A few more random thoughts while I remain in a pre-sleeping stage awake — as I read the Ofcom consultation document…

Ofcom say: ‘Communications companies are already responding to this trend with a range of investments in upgrading the current access network infrastructure, including cable network improvements, and the ADSL2+ technologies being deployed by a number of operators delivering speeds of up to 24Mbps.’

My take: Ofcom need to get real and stop repeating the industry puffery. I’d be surprised if more than a handful of residential consumers are getting anywhere close to 24 Mbps. Later in the same document Ofcom acknowledge that ‘up to’ claims are misleading. They should heed their own advise.

Ofcom say: ‘It may therefore be that the efficient deployment of next generation access is simply earlier in some other countries than in the UK. We do not yet see evidence that the UK will be significantly disadvantaged economically or socially as a result. It is important that we continue to monitor the situation closely for any new evidence that would change this view. However, we continue to think that promoting investment which is timely and efficient in the context of the UK market is the correct approach.’

My take: This excerpt probably best sums up Ofcom’s stance on next generation broadband. If left unchanged, it will probably be how Ed Richards’ tenure at Ofcom is judged in the coming years. By the way, earlier in the document Ed Richards says ‘[a] move to much higher broadband speeds, widely available throughout the UK, could have profound effects for our society and economy’. This seems internally inconsistent. And why does Ofcom use the phrase the ‘potential benefits for consumers’ from next generation broadband? Faster downloads means more services and less wasted time. That’s not a potential benefit — it’s just a benefit. Faster trains are better than slower trains. What are the potential benefits of faster trains? Duh!

Ofcom say: ‘[T]here are other specific issues that that may result from next generation access deployment and must be addressed. One is the availability of the appropriate information to allow consumers to make informed purchasing decisions about next generation products and services. Current concerns that the headline “up to” speeds of broadband products may not reflect the actual speeds a customer will achieve demonstrate the importance of this issue.’

My take: It’s good to see Ofcom recognise this problem, but let’s be clear: May not reflect the actual speeds? “Up to” claims never reflect the actual speeds. Can’t we all agree on that? It should be noted that Tim Suter hit the airwaves today to talk about the fine levied against GMTV for deception against viewers; Ofcom need to adopt the same attitude toward broadband providers.

Ofcom say: ‘In our November 2006 discussion document, we described how a formal definition of next generation access is relatively difficult to reach….’

My take: This is true. Before the dark ages of the dot-com meltdown, I once had a client that was probably the fastest ISP in the world. 100 mbps back in 2001. No joke. At the time, this client told me that anything slower than a LAN should not be considered broadband. LANs are typically either 100 mbps or gigabit. Ofcom should aim for something like this. Anytime you hit the slow lane after leaving your LAN, it’s not really broadband.

Ofcom say: ‘Timely and efficient’ (16 times by my count)

My take: It’s easy to understand the situation. FTTH is not happening and the European Commission — noted by Ofcom — is not allowing regulatory holidays. The UK has a weak cable competitor and none of the retail ADSL players (other than BT) have any skin in the game. So in many ways Ofcom can do nothing. That’s acceptable — no one expects Ofcom to wave a magic wand here. But Ofcom keep passing on useful opportunities to warn Parliament and the public of a train wreck with regard to broadband. It seems the BSG has lately taken on this role, leaving Ofcom in an odd position.

Well, that’s it for now. Stay tuned…