Informationoverlord

Last week , Ms Julie Steele, Head of Fraud, Risk and Security, Vodafone UK, Mr Adrian Gorham, Group Head of Fraud, Security and Business Continuity, Telefonica O2, and Mr James Blendis, Vice President Legal, Everything Everywhere (Orange UK and T-Mobile UK) appeared in front of the Home Affairs Committee investigation on UNAUTHORISED TAPPING INTO OR HACKING OF MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS.

The main thrust of questioning was did you tell your customers that their phones / voicemails might have been hacked? They were answering questions in the knowledge that Yates of the Yard had in his evidence said he had assumed that the phone operators would have contacted the victims/potential victims.

Did you tell your customers that they had been hacked?

Ms Steele (Vodafone): “… in order to not jeopardise any police inquiry, we didn’t make that information public… nobody who was involved in the case at the time has any recollection of us being asked to contact victims. I would like to remind you that we actually do not know exactly who the victims are because we do not have all the evidence.”
Mr Gorham (02): ” We made a decision that we would contact those customers and tell them the results of our investigation … We can see where calls are going and from that we can identify our customers who might have been affected. I cannot say that they were definitely affected, but they might have been affected …We told the Metropolitan Police first that that was what we were going to do …They asked us to delay that contact for a short period of time … We then contacted our customers and informed them.”
Mr Blendis (EE): ” No, no. We did not contact customers. We would never contact customers as part of a police investigation … We would always be under an assumption that we should not contact customers. There are a number of circumstances in which that could prejudice the investigation and we would never do that.”

The Committee were keen to push Mr Blendis further on the reasons why EE would not contact customers, and asked if the companies attitude wasn’t complacent?

Mr Blendis: “I don’t think that we did nothing. We respond to our obligations to the police; we provide them with the records. It is up to the police to investigate-”
Q: All right, that is your obligations to the police, but what about to your customers?
Mr Blendis: “Well, as I said, we have to be careful not to prejudice those investigations….We had no instruction to contact customers. We had no permission to contact customers.”

Mr Blendis then in response to the question, Did you ask the police at any point when you might be able to contact customers you thought might be at risk?, said yes as part of the new investigation, but that the company had not received an answer to that latter (dated Nov 2nd). This looked bad for the police, until the committee read the actual letter, which is actual a response to a previous police letter. “You answer all the questions-essentially highlighting the fact that you have not spoken to anybody-and it seems to fit with a very different line from what you suggested to us. This is a letter confirming that you haven’t. There is nothing here asking, “Can we talk to our customers?” You make it very, very clear that you wish to play no role in contacting customers unless directly instructed to.”

Mr Blendis: “No, it was never our understanding that we should contact customers-quite the contrary …We said if you can confirm the owner-subscriber of the calling numbers and the reason you believe they were calling numbers potentially unlawfully accessed, we will attempt to make contact to explain that we have been requested to inform them.”

Q: Unlike Vodafone and O2, are you saying that you have no obligations to Orange and T-Mobile customers and that if you have not been advised by police not to contact them, you wouldn’t do so?
Mr Blendis: “I think it is fair to say that we have a conflict. We have a conflict between what we would like our duties to our customers to be-to inform them and help them-and our duties to a confidential investigation …the customers could be the criminals-they could be the hackers. If we were to take it upon ourselves to make contact with the people who we think are the victims but in fact by doing so we simply tip off the hackers, we would prejudice the investigation.”

The Committee then asked if it might not be an idea for the industry to have be one model that everyone follows in a circumstance like this.

Mr Gorham: “My view would be that if a customer is a victim of crime, or we believe there is a crime being committed against them, we have an obligation to contact that customer, but what we must do is just keep sure that that does not compromise an investigation. There is always that check and balance, but we would always tell a customer if we think they have been a victim.”
Ms Steele: “Again, as I said earlier, we would not want to prejudice an ongoing police inquiry or any future legal action. I think, as is the case here, if there is still legal action ongoing from a number of customers-whether it is civil or otherwise-we would still be in a position where, without having the definitive information from the police of who the victims are, we would not contact them.”

Alun Michael asked Mr Blendis about the default position: ” I understand that if the police say, “We don’t want you to contact customers because that could compromise our investigations,” that would put you in a situation where you have specific responsibilities, but unless there has been that specific request, is not the default position that you should contact a customer whose account has been compromised?” Mr Blendis replied he was not sure he agreed. Mr Micheal pushed the point, “Unless there is a request from the police for you not to do something for a period of time, because there is an investigation that might be compromised, is it not your obligation to inform your customers if you know that their account has been compromised?” No, according to Mr Blendis: “Our obligation is also to the police”. Mr Micheal continued ” if there has not been a request by the police for you not to disclose to the customer. Surely you then have an obligation to disclose to the customer?”
Again no, it seems.

Mr Blendis: “I don’t think it is that straightforward. If a customer’s records are subject to the police inquiry, we don’t know what the scope of that inquiry is. We do deal with thousands of requests-hundreds of thousands a year. They are part of all sorts of investigations into all sorts of criminal activities.”

So there you have it. 02 thinks if someone has hacked or potentially hacked you phone/voicemail, you have a right to know. Vodafone and Everything Everywhere (Orange/T-Mobile) on the other hand don’t, and seem to be implying it isn’t even their responsibility to do so, unless told to do so by the Police.

Charles Arthur in the Guardian had an interesting post on T-Mobile’s decision to impose a 500MB data cap on all smartphone. He picks the odd announcement apart better than I could, including pointing out that it seems to have been written by someone who has no idea how the internet works, or indeed how to make their new ‘plan’ clear – as they seem to be saying that you can ‘browse’ (by their definition) as much as you like even if you go over the new data cap, but that doing anything that is not ‘browsing’ (by their definition) means that’ll be blocked once you hit 500MB (inc browsing). So, anyone that has a mobile TV sub, may as well stick it straight in the bin.

I’m also presuming all future smart phone ads for T-mobile will only show people looking at static internet pages and nothing else. Better not be showing them watching video or anything like that.

The most interesting thing for me, as a T-Mobile user (and I have not had an email or text from T-Mobile telling me anything yet) is that the announcement says “From 1st February 2011 we will be aligning our fair use policies so our mobile internet service will have fair use of 500MB.”

They can do this, because the terms and conditions that we all have to sign say they can.

Section 7.1.3 of Pay Monthly T&Cs state that, “We can suspend, change or withdraw your Price Plan or price plan services.” Annoying, but clear enough. However it also says ” We will give you written notice one calendar month before we do so.”

This is where the 1st of February date becomes more interesting. Do T-Mobile mean, that they started contacting customers from 1 Jan to tell them about this change, and that the switchover to the new data cap will be gradually introduced based on the dates people were ‘written’ to? I do hope so, otherwise if they plan to change everyone’s data cap on 1st Feb, then they will clearly be in breach of their own contracts T&Cs which clearly require 30 days written notice.

Update

No sooner do I post this, then T-Mobile posts this:

T-Mobile Statement:

“On Monday 10 January 2011 we announced that, in line with the rest of the industry, T-Mobile would be reducing its Fair Use Policy for data usage to 500MB a month for all mobile phone customers. Following a further review of our policy, these changes will now be introduced from 1 February, to new and upgrading customers only - not existing customers.

There will be no change to the data packages for existing customers  for the duration of their contract and we apologise for any confusion caused. The revision to the Fair Use Policy is designed to ensure an improved quality of service for all mobile internet users.”

 Lysa Hardy, VP, T-Mobile UK

Love the ‘Following a further review of our policy’ line. Alos quite like the ‘in line with the rest of the industry’ line too - Guessing ‘3′ who announced they were ditching data limits are not part of the T-Mobile’s industry anymore then?

I have just returned from a 12 day holiday in Spain – my first with my HTC Desire, and I learned a few things that, if you own one, you should be aware of if you plan to data roam with one.

1) Unless it is hidden somewhere, you do not seem to have a function – such as that found on the iPhone where you can measure your data usage – nor reset it, so that you can easily monitor it from your phone when abroad, so that you know exactly how much data (and therefore associated cost) you are consuming/using. This is more of a pain that I imagined it would be. A win for the iPhone.

2) The problem with having apps that can run in the background, is that they will if you either don’t disable them – not as easy as you’d imagine; I created a ’scene’ [For those not familiar with HTC phones, it is kind of like a separate user profile] for my holiday to select specific apps I’d want/need for holiday –this didn’t stop Messenger opening by itself in the background, even though I had not added it to this specific ’scene’.

3) Make sure that you have unticked ‘Enable always on mobile data’ in the settings on your phone, if you have it switched on. I had –albeit – stupidly forgotten about this. The result? I bought a T-Mobile data add on for the trip of 50MB for £10 [which is their suggested ‘monthly’ usage tariff: you could by daily and weekly smaller amounts]. I checked by gmail once, uploaded one pic to facebook, checked twitter twice, checked into Foursquare twice, and yet in less than 48hours T-Mobile told me I’d used up my data allowance. The reason was that the BBC app, Messenger, and various other things on the phone were not only happily loading and running themselves in the background, but they were also merely downloading an updates and rechecking for updates in the background too, using up my data allowance in the process. Had I still been on 02, with their £3 per mb charges up to a max monthly charge of £40 for using 50MB, I would have seriously been out of pocket. A win for T-Mobile

4) Once I had turned off ‘Enable always on mobile data’, and also when to only turning on data roaming at all when I actually needed it – everything worked a treat.

Conclusion

The HTC Desire is not as straightforward as the iPhone is to make yourself ’safe’ from a roaming standpoint or to monitor your data usage. But if you’re going to make mistakes it pays not to be on O2 when you do them. Hat’s off to T-Mobile.

A few months ago, I decided to leave the world of Apple and my lovely iPhone 3G and see what life was like on the Google Android side of the street, with the HTC Desire. I liked it from the off but did have some minor gripes and annoyances that some of the apps I liked best on the iPhone didn’t have Android versions. But that passed.

I am now over the iPhone. This weekend I decided to let my girlfriend have my 3G and in the process my love for the HTC Desire grew and grew and here is why.

Setting up my old iPhone 3G for my girlfriend to use.

1) Reset phone and wipe all content.
2) Download and install iTunes and girlfriends netbook – she doesn’t need to listen to music on her netbook, she doesn’t want to listen to music on her netbook, but now has a pointless piece of software taking up space on it)
3) Put girlfriend’s SIM in iPhone
4) Connect iPhone to Netbook
5) Enter unlock code for SIM
6) Unconnect iPhone
7) Re-Connect iPhone
Software updates
9) Wait for phone authorisation
10) Phone starts syncing
11) iTunes informs me that software upgrade (4.0) available. Would I like to install.
12) Phone Authorised
13) Download and install 4.0
14) Restart iPhone
15) Unlock SIM
16) Unconnect iPhone
17) Re-Connect iPhone
18) Unlock SIM
19) Wait for phone authorisation
20) Software updates
21) Sync iPhone
22)Phone authorised
23) Set up email
24) Try to remember the work around to set up Google Calendars to sync (use MS Exchange)
25) Download some apps.
26) Turn off needless sounds, set preferences.
27) Finish.

All in all this took around 2hours from start to finish. It was a huge pain in the arse, and serves no purpose other than to try and make sure you can’t do anything without Apple’s say so. I know it has been said before, but WHY do I need to do all this to use a PHONE.

I suddenly found that whilst going through the process of setting things up for my girlfriend that, whilst I had been telling people that I had no regrets moving from the iPhone to the HTC Desire because it was a better Phone, I now genuinely not only believed it but meant it too. Trying to solve the calendar problem was a case in point. I was in Calendars but there was no way to access the calendar settings from where I was on the iPhone. To do that I have to exit the application, click the Settings icon and go through there. On the Desire I hit menu from the application and I get access to the settings and various other things. (Yes, I can access them in the same way as I could on the iPhone too, but unlike the iPhone I can access them when I’m IN any app, right there and then).

I also really like having a couple of REAL buttons on my phone. The optical tracker thing on the Desire is really not needed and totally pointless, but the Menu, Home and back/search buttons are great.

I still think the iPhone is a WONDERFUL thing. I loved having one, I will probably have on again at some point in the future, but at the moment I don’t see a compelling reason to have one – especially not an iPhone 4. Hold the iPhone 4 in your hand and then hold any previous iPhone or the Desire in your hand, and I’ll tell you which will feel better, more natural and more comfortable – and it wont be the iPhone 4. The squaring up of the iPhone 4 looks good, but doesn’t feel good. Even from a software stand point, if you have the 3GS, you can get all the advantages of the new iPhone 4 without the downsides – Unless you want FaceTime, so you can have face-to-face video calls. If you do, you’re weird, but, hey. (I don’t really do this v often on my PC/Mac, so I don’t see need to do so on my phone).

But don’t I still have app envy?

The apps are better on the iPhone people keep telling me. There’s more and they’re better. Now, there are indeed some better apps on the iPhone and some that are still ONLY on the iPhone, but it’s not a one way street, and whilst I would still say that the Facebook and Twitter apps for the iPhone are still better than their Android counterparts, if I look to YouTube (The HTC has flash support. Yes Apple the world maybe moving the HTML5 but in the meantime most video is still using flash, and I own my phone now not 2-5 years from now), LastFM, Spotify and others then Android wins hands down. For lots of other things there is little or no difference. [I do miss the official Guardian app though – Android unofficial app is ok, but not the same]

Making Calls: Both less than dazzling on that front I’d say, and the generic Google Phone is better than the HTC’d version for that due to good noise cancellation – so Android wins at least, if neither phone actually does.

Now, all is not rosey. The Desire does get a little hot under the collar. Not unusual for a smart phone these days but it gets hotter than it should do. The metallic brown paint job is also starting to get scratched – despite the phone living in an HTC pouch. This is fine, but it is likely to look the worse for ware after 18 months, whereas my iPhone 3G, even after 2 years still looks brand new.

I suppose we – as consumers – are now getting lucky. When I got my iPhone there wasn’t really any genuine match for it. Now, there are several things that can match it for some things, beat it for others, and trail behind it for other things. But it is no longer an unchallenged champion. For the moment I think the HTC Desire is at least as good as if not possibly better than the iPhone. In 13 months when I need a new phone will I get another HTC? Maybe. I may get an iPhone4S. I may get a Samsung, or something entirely different again. It is an exciting time to be owning a phone/smart phone.

As of yesterday afternoon I ceased to be an 02 iPhone customer and became a fully fledged T-Mobile HTC Desire customer, when my old phone number was ported over. Up until that point – for the previous few days – I had been enjoying playing with the Desire on T-mobile on the number that came with the phone whilst continuing to use my iPhone as my main phone. Fun and nice way of getting up to speed. So on receiving my first text on the desire yesterday I was happy and ready to really start putting the phone through its paces. This feeling lasted around 5 minutes, until I noticed that the phone seemed not to be able to connect to the internet or find a 3g connection.

I figured just a glitch. By 6 hours later and having tried various things detailed below, I figured the glitch was more than that.

Ever since my number was ported my phone’s ability to get any 3G connection has vanished.

I checked my settings: Menue – Settings – Wireless & Networks … Mobile Network (use phone for data connection when Wi-Fi is unavailable) … box ticked [check]; Mobile Networks (set up for roaming, networks, APNs…) …Data Roaming … box ticked [check] ; Network Operators – T-mobile showing [check]; Network mode …GSM/WCDMA auto selected [check]. Phone finding a WCDMA (3g) connection?? – not if its and my life depended on it.

Turned off phone – took out SIM, datacard, battery – replaced all and restarted. No difference.

I phoned 150 from my phone to get help and choose the right number to hear about set up issues etc. If I have a problem with picture messaging or Internet all I needed to do, I was told, was text ‘fix me’ to 34963. So I did. I got an almost immediate reply ‘We’re sorry but the service you requested is not available at the moment. Please try later or go to www.t-mobile.co.uk/fixme to configure your phone online.

And so off I went. Start ‘troubleshooter’

First pick your phone … oh. Ok, so the Desire’s not on there. Click I can’t find my phone listed. “We don’t appear to have your phone in the list, but if you give us your make and model details we’ll look to include it in the next release of our tool.” Ok, so your most high profile new phone release in god knows when and you don’t bother to sort out proper support for it before you launch it. Brilliant. I love the way you run your business, T-mobile. I then get a box to enter my phone model and my message. I wasn’t overly praising of their operation.

Oh, and that’s it, they don’t then suggest anything else at this point such as calling them again or visiting one of their shops to perhaps solve the problem – nada.

To say that I am already less than impressed with T-Mobile is a rather large understatement. The problem I am having may turn out to be phone based rather that T-Mobile based but T-Mobile are not making it very easy for me to find out. I now need to find a T-mobile shop, and see if anyone in a shop can help me before turning to HTC, which the delightful Jaffne has recently written about in equally glowing terms.

The Conservative party have published their technology manifesto, which they hope will win over those in and with an interest in the technology industries ahead of the upcoming general election. The manifesto includes commitments to:

On the topic de jour - digital piracy - the party are strangely vague merely stating “We recognise the need to tackle digital piracy and make it possible for people to buy and sell digital intellectual property online. However it is vital that any anti-piracy measures promote new business models rather than holding innovation back.”

Nothing really new in the manifesto, but it does pull together a number of promises made in other statements. Public Reading Stage for all legislation is certainly an interesting one though. It sounds like they envisage a kind of wiki clause by clause based system to allow feedback and comments on legislation - which once the abuse is weeded out, might at least be interesting, even if any comments not made by vested and industry interests are ultimately ignored.

�

January is the time of year where you are meant to look ahead to what is in store during the coming year. So here’s my look back/ahead.

IT/Internet
Copyright

‘3 Strikes’ permeates across Europe
In a move to combat internet piracy, several countries have adopted or proposed laws that would involved cutting off internet access to ‘alleged’ illegal p2p filesharers. South Korea became the first country to implement a three-strikes law, closely followed by Taiwan. France adopted the ‘Hadopi law’ in September, although it has yet to become law, with the French data protection agency currently holding up to act, over concerns at how the punishment procedure of the Hadopi law would work in practice. Both the New Zealand and UK governments have put forward proposals ( The Digital Economy Bill in the UK) which would possibly result in ‘3 strikes’ rules.

Meanwhile Singapore, Germany and Spain are amongst the countries that have said they will not cut off subscribers. Spain’s proposed law – passed by the cabinet - would target websites accused of facilitating piracy. First warning letters would be sent, then an appearance before a panel of experts, who would decide whether to then refer the case to a judge, who would then have to power to order the closure of the site.

New European rules, which need to be implemented by all Member States by June 2011, included Article 1(3)a of the new Better Regulation Directive (Directive 2009/140/EC ) – the argument over the wording of which almost scuppered the whole Telecoms Package – which states that any measures to restrict the fundamental rights or freedoms of citizens may only be imposed if they are appropriate, proportionate and necessary within a democratic society, and their implementation shall be subject to adequate procedural safeguards…including effective judicial review and due process. A prior fair and impartial procedure and an effective and timely judicial review shall be guaranteed.

As more countries adopt ‘3 Strikes rules’ I would expect to see laws challenged under this article. In the debates on the Digital economy Bill in the UK, several Lords have already questioned whether the current drafting language of the UK’s bill would stand up to a legal challenge under the directive.

Broadband
Operators will be pressing ahead with were either rolling out or trialing superfast broadband of up to 100Mbps and more in Europe. This will be key for many operators as Value Added Services become the name of the game in attracting customer and reducing churn. According to a report from Informa – Beyond Triple Play: Value added services for broadband operators – Music subscriptions, online storage, home monitoring and games subscriptions were the most attractive value added services operators could offer. These were the most highly valued by consumers and the potential revenue to operators and the effect they could have on decreasing churn was highlighted. Orange (France) Telia (Sweden), SKT (Korea) Telfonica (Spain),TDC (Denmark) DT (Germany) and Virgin Media (UK) were amongst those identified as pursuing a broad service range. Booz & Company also identified VAS as one of the five distinct shifts they saw effecting the Telecoms industry in 2010.

Online Music
Make or break year for the likes of Spotify and Mog who both launched free/subscription based music streaming services in 2009. It will be a question of how long the big labels will stick with them before bailing out. To be fair to the labels they are at long last realising that they have to be more daring if they want to combat illegal filesharing by offering a real variety of alternatives, but I still would not be surprised to see Spotify or Mog ultimately fail. The Biggest threat to all of these online music services will likely come from telcos/cable operators bundling music download and streaming packages into their TV/Broadband/Phone offerings. BskB has launched such a service in the UK and Virgin Media is due to do the same (although due to Record company cold feet, it looks like this will not be the game changing ‘all you can eat’ service that it might have been).

Tablet Computers
Can Apple make the Tablet a must have? No. A must want perhaps, but a must have? I just don’t see it. For starters, it will be Apple priced. But it will be a Kindle Killer some say. Maybe, but: it will be Apple priced. To use it as your main computer, you’ll need a real keyboard and mouse to use with it in the home/office where pissing about using a virtual keyboard not only gets boring but doing so on the tablet is ergonomically unsound and screws your back in. [obviously should anyone from Apple want to sent me one to try out, I’ll be more than happy to let you try and convert me to its merits]

Telecoms

As mentioned above, Booz & Company five distinct shifts they saw effecting the Telecoms industry in 2010.
1. Growth Shifts to the East and South -Much of the growth in the telecom industry will shift from mature Western markets toward developing countries.
2. Focus Shifts to Value-Added Services – Much of the telecom world is being rapidly commoditized—from connectivity and basic services to low-end handsets, to networking equipment to the networks themselves—prompting virtually every player in the sector to seek out new sources of value. The clear solution: services.
3. The Digital Generation Sets New Expectations - As rivals in the telecom sector battle to move up the value chain, the world is quickly moving toward an ‘all digital, all the time’ model.
4. Operational Efficiency Becomes Even More Critical - The commoditization of large swaths of the telecom value chain is forcing every player in the industry to create the most efficient operations they possibly can— outsourcing non-core functions such as engineering and network and field services operations, even spinning off entire passive infrastructures that are no longer central to creating real value, and completely overhauling their business processes.
5. Regulators Take a Renewed Interest in the Sector - As telecom players move to add more services that require faster networks, many policymakers and regulators around the world are moving to support these efforts. No longer does the ideology of the free market hold complete sway over regulatory thinking. Instead, regulators are becoming more prescriptive and more interventionist as they look to support economic growth through large-scale broadband network deployment—in some cases even engaging directly in such investments.

Convergence and Consolidation
Started to happen in 2009, and likely to increase in 2010. In the UK, for example, Carphone Warehouse’s purchase of Tiscali UK, and the merger between Orange and T-Mobile’s UK businesses. If the latter merger is cleared some commentators expect ‘3′ to once again become a potential target for whether 02, Vodafone or even BT. Elsewhere, Deutsche Telekom has said it is seeking further partnerships and investment opportunities under a new strategy to address the growing convergence between TV, the Internet, and mobile service segments; Portugal Telecom (PT) is targeting overseas growth in its Brazilian markets and is looking at investing in further mobile operators in sub-Saharan Africa, including Mozambique; Belgacom CEO Didier Bellens said the operator plans to develop new technology and expand overseas. It sees opportunities in the former Soviet region, including Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan; Turkcell, is seeking investment in North Africa and Middle East region, where it does not have a strong presence.

There are also a number of IPO/Licensing opportunities in 2010

Australia: SingTel is considering selling a minority stake in its Australian unit Optus through an initial public offering (IPO) in Australia during 2010.
Azerbaijan: Fixed-line incumbent Aztelecom and regional operator Baku City Telephone Network (BGTS) are both likely to be privitised.
Bangladesh: The Bangladesh Telecommunications and Regulatory Commission (BTRC) has announced that 3G mobile licences will be auctioned this year.
Colombia: The Information and Communications (ICT) Ministry is preparing to award up to three new mobile telecommunications licences in 2010
Costa Rica: The Costa Rican regulator plans to award three new mobile concessions during the first quarter of 2010.
Côte d’Ivoire: The l’Agence des Télécommunications de Côte d’Ivoire (ATCI), plans to issue two 3G licences in 2010.
Czech Republic: The Czech regulator CTU intends to issue the fourth 3G licence in the course of 2010.
Denmark: TDC may be planning an IPO in 2010.
Egypt: Orascom Telecom Holding is seeking a partner to merge with in 2010/2011 , with small/medium sized operators in emerging markets or in Europe favoured.
India: The country will auction 3G licences this year (following many delays in 2009, mainly due to spectrum ownership)
Kosovo: Ministry for Economy and Finance plans to privatise incumbent operator, PTK, in 2010.
Libya: The Libyan government has announced plans to sell stakes in both its mobile operators—al-Madar and Libyana—through an IPO.
Pakistan: The country could eventually offer 3G licences during 2010.
Poland: Poland’s fourth-largest mobile carrier Play may be sold in 2010, whilst number one mobile operator, Polkomtel, is considering an IPO.
Serbia: The telecoms regulator RATEL, plans to award the country’s second fixed telephony licence early 2010.
UK: Cable & Wireless will demerge its businesses fully by the end of March 2010 . The operator has operationally split its two distinct business units into a Worldwide unit and a CWI international operator, as it forges ahead with the separate listing of the two operations on the stock exchange.

Nokia v Apple v Google
Whilst Nokia is still the biggest handset vendor (in market share) in the world, the end of 2009 saw Apple (through the iPhone) overtake Nokia to become the most profitable handset vendor. Nokia is expected to put a lot of effort into the US market in 2010, with Strategy Analytics believing that “a successful fight on Apple’s high-profit home turf can simultaneously help to revitalize Nokia’s margins and to put a check on Apple’s surging growth.”

Nokia and Apple swapped patent suits during 2009, with Nokia accusing Apple of infringing 10 Nokia patents for technologies such as wireless data, speech coding and security. Apple hit back accusing Nokia of infringing 13 its patents including graphical interfaces, teleconferencing, power conservation and touch screen technologies. Expect the hostilities to continue through 2010.

Nokia is also facing competition in the mobile operating system market where its Symbian system has for a long time been market leader, from Google’s Android operating system. Google’s move to launch their own branded handset, as Apple did with the iPhone, will also likely impact on both Apple’s and Nokia’s finances during 2010.

Media
Video on Demand
This year will see the UK version of Hulu and Arqiva’s SeeSaw do battle in the UK market. SeeSaw is built on the ‘Project Kangaroo’ technology platform that Arqiva bought from BBC Worldwide, ITV and Channel 4 following a Competition Commission decision to block the project claiming it would reduce competition and harm consumers. Those involved and many politicians criticized the decision saying instead of ensuring and financial benefits of the service stayed in the UK, it handed potential profits to the likes of Hulu. For example outgoing ITV head, Michael Grade said “”As a result of the Competition Commission turning down the decision to launch Project Kangaroo, I guarantee an American company will take the lion’s share of our content in the UK very soon…Google or Hulu. Hulu is looking to launch in the UK. As a result of the commission’s decision, UK creative money will go to the Americans and not get reinvested in the UK.”

As Grade mentioned, YouTube will also feature in this shake up having already secured its first long-form on-demand UK TV content with Channel 4.

I totally agree with Grade and others on this. Whilst it is hard to argue that the Competition Commission decision was flawed on legal grounds, the end result for the creative industries in the UK– which the government claims to care so much about – is potentially devastating.

Sports Broadcasting Rights
All eyes will be on the European as the Court of Justice it hands down an opinion in the Pubcasting case (The Football Association Premier League Ltd v QC Leisure and others / Karen Murphy v Media Protection Services Limited) – C-403/08 & C-429/08 - It looks at whether licence agreement provisions restricting foreign broadcasters from selling decoders, etc., for use outside their territory, is an illegal restriction of competition contrary to Article 81 of the EC Treaty, and also seeks guidance on the meaning of the expression “illicit device”.
This case could have a huge impact on the whole issue of copyright for broadcasts, and the idea that rights may be licensed to exclusive licensees in particular member states (for considerable sums) As the licensing methods under consideration in this case are also employed in other forms of sports broadcasting, the outcome will be closely awaited, given its potential to impact the industry’s approach to these issues.

YouTube Copyright Case
Both Viacom and Google have now asked a federal court for summary judgment in their copyright infringement case: Google says it doesn’t knowingly store or play copyrighted clips on the site, and if it does, it is protected by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Google also cites last year’s ruling in the Veoh/Universal Music Group case, in which a court ruled in favour of the Youtube. Viacom reiterates its initial argument, which is that Google and YouTube knew what they were doing and profited from it, which means the DMCA does not protect them.

Google should be feeling confident in this case, although one suspects that this case has a few more years in it yet.

Social Media
There’s an App for that. Yes, as we all get more mobile it has now become essential for your website/service to have an App (iPhone/Android/Symbian) people – myself included - now take whether or not there is an app to allow seamless access via mobile online into account before signing up for/using online services. (Yes, Shelfari, Library Thing etc this is why I don’t use you anymore)

Facebook Phone?
Google Buys Twitter?
Google Buys Evernote?
Nokia Buys Evernote?

The Digital Economy Bill was debated for the first time in the UK’s House of Lords this week.

As is the case with the bill as a whole the main points of discussion centred around the provisions to deal with copyright and p2p filesharing, indeed it even offered an opportunity for Peter Mandelson to practice his stand-up comedy routine: ” I recognise that this House is probably the one place in Britain where peer-to-peer file-sharing is associated more with passing notes in the Lords’ tea room than with piracy”

He hit out at critics who have suggested that the government’s policy to tackle the problem of illegal filesharing focuses on coercion, saying this “is quite wrong” and that “there is a primary role for education about the value of copyright, and a very clear obligation on the creative industries to get their act together and build business models that provide access to content at a cost that makes the risk of breaking the law an unattractive option.”

It seemed that some of the critics he referred to were in the Lords. Lord Lucas seemed to sum up the views of many when he questioned where was the stick for the entertainment industries to go with the truck load of carrots the government were providing: ” We also need to bear in mind that the problems now facing the industry are, to quite a large extent, of their own creation. The industry has been extremely slow to listen to the demands of its customers, and has had something of an abusive relationship with them, seeking to punish them before thinking of how to serve them better. It has taken a decade for the industry to produce sensible alternatives to illegal file-sharing, and the fact that a generation of people have become used to an illegality comes down to the industry’s sluggishness. It is still slow. The football people have complained that there are sites where people can download streaming video of premier division matches. All that the companies offer is an annual contract for several hundred pounds. They do not offer per match deals at a reasonable price. If companies treat their customers in that way, they really should not be surprised that their customers try to get round the system.”

The presumption of innocence and due process where also high on the minds of some Lords, with Lord Whitty making the comparison with the theft of a physical product: ” the shoplifters who steal the actual DVD, which is worth a lot more than the rights of an individual download to the rights holders, have a fair trial and are subject to due process. They do not receive a letter, but, at the first attempt of enforcement, they are subject to due process. However, in this system, due process enters the equation only at appeal stage.”

Many of the Lords criticised the government for not delivering a draft of the code which would set out how the process for alerting people about alleged infringement and the appeals process would function. This, the Lords said, was the critical part of the provisions they were being asked to approve. Lord Clement-Jones expressed the views of several Lords when he said “the terms of the all-important initial obligations code must make it clear what those thresholds are. The thresholds must be proportionate and must not be set too low. We should know what they are before the Bill goes through the House.”

Other Lords questioned whether the internet provisions in the bill would actually do more to stifle the growth of a digital economy rather than growing it. Baroness Miller pointed to the potential effect on free wi-fi networks, pointing to the planned town-wide network due to launch in Swindon. She also agreed with Lord Lucas and questioned why the bill choose not to encourage new models but to protect the old models and why it “seeks to make one industry that has seen phenomenal growth, investment and innovation-the internet service providers-pay for the protection of another sector.”

One issue, however, united the Lords more than any other and that was Clause 17, which gives the government “a power to amend the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 in future, to reflect fast-changing technology.” Lord Razzall summed up the feeling on the clause – called a Henry VIII clause by Lord Clement-Jones - by stating:”Clause 17, which effectively gives the Government power to alter copyright law by statutory instrument, should be rejected. .. I just think that if we are going to alter copyright law it has to be done by primary legislation, rather than by statutory instrument.”

This is a view echoed by Google, eBay, Facebook and Yahoo who have written a joint letter to Peter Mandelson this week asking for clause 17 of the to be deleted from the draft law.

According to the four “Clause 17 – which gives any future Secretary of State unprecedented and sweeping powers to amend the Copyright, Design and Patent Act – opens the way for arbitrary measures. This power could be used, for example, to introduce additional technical measures or increase monitoring of user data even where no illegal practice has taken place…This clause is so wide that it could put at risk legitimate consumer use of current technology as well as future developments. We all acknowledge that new business models need to emerge to support creative content. They are inherently risky and entrepreneurs rely heavily on there being a consistent and stable approach to copyright enforcement. This clause would inject an unprecedented level of uncertainty in this regard. The industry as a whole had hoped that the outcome of Digital Britain would be a clear, workable set of principles by which the industry could operate. On the contrary, Clause 17 creates uncertainty for consumers and businesses and puts at risk the UK’s leading position in a digital Europe.”

The Bill itself has now goes into a Committee of the whole House of Lords where the first amendments to the bill will appear, and hoefully Clause 17 - for starters - will disappear.

Well it happened quicker than I thought, but the European Parliament (EP) and the Council of Ministers reached an agreement on EU Telecoms Reform, by the end of the first day of the conciliation procedure.

The two sides reached a quite comprise over the clause to guarantee access to the internet.

The newly agreed Article 1(3)a of the new Framework Directive, now reads:

“Measures taken by Member States regarding end-users’ access to or use of services and applications through electronic communications networks shall respect the fundamental rights and freedoms of natural persons, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and general principles of Community law.

Any of these measures regarding end-users’ access to or use of services and applications through electronic communications networks liable to restrict those fundamental rights or freedoms may only be imposed if they are appropriate, proportionate and necessary within a democratic society, and their implementation shall be subject to adequate procedural safeguards in conformity with the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and general principles of Community law, including effective judicial review and due process. Accordingly, these measures may only be taken with due respect for the principle of presumption of innocence and the right to privacy. A prior fair and impartial procedure shall be guaranteed, including the right to be heard of the person or persons concerned, subject to the need for appropriate conditions and procedural arrangements in duly substantiated cases of urgency in conformity with the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms . The right to an effective and timely judicial review shall be guaranteed.”

This text is watered down from the EP original amendment that the “prior ruling” must be by “judicial authorities”, although thankfully the “presumption of innocence” that the Council also wanted dropped remains in place.

Following final votes in Parliament and Council in November, the whole telecoms package, which includes the creation of a new European Telecom Authority (BEREC), increased power for the Commission to oversee regulatory remedies proposed by national regulators, powers for national regulators to impose a ‘functional separation’ remedy, and a consumer right to port telephone numbers within 1 day, could come into force in early 2010. EU countries will then have 18 months to incorporate the new provisions into their national legislation.

It looks like the European Commission is now set to get its way and EU member states will get a French style 3 Strikes rule for alleged internet illegal filesharers and the like.

Just as it was announced that the conciliation procedure was set to start between member states and the European Parliament (EP) over the latter’s insistence that an amendment that guaranteed that an internet user’s internet access could not be restricted without a court ruling - which read:

“that no restriction may be imposed on the fundamental rights and freedoms of end-users, without a prior ruling by the judicial authorities, notably in accordance with Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union on freedom of expression and information, save when public security is threatened where the ruling may be subsequent.”

It seems the EP have now capitulated and offered up a new text that removes the need for a court order to be required prior to cutting off someone’s internet access. The new text reads:

“Any such measures liable to restrict those fundamental rights or freedoms may only be taken in exceptional circumstances and imposed if they are necessary, appropriate and proportionate within a democratic society, and shall be subject to adequate procedural safeguards in conformity with the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and with general principles of Community law, including effective judicial protection and due process. In particular, any measures may only be adopted as a result of a prior, fair and impartial procedure ensuring inter alia that the principle of presumption of innocence and the right to be heard of the person or persons concerned be fully respected. Furthermore, the right to an effective and timely judicial review shall be guaranteed.”

Member States can still opt to have a requirement that a court order is needed, but it will no longer be a requirement.

The new text was penned by MEP Catherine Trautmann, who was responsible for the report that included the original amendment. Of her new text she says “Parliament’s delegation has agreed a compromise proposal that will serve as a basis for negotiations and towards which the Council and the Commission will be able to converge.”

The move should mean that the conciliation procedure that will take place between the Parliament and the Council between 4 November and 30 December should now be no more than a formality, as the council is unlikely to push for further amendments that might risk the amendment being agreed. None agreement on the clause would scupper the whole telecoms package, as the EU takes an all or nothing approach to passing law.

So, it looks like despite voting infavour of the original amendment twice in large numbers the ‘elected’ part of the EU is going to allow the ‘non elected’ part to get its own way. Would love to say I’m surprised, but I’m not. It was always going to happen.

Meanwhile, perfectly on cue, the French constitutional court approved the country’s “three-strikes” law (Hadopi), which will sever the Internet connections of those found to have been repeatedly infringing copyrights on file-sharing networks.

Update

According to a report by the excellent mLex, my view that the Member States would not try to push for more changes was wrong. They report that they still want to remove any mention of a “prior” judicial review, “presumption of innocence” and that measures may only be adopted “in exceptional circumstances” from the clause, instead adding in a number of exceptions to the latter requirement to involve the courts at all for “national security, defence, public security, and the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminals.” Drive that truck through that list now. A brave (or stupid) move by the member states who risk the EP reverting back to their original position.