As everyone knows, Ofcom completes its first year as the UK�s media and communications regulator on December 29. So how did the regulator perform? Here are my thoughts:

What strikes me as the dominant theme after the first year of the new regulatory scheme is the enduring power of both BT and the BBC. This is particularly true for an outsider like me. On the surface, we see Ofcom �strategically� chipping away at these entities� structures and practices, but the overall fact remains that BT and the BBC remain the national champions of their respective industries. Media regulation is �about� the BBC. Telecoms regulation is �about� BT. These entities dominate the agenda in every way. Ofcom�s success is in many ways tied to the deeds or misdeeds of these companies.

Newsflash: The foreigners did not take over the British media � at least not in this first year. The same thing happened (or �did not happen�, to be more precise) in the U.S. after it agreed its WTO commitments on telecoms entry. The foreign investment everyone thought would come never materialised, or at least did not reach the level people thought it would. Reading the trade press around the time the Communications Act received royal assent, one would have thought such foreign takeover moves were imminent. Not! The bogeymen stayed away. Who knows what 2005 will bring?

Ofcom earns high marks for the accessibility and candid nature of its most senior staff. These are clearly people that speak their minds and (usually) acknowledge the constraints facing a regulator. By way of example, Stephen Carter said early on: �In short, we are normal and fallible human beings faced with a huge and at times daunting job. It is one we intend to do well.�

So, did these fallible human beings fail? With respect to procedure, I would score Ofcom quite low in its first-year performance. OfcomWatch functions as a procedure-hound, of course. We view proceduralism as the gateway for accountability and transparency. Here the record is uneven: Ofcom tend to put forth great effort in producing glossy, information-packed consultation documents. The level of explication is quite high. But, otherwise, Ofcom�s efforts are often lacking. There is often no real debate, but a proposed outcome combined with a certain amount of salesmanship on Ofcom�s part. Typical for a Capricorn.

The key questions, �does this regulator really listen to the regulatees and the public?� and the follow-on, �does the regulator take advantage of learning opportunities, or does Ofcom believe they already have the answers?� have yet to be answered. Certainly, we often criticise how Ofcom organises information, and how opaque the consultation process appears. All of this criticism should be taken with a grain of salt, however. Ofcom have only been at it for one year and they have accomplished much in such a short period of time. It is just a shame, though, that the regulator has gotten off to such a bad start in terms of its one obligation that is probably the easiest to fulfil.

I would also score Ofcom low on certain elements of its strategic review of Public Service Broadcasting (PSB). Let�s face it, Ofcom�s proposal for a Public Service Publisher (PSP) is (i) not a product of new thinking, (ii) not based on all available evidence about PSB, and (iii) not supported by anyone other than the potential funding recipients.

Finally, what about the fabled citizen-consumer? That�s the entire point of this enterprise, right? Did Ofcom do anything in 2004 that really beneficially affected the citizen-consumer? This is a much tougher set of questions to address. If you subscribe to the school of thought that regulation really matters, then I suppose you would say that Ofcom took certain steps that indirectly benefit consumers by enabling markets to function more efficiently or in a fairer manner. Other more cynical types would argue that Ofcom really has done nothing more than (by regulation) tax the provision of services that the market already provides efficiently and fairly. The truth probably lies somewhere in-between. However, I can say this with confidence: If I were an ordinary consumer and not part of OfcomWatch, I would be hard-pressed to identify what Ofcom is or how Ofcom affected my life in 2004.

Is that �light-touch� regulation?