or th !nt rn t(non-linear). Six paper ha ebeen released detail.ing the"issues" at stake: the cop ofthe l1ew directive; ad verti -ing, rights to infonnation, cul-tural diver ity, plurali m anddemocracy and prot cHon ofminors.

The overall f ling amongmobile pIayers i tha t the TWFproposals are doing notrung totackle a key problem - encour-aging investment. 'Ow taTtingpoint i that th re i air admore than enough regulationof mobile in a comp titiveenvironment. Ii the TWF dir -tive i going to replace ome-thing whid1 affec u now, in

mobile at least it is not it is notclear what that is/ says MikShort, O? Vice President andchairma;:;- of the Mobile DataA ociation.

What Short i very clearabout i that th que tion ofright and acce to right

Th European Comrni ioni putting forward a new visionof the digital divide, arguingtha t the 010 t significan t d if-f r nce i· between rural andurban area.

In January 2005, broadbandwa available to 90% of theurban population in the Euro-p an Economic Area (EEA),bu t t nl 62% of the ruralpopulation

Reducing the gap is anurg nt priority for th.e InfoSocand Media ommis jonerVivian Reding. "Broadbandi k Yto our competitivenes ,"h ay, arguing that high-

'p d broadband are vital tothe Commission's i2010 inita-tive to generat growth andjobs in the digital economy.Broadband al 0 fo ter Europa a ro -border community,by making it asi r to formc mmunitie of intere t, irre-p cti of g graphic loca-

ti n "I urge the Governmentsf mb r Stat to act now,o that all hou eholds and

r quir muh more attentionthan some of the suggestionsfor th n w TWF directive.Howev r, legal observer saythi i out ide th cope of theTW.

For m r d tail on reactiontoth TWF proposals see p12.

bu in that need and wantbroadband acces. t the webcan obtain it a oon a po-ibl," ay R ding.Stakehold r , EU Mem-

ber Stat and I all regionalauthoriti . a r invi t d to con-tribut th ir view to a con ul-tation n thi i u . Th Com-mi ion' propo al are et outin a taff working pap r called"Broadband a ce and publicupport i11 Lmd r- rved area ".

Th pap r explain the proand on of gov mm nt initia-tive for e t nding broadbandcov rag and conclud that,although commercial forceare e pected to driv furtherbroadband d ployment, somearea are lik Iy to suffer d layor b c1ud d. Public projectaimingat xt ndingbroadbanddeployment ar b st focusedon addr . ing I cal n ed anddemand. Furth rm r , initia-tives to wid n coverage houldb compl 01 nted by otheracti.on lik r training p pIor prom ling eBu in

www.iicom.or October 2005 Volume 33 Number 4 5