Information society : agenda for action in the UK : evidence received after 31 March 1996 / Select Committee on Science and Technology.
- Great Britain. Parliament. House of Lords. Science and Technology Committee.
- Date:
- 1996
Licence: Open Government Licence
Credit: Information society : agenda for action in the UK : evidence received after 31 March 1996 / Select Committee on Science and Technology. Source: Wellcome Collection.
66/324 page 368
![23 April 1996] [Continued Baroness Hogg 544. With digital televisions you get more intelligent televisions that are almost as dumb as the dumbest of terminals. (Mr Gavin) Exactly. In fact, if you look at the boxes that I referred to that convert the analogue television into a digital television it looks very much like the contents of a computer. That is what it is actually, and computer companies generally make them. Obviously you can see progressively a convergence of sorts between the computer and the television, one having more keys than the other. 545. Your Telcom is either a rather bright television or an extremely dumb computer. Chairman 546. | am afraid we shall have to bring this session to a close today. Thank you very much, Dr Rudge and colleagues. If you would like to make one final two sentence statement we would be grateful to hear it. (Dr Rudge) | do not think there is anything I can do to summarise. We are grateful for your interest in this issue. I can only stress that while BT obviously has a strong interest in this whole field it is, in our view, totally critical on the national scale, not merely for BT but for every kind of business. The IT revolution and the information age is a reality and it is going to affect the way every business operates and the way every one of us leads our lives and should not be under-estimated. I think Government has to give it the priority that it deserves. Chairman] Thank you very much. (Mr Gavin) Yes. Supplementary evidence by British Telecommunications plc (Sir Ian Vallance, Chairman) At the QMW seminar on 29 April you asked what priority I placed on the various actions I was suggesting the Government might take to promote the Information Society. Of course, any assignment of priorities to such a list is, to an extent, an inherently arbitrary exercise. But, it would be less than helpful if I simply asserted that all the suggestions I made were of equal weight. I also appreciate the need to allow some sort of trade off between the intrinsic importance of the proposals and their ease of implementation—which will inevitably be closely related to the potential effect on public expenditure. Three of the activities I proposed would involve little or no incremental cost. Promoting the Information Society at all levels starting with the G7 conference, harmonising the treatment by the Government of the various aspects of the Information Society in legislation and administration, and pressing for full liberalisation of communications services throughout the European Union in 1998 would each serve to underpin what we are all trying to achieve. Such initiatives would be of undoubted benefit but would cost almost nothing. We are then left with the suggestions which could have an impact on public expenditure. Here top priority must be given to encouraging private sector investment. There are currently two major impediments in the way of such investment, both of which are within Government’s power to remove. It is first necessary to ensure that the industry has resources to invest and is willing to do so. You will be aware that the majority of telecommunications operators in the UK are concerned that Oftel’s current proposals on the regulation of BT’s prices after 1997 will result in an industry which is blighted by reducing returns. Such as industry would, I suspect, be somewhat reluctant to make significant investment in the infrastructure on which the Information Society would depend. The second impediment to be removed will come as no surprise. It is necessary to provide public telecommunications operators such as BT with the assurance that if they invest in broadband networks they will ultimately be able to use them for broadcast entertainment television. This is essential if such investment is to be commercially justified. As we have said on many occasions, all we want is a certain date for the removal of the restrictions so that we can plan. I would give next priority to the provision by Government of support services such as training, expertise and administration for the users and implementers of the new services. This is very closely linked with the objective—to which I would give equal weight—of Government exploiting its role as a major buyer of IT. It is clear that if the Information Society is to be realised many people will need training. One of the barriers to effective use of multimedia technology in schools, for example, is the need to train teachers how to use it. By taking a leading role in deploying these technologies and training people in the public sector how to use them, the Government could play a material part in building up momentum. I would put funding long-term, pre-competitive research and development last because I recognise that this involves material public expenditure. Many practical details, such as ownership of intellectual property rights, would also need to be,resolved. This means that despite the usefulness of such activity, it could take some time to implement. An early start would, of course, minimise delay. This leaves regulation. Here I would simply reiterate that without a suitable regulatory climate there may be little point in undertaking any of the other activities. I have already indicated that there is a serious danger](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b32218631_0066.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
