Ofcom last week released an interesting discussion paper on the citizen interests in communications. It is available here.

Here are the key nuggets, with some of my reactions:

OFCOM: ‘As citizens, we participate in society, which includes the marketplace, but also extends far beyond it. Citizens are free to exchange goods and services, but are also free to participate in a whole range of social, cultural and political activities that are not the subject of commercial contracts.’

RT: Funny … I was having lunch with a friend recently and we talked about this. Citizens in the UK, it should be noted, are not free to engage in certain political activities that are considered harmless in other societies. For example, a group of UK farmers could not pool their money and purchase a television advert aimed at convincing the government to take a certain action to support their interests. That type of advert would violate Ofcom’s broadcast code. That particular ban on political expression is pretty watertight in the UK, and covers all sorts of people that would like to engage in civic matters via broadcast advertising: animal rights activists, Darfur campaigners, unions, war veterans, pro or anti-EU Lisbon treaty groups, etc. Note: Putting an end to this restriction on the freedom of expression is nowhere on Ofcom’s agenda. Politicians, journalists, celebrity chefs, royals, corporations — they can all have their say — but loyal subjects citizens are expected to just consume television.

So, oddly Tesco can advertise battery chickens, but civic activists cannot advertise for government restrictions on such farming practices. It’s no surprise then that most forms of political engagement in the UK have moved towards the internet.

OFCOM: ‘An important principle is that all citizens are equal and have the same rights and responsibilities. In relation to media and communications services, this includes a right to have the access to services and content that are needed to participate in society.’

RT: This misses the mark a bit. Citizens do not each have the same rights and responsibilities. For example, parents have different responsibilities than non-parents. Prisoners lose certain rights, etc. Ofcom should probably avoid rights-based terminology, because it tends to result in muddled results. Really, when Ofcom speak of access issues, what they really mean is that it is a good thing — from a normative perspective — to have most citizens (as many as possible) able to access certain types of media and communications services. Calling it a ‘right’ implicates legal rights and puts you in the same trap that the word citizen implicates.

OFCOM: ‘The fact that we have not published an equivalent statement on citizens has led some stakeholders to suggest that Ofcom lacks commitment in discharging its responsibilities in this area. Some have argued that we should present a more positive vision of our role in furthering the interests of all citizens. However, other stakeholders have suggested that there is no practical difference between consumer and citizen interests and that it is not necessary to distinguish between them.’

RT: I’m not sure where I stand on this. It does seem to me that instead of a citizen - consumer divide most media and communications policy and regulation concerns itself with the adult - child divide. Are Ofcom really resolving anything with this discussion paper? Sections 2.17 - 2.26 need the most work — a reader expects a definition, but the discussion is quite loose.