http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jan/13/colette-bowe-backs-ofcom-regulation-of-royal-mail

Colette Bowe backs Ofcom regulation of Royal Mail

<<
Colette Bowe, the incoming chair of Ofcom, has told MPs she would welcome expanding the communications regulator's remit to oversee Royal Mail, as recommended by last year's review of postal services by Richard Hooper.

Bowe, who is due to take over from Lord Currie in March, also said today that the communications regulator would make "hard touch" interventionist decisions when necessary. [...]

She added that Ofcom under her leadership would eliminate outmoded regulation and strive to reduce the regulatory burden on stakeholders, but this did not mean the organisation would actually be doing less regulation.

"I don't think the people in this country would be enthusiastic about a regulator that announced it was on track to wind down from regulation. Ofcom's regulatory mantra is not light touch but right touch. Ofcom can be quite hard touch when it needs to be," she told a joint session of the House of Commons culture, media and sport and business and enterprise select committees.

However, Bowe said Ofcom, which oversees the UK media and telecoms sectors, was a "prolific regulator" and needed to consider the burden of frequent consultations and reports not only on the industry but on other stakeholders. "If big organisations find it difficult to cope with the volume ... imagine if you were the policy officer for Age Concern," she added.

She also challenged parliament to widen Ofcom's powers to introduce a universal service obligation for broadband and to crack down on silent marketing calls.

Committee members challenged Bowe on her salary - about £200,000 a year for a three-day-a-week role - and suggested she should set an example and offer to work for less. Bowe defended her remuneration, saying the rate was set by ministers and she wasn't going to suggest she should be paid less than her predecessor for the same job.

She argued that Ofcom delivered value for money and the salaries it paid were necessary to attract the right candidates. [...]

Bowe said it was impractical to move more of Ofcom's operations outside London but she was "alive" to the issue of London-centricity, having grown up in Liverpool. She told MPs she planned to visit Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland soon after taking the role.

Asked about her weaknesses, she admitted she needed to brush up on the "hugely important" issue of spectrum management.

Bowe is a board member of Axa Framlington, Morgan Stanley Bank International, Electra Private Equity and London and Continental Railways, chairman of council at Queen Mary College, London, and a board member of the National Institute for Economic and Social Research.
>>

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/4228750/MPs-hit-out-at-Ofcom-chairs-pay.html

MPs hit out at Ofcom chair's pay

Members of parliamentary committee yesterday hit out at Ofcom's newly appointed chairman for accepting a salary greater than the Prime Minister's in the middle of an economic downturn.

By Amanda Andrews
Last Updated: 4:53PM GMT 13 Jan 2009

<<
Colette Bowe's £200,000 salary, whose appointment was made last month, was criticised by a group of MPs at a Department for Culture, Media and Sport select committee meeting.

One questioned why the former economist, who will be working for three days a week, needed to earn more than the Prime Minister to do a part-time public sector job. Ms Bowe insisted Ofcom needed to pay high salaries to ensure it attracts the highest calibre recruits.

Another told her to "please reconsider the amount of salary you are taking" and "set a standard". Ms Bowe will succeed Lord Currie, who has held the post since 2003 and was paid a salary £206,000. "I believe the job is doable in that time commitment," assured Ms Bowe, when MPs questioned why she was not working a full week. "But if I believe the job needs more time then Ofcom will get more time." Ms Bowe said she had time to do all her other roles, which include board posts at Axa Framlington, Morgan Stanley and Electra Private Equity, although said Ofcom will be her "primary role".
[...]
>>

UK (pop ~60m) Ofcom budget FY2008/2009 GBP 133.7 (= ~194.7 USD @  1.45648 ROE)
US (pop ~300m) FCC requested budget FY2009 USD 338.9

idb wrote on Jan 14^th, 2009 at 3:46am:

UK (pop ~60m) Ofcom budget FY2008/2009 GBP 133.7 (= ~194.7 USD @  1.45648 ROE) US (pop ~300m) FCC requested budget FY2009 USD 338.9

Can you translate idb.  I'm not quite sure of the point you are trying to make here.

idb wrote on Jan 14^th, 2009 at 3:14am:

She argued that Ofcom delivered value for money and the salaries it paid were necessary to attract the right candidates. [...]

Would those "right candidates" all be self centred careerists who are only motivated by money and promotion but who are not interested in standing up for principles or preventing the consumer from being fleeced then? ;) ::) >:(

NGMsGhost wrote on Jan 15^th, 2009 at 12:04pm:

idb wrote on Jan 14th, 2009 at 3:46am: UK (pop ~60m) Ofcom budget FY2008/2009 GBP 133.7 (= ~194.7 USD @  1.45648 ROE) US (pop ~300m) FCC requested budget FY2009 USD 338.9 Can you translate idb.  I'm not quite sure of the point you are trying to make here.

No 'earth-shattering' point other than given broadly similar regulatory remits (television, telecommunications, radio, spectrum), one regulator's per capita budget is significantly greater than the other's per capita budget.

If I'm reading those figures correctly, Ofcom costs each UK citizen approximately 3 times what the FCC costs each US citizen ($3.25 as opposed to $1.13 per annum).

Oh the joys of "big government" - with 25% of those still with a job being paid, directly (MPs, civil servants etc.) or indirectly (NHS, police, HMR&C, councils, unelected quangos etc.) from the taxation that all of us (by definition, mostly the other 75%) have to pay.

Heinz wrote on Jan 21^st, 2009 at 1:50pm:

If I'm reading those figures correctly, Ofcom costs each UK citizen approximately 3 times what the FCC costs each US citizen ($3.25 as opposed to $1.13 per annum).

Indeed. Whilst it may be inconclusive to directly compare each regulator's budget, and there will be differences in regulatory activity (for example, here, the FCC only regulates interstate issues with respect to fixed-lines; it does not regulate local phone service nor intrastate issues) together with exchange-rate conversion difficulties, the per capita difference between the two budgets is striking.

Ofcom today published an update to its regulatory principles which now includes those for postal services.

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/about/sdrp/

[Source: Ofcom update email]

Perhaps we'll see NEG PostLine(tm) or MailLine(tm) services in due course.

idb wrote on Mar 13^th, 2009 at 11:10pm:

Ofcom today published an update to its regulatory principles which now includes those for postal services. http://www.ofcom.org.uk/about/sdrp/ [Source: Ofcom update email] Perhaps we'll see NEG PostLine(tm) or MailLine(tm) services in due course.

We wait to see if they allow revenue-sharing stamps.

Dave wrote on Mar 14^th, 2009 at 1:31pm:

We wait to see if they allow revenue-sharing stamps.

The present government proposals come very close to revenue sharing, as the minority equity holder will be entitled to its share of the declared profit. It will also gain its share of what it must assume will be an increasing value of the enterprise as it approaches the point of sell-off, the only point at which the investor will be able to get its money back. (This is assuming that a future government does not re-nationalise the business, and re-impose the burden of the pension fund liabilities.)

Ofcom's role has always been to ensure that consumers benefit through the effects achieved by a lightly regulated competitive market. The interests of citizens are advanced by ensuring that as many as possible are able to participate in this market to the greatest possible extent.

With the Royal Mail business partly privately owned and doubtless presented as benefiting from this private sector involvement, and with Ofcom in place as the proven trusted regulator of competitive markets, don't anyone tell me that this remaining traditional monopoly and the universal service obligation has any future.

Please understand that I do not personally support the basis for these arguments, I simply advise of how I expect the case to be presented. Can anyone suggest how it may be opposed effectively, and by who.?

The rough equivalent of revenue sharing to watch out for will be the reply part-paid deals. Where someone cannot afford or negotiate a fully reply-paid arrangement, they will subsidise just part of the cost of the regular stamp, which will be going through the roof. This will mean that you will be able to communicate by post with some people at a discounted rate. (This already works the other way of course.) The rate agreed will obviously depend on volume, so there will be scope for recipients to get a discount from the mail service, according to the volume of mail they receive. This will be remarkably similar to the rebates given to users of revenue sharing numbers. Can anyone see Ofcom opposing this?

Interesting article in The Independent about her.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/opinion/stephen-glover/stephen-glover-should-we-worry-that-ofcoms-new-boss-has-a-black-mark-on-her-copybook-1645638.html

oldharryrocks wrote on Mar 16^th, 2009 at 3:51am:

Interesting article in The Independent about her. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/opinion/stephen-glover/stephen-glover-should-we-worry-that-ofcoms-new-boss-has-a-black-mark-on-her-copybook-1645638.html

I last met her about 18 years ago when she then looked quite grey and middle aged.

However it seems that flush with the proceeds of her many executuve and non executive directors salaries (and with no children of to spend any private school fees on or otherwise occupy her leisure time) she has now been able to afford a full Joan Collins level of botox and plastic surgery.  Rather a contrast to her male predecessor Lord Currie who made no effort at all with his appearance.