Regulation: time for a change?

Hello and Happy Friday! As Chancellor Alistair “Move Over” Darling seeks to stiffen the regulation of the Financial Industry, leader of the opposition, David “Dave” Cameron has been calling for the curtailing – or at the very least streamlining – of Quangos (Quasi-Non Governmental Groups, or “Regulators” as we know and love them) to save the public money.

One of the key Quangos singled out by Cameron has been Ofcom, which he perceives as being over staffed, possibly over-reaching in its scope and frankly overpaid – Cameron reserving particular ire for Ofcom head Colette Bowe, who at £200,000pa for a three day week, earns more than the Prime Minister: a gripe guaranteed to chime with all politicians as they get used to having fewer tax-payers readies to bandy about on duck houses et al.

But beyond the obvious political machinations that Darling and Dave’s contrasting views on regulation, possible prime minister in waiting Cameron may have hit on something. Its not news that the telemedia industry isn’t a fan of regulation (which business sector is?), but telecoms is in a particularly strange position in terms of regulation, having as it does sets of national, European and global regs to content with – many of which apply in unison and contradict each other.

The problem with regulatory overlap – and, indeed, regulator over burdening – has been brought to the fore this week by Mobile Entertainment Forum (MEF), which has talked to its members and found that the UK mobile media market currently faces the most regulations of any country in the world and is tying itself in knots over which ones take precedence over others. And if that wasn’t enough, there are even more in the pipeline.

Currently, says the MEF, the UK telecoms industry is subject to the following consultations on yet more regs: BCAP/CAP consultations [recently closed]; Ofcom scope review [currently open]; Ofcom Audience Participation in Radio Programming – the use of PRS [currently open]; Ofcom Broadcast Codes Review [currently open]; PPP Discussion paper on next Code [currently open].

All this offers reinforcement of EU rules (both current and pending), as well as delivering new regs that apply to operations in the UK. Between them they lead to confusing messages as to what regulations telemedia firms need to obey. For example, some of the proposed changes to the CAP/BCAP Codes clash with the PPP Code.

Then there is the issue that in the UK we also have a range of bodies, all of which claim some jurisdiction over what the industry does: Ofcom, the ASA, PPP, the OFT and the ICO all have Codes or regulations that apply to the mobile media industry. Any ambiguity is likely to cause serious regulatory uncertainty and as a consequence, the regulatory burden on companies that run the serious risk of becoming disproportionate.

All this is a mess. But a mess that fits very neatly with what I wrote about the week before last: while all this ‘telecoms’ regulation is being superseded anyway. While the old skool telecoms regulators try and fit the square peg of current services into the round hole of their old way of looking at telemedia, the industry is moving on, looking to use IP-based technologies over the web (which is fixed and wireless these days) and is, as such, dodging current regulatory thinking.

The MEF believes that the current Ofcom scope review may well address this, I wonder whether, as the political will in the UK shifts towards cutting public spending, whether we may just miss a massive regulatory shake up. If that is the case, then we could see a burst of innovation in the telemedia sector in the coming months. If, on the other hand, we see a last gasp attempt by the old world to regulate the new, we may end up with a badly fitting regulatory environment that stifles innovation at a time when we really need it.