"The Times May 26, 2006


Ofcom's chief executive is poised for departure
By Amanda Andrews and Dan Sabbagh



OFCOM will announce today that Stephen Carter, its chief executive, will be leaving the communications regulator, The Times has learnt.
Mr Carter, who has been at Ofcom since February 2003, is set to leave in the autumn. It is understood that, as part of Mr Carter’s contract, he is not permitted to seek further employment while still at Ofcom.



It is understood that Mr Carter, who was previously chief operating officer of NTL, the cable company, he is keen to move back into the commercial world.

It is not known who will replace Mr Carter, and last night the regulator refused to comment on whether he would be leaving and who would replace him. Ed Richards, the former Downing Street policy adviser who is, in effect Mr Carter’s deputy at Ofcom, was recently sent on the obligatory Harvard management course.

Before coming to Ofcom, Mr Carter, 42, was at NTL from 2001 and led the company when it was facing financial difficulties. He had joined NTL from J Walter Thompson, the advertising agency, for which he worked for much of the 1990s.

Mr Carter is younger and wealthier than most regulators, having left NTL with a payoff and bonus of £1.6 million. His salary at Ofcom is believed to be in the region of £400,000.

While on the whole Ofcom has been viewed as a success and won acclaim for how quickly it got down to business, critics have questioned its fashionable, Central London headquarters and the salaries paid to its executives.

Some have questioned how much cheaper the combined communications regulator is compared with separate telecoms and media regulators.

Mr Carter, a Scot, is chairman of the Marketing Group of Great Britain, a non-executive director of Travis Perkins, a governor of Ashridge Business School and a vice-president of Unicef UK. "

kk wrote on May 26^th, 2006 at 8:21am:

OFCOM will announce today that Stephen Carter, its chief executive, will be leaving the communications regulator, The Times has learnt.  Mr Carter, who has been at Ofcom since February 2003, is set to leave in the autumn.

Thanks kk for this post.  There's been a lot of pessimism around this forum lately so it makes a change to  have a good news story ! ;)  I see the piece raises NGM's long-standing criticisms of being over-paid and having palatial offices etc.


Quote:

It is understood that Mr Carter, who was previously chief operating officer of NTL, the cable company, he is keen to move back into the commercial world.

Perhaps having secured a business-friendly telephone number plan it'll be payback time for Mr C when he returns to one of the businesses who'll benefit from his number plan!


Quote:

It is not known who will replace Mr Carter, and last night the regulator refused to comment on whether he would be leaving and who would replace him. Ed Richards, the former Downing Street policy adviser who is, in effect Mr Carter’s deputy at Ofcom, was recently sent on the obligatory Harvard management course. Some have questioned how much cheaper the combined communications regulator is compared with separate telecoms and media regulators.

Anyone know anything about Ed Richards ?  Would a combined regulator do a better job than Ofcom ?  Or could it do any worse !?!

gdh82 wrote on May 26^th, 2006 at 8:43am:

Would a combined regulator do a better job than Ofcom ?  Or could it do any worse !?!

Ofcom is a combined regulator and that press report indicates they are cheaper than when they were separate albeit questions over the salaries and their offices.

Ofcom comprises of the old Oftel, Radio Standards Authority and probably a few more but I can't remember.  Can anyone else remember?

bbb_uk wrote on May 26^th, 2006 at 9:08am:

Ofcom is a combined regulator and that press report indicates they are cheaper than when they were separate albeit questions over the salaries and their offices. Ofcom comprises of the old Oftel, Radio Standards Authority and probably a few more but I can't remember.  Can anyone else remember?

Surely The Times article questions whether Ofcom is actually in fact any cheaper than the several bodies in different offices it replaces bbb_uk? You seem to have forgotten the Independent Broadcasting Authority (IBA) that previously used to regulate television licensing and advertising and broadcasting complaints issues.

The main question is whether Carter has been pushed, because of the level of unhappiness that has been stirred up over his style of regulation (or should that be de-regulation), or whether he is going because he has lined up a million pound a year commercial job, even though he can't apply for it until the day after his appointment at Ofcom officially ends.  I would love to think he had been kicked out for failing to serve the best interests of uk citizen consumers, although the fact that he and David Currie had their appointments with Ofcom renewed only a few months back unfortunately rather suggests that some mega paid job in the commercial world is the more likely reason he is leaving.

A totally unsuitable man is appointed to be a regulator, does enormous damage, and then pushes back off to the commercial world to stick his snout back in the greasy commercial trough he has just made life 10 millions times more profitable for his big business comrades.  Took about New Labour being totally sleazey.  Its enough to make your blood boil.

I see Ofcom have now issued their own press release on this:-

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/media/news/2006/05/nr_20060526

I find it interesting that Carter quits only two days after I copied him in on an email to ITV's Chief Executive complaining about their disgraceful The Mint program being shown on ITV1 as an example of uk broadcasting going down the tubes under the Carter and Currie regime of so called regulation!  I did say god help the uk broadcasting and telecoms industries if Carter and Currie were still in control in another five years time.

Of course I'm sure this is entirely coincidental......................................

wrote on May 26^th, 2006 at 9:37am:

Surely The Times article questions whether Ofcom is actually in fact any cheaper than the several bodies in different offices it replaces bbb_uk?

They way I read it is that the Times article is questionning how much cheaper it is combined rather than separate:-

Quote:

Some have questioned how much cheaper the combined communications regulator is compared with separate telecoms and media regulators.

wrote on May 26^th, 2006 at 9:37am:

The main question is whether Carter has been pushed, because of the level of unhappiness that has been stirred up over his style of regulation (or should that be de-regulation), or whether he is going because he has lined up a million pound a year commercial job, even though he can't apply for it until the day after his appointment at Ofcom officially ends.

After reading Ofcom's press-release it appears that he can't (if I've read it correctly) take up a high-level job in upto 12months:-

Quote:

Stephen Carter's contract also contains appropriate gardening leave restrictions up to a maximum of 12 months at the discretion of the Chairman

of course the get-out clause of this is that its upto the chairman who is probably likely to say he can take up a job as soon as he leaves!

bbb_uk wrote on May 26^th, 2006 at 1:58pm:

Of course the get-out clause of this is that its upto the chairman who is probably likely to say he can take up a job as soon as he leaves!

What's the betting he has already been offered his next job before he decided to quit on an "unofficial" basis.

I expect CEO of CarPhone Warehouse/TalkTalk or a large mobile phone company would suit Mr Carter nicely.  No douby they will appreciate his stout defence of most 084/7 NGN profits.

Of course it may be that the number of MPs now taking an inconvenient interest in Ofcom's approach has encouraged the government to suggest to Mr Carter that a rapid return to the commercial sector may be in order before he is pushed. ;)

Perhaps he will be ennobled and join John Birt with some blue sky thinking?

Tanllan wrote on May 26^th, 2006 at 2:57pm:

Perhaps he will be ennobled and join John Birt with some blue sky thinking?

I suspect he is still a bit young for the knighthood and blue sky kind of thing.

I get the feeling he wants to move back to some large telco without a conscience running lots of profitable schemes involving Non Geographic and Premium Rate numbers.  No doubt he will be much in demand given that any company employing him will be sure that Carter will be able to oil the right wheels at Ofcom over any more contentious or close to the wind commercial ideas that they may have in mind.

Say hang on a minute hasn't Ben Verwaayen been CEO of BT for a very, very long time now.  Something tells me that this is where Stephen Carter may very well probably next turn up.  After all what commercial company could put greater value on having friends in high places at the telecoms regulator than good old big blue BT?

This shows how effective spin can be:

http://www.computing.co.uk/itweek/news/2157243/ofcom-boss-urged-show-teeth

<<
Stephen Carter will receive a good send-off when his reign as Ofcom chief executive ends in a few months, although some would like to see his successor stand up more for smaller ISPs. [...]

In a statement, Ofcom chairman David Currie said, "Stephen took on an immensely challenging task and has performed outstandingly. His legacy is an effective and credible organisation which plays an important role in delivering greater choice, lower prices and greater innovation." [...] (I have other opinions about his legacy - scams, exploitation, rip-offs and deceit at record levels with little, if any, redress for the consumer)

A spokeswoman for service provider Tiscali said, "Stephen Carter has presided over a change of regime from Oftel to Ofcom that has been good for the telecoms industry (but not for the consumer) in general. Ofcom has tackled issues of competition at a pretty strategic level. We now hope and expect to see continuity of effort and purpose to see the objectives of the Telecoms Strategic Review through to conclusion and we certainly don't expect to see the removal of regulation, as BT is, and will remain, such a dominant player." [...]

"Stephen has changed the landscape of telecoms regulation in Britain,” said BT chief executive Ben Verwaayen. “His commercial experience, judgment and professionalism have been fundamental in helping to give Britain the most competitive and innovative telecoms market in the world. He has helped focus regulation on the parts of the market that need it, allowing greater competition to flourish." [...]
>>

I would put serious money on Carter's next position being within an organization that benefits from, and exploits, NGNs.

I think a similar point has been made before, perhaps by NGM, but the figures below, regarding operating budgets for the FCC (the US regulator, population of country around 300,000,000) and Ofcom (UK regulator, country population around 60,000,000) are quite revealing:

http://www.fcc.gov/Reports/fcc2005budget_main.pdf

In order to attain the goals set forth in our Strategic Plan and implement
the FY 2005 Performance Budget, the Federal Communications
Commission ("FCC") is requesting an FY 2005 appropriation of
$292,958,000.

We project the FCC will work 2,015 full-time equivalents (FTEs) in FY 2005.

The Commission will use the FY 2005 funds to carry out its fundamental
mission to implement the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, in
a manner that promotes the availability, at reasonable costs and without
discrimination, rapid, efficient, Nation-and world-wide communications
services whether by radio, television, wire, satellite, or cable, for the
American people.


http://www.ofcom.org.uk/about/accoun/reports_plans/annrep0405/0405c.pdf

2005/6 budget

Ofcom's Operating Budget for 2005/6 is £133.0m.
[This equates to a dollar equivalent, @ 1GBP=1.87205USD of $248,982,650] ⁽¹⁾

This is five per cent lower than the 2004/5 budget (eight per cent lower in real terms compared with the 2004/5
Operating Budget plus RPI).

Recognising the impact of the rephasing projects and of projected RPI increases in 2005/6, Ofcom believes
that the £133.0m operating budget is a prudent figure.


⁽¹⁾ Today's exchange rate according to the BBC Market Data

Hi

Send a copy to the Nation Audit Office and ask them if we are getting good value for money.

The US regulator appears to be more effective (and as you point out, less costly per head of population), as all “above normal cost” US numbers appear to be in one “900" location, unlike our system: With “09" , (that is known and designated  premium classification) mixed with  “084x and 087x” clandestine premium numbers, which Ofcom has failed to regulate.

kk wrote on Jun 1^st, 2006 at 11:49am:

The US regulator appears to be more effective (and as you point out, less costly per head of population), as all “above normal cost” US numbers appear to be in one “900" location, unlike our system: With “09" , (that is known and designated  premium classification) mixed with  “084x and 087x” clandestine premium numbers, which Ofcom has failed to regulate.

And '070' (as used by Patientline) - which are covert rip-off devious disguised premium rate.

bbb_uk wrote on May 26^th, 2006 at 9:08am:

Ofcom is a combined regulator and that press report indicates they are cheaper than when they were separate albeit questions over the salaries and their offices.

I am surprised that it has been suggested that Ofcom is cheaper - it gives me the impression of being bigger than all its predecessors combined, plus the lease on a nice riverside HQ. It also has overheads that its predecessors did not, but that's not Ofcom's fault.


Quote:

Ofcom comprises of the old Oftel, Radio Standards Authority and probably a few more but I can't remember.  Can anyone else remember?

Yes. They were:
Oftel
Independent Television Commission
Radio Authority
Radiocommunications Agency
Broadcasting Standards Commission

pw4 wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2006 at 6:56pm:

I am surprised that it has been suggested that Ofcom is cheaper - it gives me the impression of being bigger than all its predecessors combined, plus the lease on a nice riverside HQ.

Ofcom is bigger and more costly than any of its predecessors combined yet massively less effective, especially in terms of protecting the rights of the uk citizen consumer?

Its strange that it takes so many overpaid employees simply for Ofcom to decide to no longer to carry out any effective or significant form of regulation of uk telecoms and broadcasting companies ::) :-? :-/

wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2006 at 6:21pm:

Its strange that it takes so many overpaid employees simply for Ofcom to decide to no longer to carry out any effective or significant form of regulation of uk telecoms and broadcasting companies ::) :-? :-/

Come come, NGM. Surely you are being unfair. Is this not the Ofcom that refused to limit junk food advertisements, lest the ban affected advertisers? So they are effective - if not to the benefit of the Citizen-Consumer.  :'(

Tanllan wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2006 at 7:56pm:

Come come, NGM. Surely you are being unfair. Is this not the Ofcom that refused to limit junk food advertisements, lest the ban affected advertisers? So they are effective - if not to the benefit of the Citizen-Consumer.  :'(

My Dear Tanllan,

The example you quote illustrates perfectly that precisely the same result could have been achieved far more cheaply for the uk taxpayer if Ofcom was simply closed down and all of its bloated, degenerate, overpaid and ineffectual cyphers of the uk telecoms industry thrown out on to the dark and cold streets of Southwark Bridge.

If we are going to pay a fortune to have a uk telecoms and broadcasting regulator and its hundreds of attendant overpaid executives surely it only serves a purpose if it prevents the organised price fixing and information withholding cartels of which most of the uk telecoms and broadcasting industries are made up.  If however the preferred option is simply for zero regulatio then in my book that also then involves zero staff working for the regulator and the complete abolition of the regulator.

Of course if that little line of thinking was pursued much further then since Turkeys don't vote for an early Christmas perhaps Messrs Currie, Carter, Meek, Williams, Richards and co might suddenly discover a belated passion for actually protecting the best interests of the uk citizen consumer! :-/

Ofcom's annual report has been published - http://www.ofcom.org.uk/about/accoun/reports_plans/annrep0506/annual_rpt_0506.pdf

Total remuneration for the Ofcom Board members is as follows (figures in GBP):

Millie Banerjee CBE Non-Executive Member  45,719
Stephen Carter Chief Executive  440,667
David Currie Chairman  193,737
Philip Graf CBE Deputy Chairman  25,129
Ian Hargreaves Non-Executive Member  45,586
Richard Hooper CBE Deputy Chairman  60,869
Stephanie Liston Non-Executive Member  23,454
Kip Meek Chief Policy Partner  338,579
Sara Nathan Non-Executive Member  56,937
Ed Richards Chief Operating Officer  308,930
Sean Williams Partner, Competition  251,186

These people are being paid £1.8m annually to exploit the UK public by maintaining a corrupt NTS regime. Money for old rope.

Quote:

Ofcom chief leaves early with industry on call Stephen Carter can expect a flurry of phone calls from headhunters after the Ofcom chief executive revealed plans to leave the regulator at the end of July, three months earlier than planned. Mr Carter will be available for hire in the media and telecoms sectors before Christmas, when his gardening leave at the watchdog expires. Earlier this year the 42-year-old former chief operating officer of cable giant NTL hinted that he would like to run another media company when he leaves Ofcom. Speculation has started that he could be a possible replacement for either ITV chief executive Charles Allen, who is coming in for fresh criticism for the broadcaster's poor share price performance, or for James Murdoch, should the BSkyB chief executive return to his father Rupert's News Corp in New York. Full story here Source: Telegraph

idb wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2006 at 5:51pm:

Millie Banerjee CBE Non-Executive Member  45,719 Stephen Carter Chief Executive  440,667 David Currie Chairman  193,737 Philip Graf CBE Deputy Chairman  25,129 Ian Hargreaves Non-Executive Member  45,586 Richard Hooper CBE Deputy Chairman  60,869 Stephanie Liston Non-Executive Member  23,454 Kip Meek Chief Policy Partner  338,579 Sara Nathan Non-Executive Member  56,937 Ed Richards Chief Operating Officer  308,930 Sean Williams Partner, Competition  251,186 These people are being paid £1.8m annually to exploit the UK public by maintaining a corrupt NTS regime. Money for old rope.

Outrageous that they are paid as much as directors of large successful private sector businesses when the job is the same as a high powered civil servant and at least civil servants normally act in the pubic interest rather than that of cronies in private sector businesses

wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2006 at 10:09am:

idb wrote on Jul 22nd, 2006 at 5:51pm: Millie Banerjee CBE Non-Executive Member  45,719 Stephen Carter Chief Executive  440,667 David Currie Chairman  193,737 Philip Graf CBE Deputy Chairman  25,129 Ian Hargreaves Non-Executive Member  45,586 Richard Hooper CBE Deputy Chairman  60,869 Stephanie Liston Non-Executive Member  23,454 Kip Meek Chief Policy Partner  338,579 Sara Nathan Non-Executive Member  56,937 Ed Richards Chief Operating Officer  308,930 Sean Williams Partner, Competition  251,186 These people are being paid £1.8m annually to exploit the UK public by maintaining a corrupt NTS regime. Money for old rope. Outrageous that they are paid as much as directors of large successful private sector businesses when the job is the same as a high powered civil servant and at least civil servants normally act in the pubic interest rather than that of cronies in private sector businesses

And not just their salaries, but 3 of them seem to have got a CBE!!

If their CBE is for services to the telecoms industry, then Harold Shipman should get a knighthood for services to the medical industry, or Wayne Rooney should be rewarded to being a role model for good behaviour on the football pitch!!