11 November 2002

Tales from the Riverbank

By Ian Dunmore, Public Sector iDTV Forum Project Manager

Nestling on the banks of the historic river whose name it proudly bears, Medway Council is a sizeable Unitary already making a significant mark in the race to implement e-Government.

Recently awarded a two-star result by a Audit Commission Best Value Inspection, the local authority is one of fewer than 10 councils to have passed the stringent security tests required to obtain links to NHSNet. As well as a groundbreaking 'Positive Parenting Network' (http://www.medwayppn.org/) which the Home Office has expressed an interest in adopting nationally, Medway will soon be offering e-forms and e-payment systems alongside a resource portal for local SMEs. Add all this to a choice-based lettings service delivered via kiosks and the internet and you have one of the most forward-thinking Councils in the land.

It is fitting then that here in Medway a picture emerged of how public sector use of interactive digital television looks set to develop over the next 12 months. On 11 October representatives from each of Kent's 14 local authorities, plus a handful of NHS Trusts, housing associations and local emergency services gathered to discuss and explore what the medium has to offer as an access channel and what has succeeded - or failed - elsewhere.

For some time central and local government has played with the idea of iDTV for eGovernment, and to date very little has been delivered. The interactive media industry has observed the occasional feuds within the eGovernment community from the sidelines. Among the private sector are, of course, many eager to unleash the power of the box and discover within the holy grail of social inclusion. Around 85 per cent of local authorities mentioned iDTV in their first IEG Statement and that 2001 saw retailers and new media agencies get severely burned when ill-conceived and over-hyped efforts at creating a new 't-commerce' market flopped dismally. Apathetic viewers looked the other way just at the moment when a recession-proof and badly-informed public sector grew excited about what digital TV could achieve. And 2005 was looming…

But pretty soon it was clear that all was not as it seemed. The limitations of the technology prohibited much in the way of real interaction, unless at a cost well beyond the grasp of most local authorities. Meanwhile risk-averse Whitehall (a few notable exceptions aside) waited and watched to see whose face would be first to get egg on it.

Still, some more enterprising bodies persevered and around 15 iDTV pilots got off the ground, locally, regionally and nationally. There were misgivings and disagreements about content, carriage, sustainability and the role of the Office of the e-Envoy on issues of ownership.

The iDTV Forum, launched initially to clarify a bewildering, at times contradictory morass of policy, opinion and methodology, helped to shape rather than explain an agenda being written on the fly. Throughout all this the-then DTLR was trying to create a national strategy for e-Government, drafting what later became the consultation document e-Gov@local. The problematic issue of iDTV was passed on to Chris Haynes of the Modernisation Team, an ex-local government man with considerable private sector experience, who had gained inside knowledge by working on the Knowsley iDTV project. Currently vice-president of Socitm, Haynes is highly regarded at grass roots and an accomplished and entertaining public speaker, with little doubt a formidable force when it comes to iDTV and the public sector. With the mission to help deliver access to iDTV as a tool for e-Government, he has gathered around himself an array of public and private sector professionals.

At a couple of ODPM-sponsored round-tables Haynes unveiled the plans for an iDTV 'National Project'. Hinting substantial funds were available from the Local Government Online board to create free 'starter packs' for authorities wishing to explore the delights of iDTV, he invited the participants at the conference to submit proposals for the project, however without setting out the main building blocks.

Submissions for the iDTV National Project were due with Haynes and the ODPM in September. Since then, we at the iDTV Forum have been in receipt of a steady stream of emails and calls from jittery technical consultants, media gurus and multi-national corporations about the further development of the project. There seems to be a feeling of apprehension on the part of those who may or may not receive a chunk of the Government's e-budget. In contrast to his markedly timid colleagues at the Office of e-Envoy, who flatly refuse questions from the floor at public appearances for fear of 'creating policy on the hoof', Haynes seems to relish doing just that. Plainly committed to supporting colleagues at local level, he can be highly disparaging of the private sector - often with justification. And since the round tables this summer everyone wants a piece of him, so for the moment Chris Haynes is the National Project.

Fast forward now to the iDTV Forum organised by Medway Council, where he delivered an update of the National iDTV Programme. As to the calibre and nature of submissions received in September one can only hazard a guess, but Haynes made it clear that at least some partners had, as far as he was concerned, already been picked. These would include the BBC, platform owners and assorted luminaries from the Local Government sector with a pedigree in iDTV. He indicated an additional aim would be, at some later date, to dovetail with the efforts of UKOnline and the OeE.

Pre-empting claims of "control-freakery" on the part of central government, Haynes went to considerable lengths to reject that they acted in an arrogant manner, trying to repress visionaries from local government and imposing their own iDTV strategy without proper consultation. He insisted there had been 'no meetings behind locked doors at the Ministries' and that he and his team at the ODPM were feeling their way just as much as anyone else.

This is probably true, but let us not forget the Communications Bill points toward allowing restricted broadcasting licences for local authorities. The recently released digital television policy framework consultation document from the Oe-E however shows a marked determination to position UKOnline as the exclusive, single point of access for all government services national and local - almost certainly an untenable ambition. The OeE may have a preferred positioning for the brand but the question is whether that highly optimistic perception is shared with the big players in main stream broadcasting. Currently UKOnline has a very limited amount of content to offer up and that content is underdeveloped in televisual terms - i.e. the way in which text, video and audio is used. Moreover at present it is restricted to a limited number of TV distribution platforms. There is huge potential in the valuable pioneering work of exploring what various life stage and life episodes means for citizens, but it is still early days in developing solutions that harness the full power of television as a medium. Despite very heavy public investment, the jury is still out on whether UKOnline can mature into a heavy weight broadcasting brand that can achieve significant reach and prominence in a crowded and critical UK TV market.

During the next few months, there is an opportunity to explore if there is a robust public service DTV offering that can be sustained, that is scalable and is replicable, which also allocates a realistic positioning to UKOL. But despite exhortations from elements within the BBC and bodies representing communications and other relevant civic staff both the OeE and old DTLR have avoided so much as a nod in the direction of anything even exploring the potentiality of a more televisual experience. Has anyone bothered pointing out to Ministers this reluctance amounts to outright inconsistency in overall government policy? The DTI, sponsor of the Communications Bill, is apparently encouraging councils to consider the merits of broadcast television while the OeE and (one has to say probably) the ODPM shepherd everyone down a repurposed web-pages path. The dilemma is especially pressing since at Medway we heard from a number of public sector organisations who have, with varying degrees of success, actually deployed iDTV and have salutary lessons for those who would follow in their wake - both in what to do and what to avoid. After his superbly delivered talk, Haynes nonetheless left us with more questions than he provided answers. Meanwhile, in light of the new policy framework document and particularly the national project, what is one meant to do now?

We learned for example, from Kirklees and their 'InTouch' project that the most popular element was the 'Community Section' created by residents themselves and including 'real-life' stories and anecdotes. We learned that Internet technology can deliver all sorts of things including iDTV at a faction of the cost of conventional methods even on cable and satellite (this is something the Forum will be exploring in depth very soon). We were told, with no reason to believe differently, that there are solutions providers out there who can and will help get services on the box in the most cost effective and efficient ways possible. We learned, in other words, that despite the confusion and complexity surrounding all this, that there are many ways to skin this particular cat, most of which have yet to be tried.

Medway Council, as ahead of the game as they come, would make an obvious candidate for an iDTV pilot. Project Manager Dave Williams, co-ordinator of the day's event, is enthusiastic about the idea of Haynes's National Project but only up to a point. "It's a difficult one," he said. "While I welcome the prospect of this and would be keen to be involved, it will mean that it's possible the adoption of iDTV as a channel may be stalled as local authorities wait for the outcome of the project." He went on to say, "it may mean waiting almost until the April 2005 deadline. This will then create a late rush to be involved in iDTV by councils desperately trying spend the budgets set aside for its delivery."

This is indeed a very real danger, together with the risk of throttling innovation and understandable concerns over centralisation by stealth amounts to a double-edged sword. It's certainly a subject we'll monitor closely and report on as more facts emerge. In the meantime, it's an excellent topic for discussion in the Forum. As always, we welcome your thoughts.

Public Sector Forums (www.publicsectorforums.co.uk)
ian@publicsectorforums.co.uk