Matthew Revell

GMTV interviewer: Did this earthquake have anything to do with global warming?

Shaking ground expert: Err, no.

Today is the fourth anniversary of LugRadio’s first episode!

Listening back to that first show, it’s interesting that one of the first things we talk about is GPL v3. Four years on, that particular discussion continues

When we recorded that first show, we had no idea what LugRadio would become. Actually, listening to that first show, it was clearly touch and go

So, congratulations to the current LugRadio team, howdy to my fellow former LugRadio presenters and thanks to everyone who listens to the show and comes to the events. See you at LugRadio Live UK later this year.

I like Matt Wright, as a broadcaster. He’s got a friendly smile and a chummy way about him. He also likes Hocus Pocus by Focus. However, he’d really do better to stick to the sort of fluffy subjects at which his show excels.

When I was a child - very young - I couldn’t understand why the government didn’t just do everything. After all, they were there to do the best for everyone, right? Experience and a little reading soon rid me of such naive thinking. Sadly, Wright and his guests - perhaps spurred on by Northern Rock’s bungled nationalisation - appear to cling to such childish notions.

Today’s lead topic on The Wright Stuff was, “Is gas a rip-off?” Here are some of the wonderful insights that Wright and his guests shared with the audience:

• Gas privatisation was supposed to make gas bills cheaper but they just keep going up.
• They say they need the money for windmills but I bet they’ll still charge us for electricity when they’ve built the windmills, even though the electricity will be free to them.
• We need evidence that they’re spending this money on windmills and not just giving it back to (evil) shareholders! If they were nationalised, then we’d have access to that information.
• There’s only one other gas supplier in my area and a few weeks after switching to them they put their prices up too.
• I don’t have time to switch my gas supplier.

(These aren’t direct quotes.)

That last one is my person favourite, particularly as it was uttered by Natalie Cassidy (y’know, her what used to be Sonia in Eastenders and, no, I didn’t realise she was a fount of political and current affairs wisdom, either). Three things to say to that:

1. Is anyone really that busy after they leave Eastenders?
2. If you choose not to switch gas suppliers, tough. What do you want? Someone to choose the brand of toothpaste you buy as well?
3. Switching gas suppliers is not hard: there are so many companies vying to help you choose and even the tax-funded Ofgem will help you out. Hell, I even got paid £15 as an incentive by such a website last time.

Let’s look at the others, though, starting with the idea that utility privatisation hasn’t worked because gas bills have gone up recently. It shows a stunning lack of awareness, or self-delusion, to ignore the other factors that have led to our recent rises in utility bills:

• dwindling North Sea reserves
• increased demand from across the globe, not least China
• the woefully under-reported renewables obligation, which is the largest contributor to recent bill rises.

Now, I’ll give it to them, they did say that British Gas are “claiming the rises will pay for windmills” or something similar, but the immediate leap to demand nationalisation is worryingly indicative of the current political climate. Nationalisation, as Chris Mounsey points out, doesn’t have a particularly glorious record. Anyone remember the British-owned car industry? I just about remember the pre-privatisation days of British Telecom, when phone usage was a luxury thanks to high pricing. Granted, new technology has always contributed to the lowering of phone prices but competition has been the driver of both that new technology and lower bills overall.

Let’s touch briefly on wind power: the renewables obligation goes to subsidise electricity generated now, so rather than being free, that electricity is costing more. Wind turbines will require investment to build and ongoing maintenance, along with transmission costs. Wind power, also, is not reliable nor particularly efficient and requires generation from other sources (coal, gas, nuclear, for example) to back it up when it’s either too windy or not quite windy enough. So, this is the Goldilocks of power generation and just like Goldilocks in the story, it can’t go for that long without needing a lie down; it’s the energy source with ME. So, no, your electricity won’t be free and nor should it be.

As for there being just one alternative gas supplier in a given area: that’s simply untrue on mainland Great Britain. So, if you do switch and find that eventually your new supplier raises prices, there are other suppliers to whom you can turn.

On LugRadio we were sometimes berated for discussing subjects we knew little of. However, our audience was (is) intelligent enough and well-read enough to pick us up when we were wrong. And besides, LugRadio is a purely hobby operation where the presenters don’t have the luxury of a professional research team or of actually being paid to know what the hell they’re talking about. The Wright Stuff’s daytime TV audience is probably only just one notch above that for Jeremy Kyle and almost certainly takes what its presenters say at face value.

Doubtless nationalisation will come up on tonight’s Wolverhampton Politics Show. Tune in at wcrfm.com on 101.8 FM in Wolverhampton between 7pm and 8pm tonight.

Thought mobile phone companies offering fixed line broadband was just a cheap way to boost ARPU or retention? Well, in the short term it probably does offer those benefits but, just as I imagine Sky do, mobile companies may have plans to use fixed line broadband to boost their core offering.

O2 has announced a large scale trial of femtocells.

Femtocells - the prefix “femto” meaning one quadrillionth, so perhaps we shouldn’t take the name too literally - provide mobile phone coverage in small areas, such as homes, offices and shops. Although your mobile phone sees them as just another part of the mobile network, they work much like wifi access points: they hook up to a broadband connection and act as a bridge between mobile devices and the mobile network proper.

The idea is that if, for example, you live in an area with poor network coverage, you install a femtocell and your house has its own low-powered mobile phone cell. In theory, you’ll always have perfect coverage in that location because your calls will bypass any local mobile towers and go straight over your broadband connection.

Interestingly, though, the O2 press release includes this quote from Vivek Dev, Chief Operating Officer of Telefónica O2 Europe:

“Our Apple iPhone is already driving unheard-of levels of mobile internet usage, and the introduction of flat rate data tariffs is expected to increase this further. Both of these place huge capacity demands on our networks, and because so much of that usage is at home, femtocells coupled with DSL could provide an alternative capacity resource.”

This is a fascinating idea: O2 seem to be suggesting that they plan to charge you a flat rate for mobile data but actually want to punt a large chunk of that over the broadband connection you also pay for. If that is what they’re planning to do, then you’ll be paying twice for data traffic on your mobile whenever you’re at home. In effect, their customers will be providing the mobile operator with free backhaul.

Now, as O2 is one of only two UK mobile networks with an LLU broadband operation, it would seem likely they’ll offer femtocells primarily to their own broadband customers. Then at least you can argue they’re using their own network and, who knows, perhaps the flat rate data packages they mention will be hybrid fixed line/mobile packages. However, if data is the primary motivation behind femotcells it prompts two questions:

• Is 3G data really that limited?
• Why not just sell more wifi capable devices?

The answer to the first question, based on my limited reading, is: probably. The answer to the second question, though, is more interesting: wifi is the enemy. Following the ridiculous sums spent on UK 3G licences, the mobile operators are keen to see 3G use increase; apparently 3G traffic is also cheaper than 2G traffic. If it’s true that most mobile data use is in the home (or another fixed location), then encouraging wifi use effectively remove the mobile operators from the picture. It would also make 3G less of a must-have phone feature, thereby keeping more traffic on the more expensive 2G network; the Apple iPhone is perhaps a good example of a device that has wifi but not yet 3G. So, the mobile networks would rather we have 3G femtocells in our homes because then we’re committed to 3G; something video calling could never achieve.

The fact that it’s just another - and possibly expensive - way of using your own broadband connection surely won’t be lost on people.

The good thing about femtocells, rather than wifi, is that the transition between real mobile network and femtocell will be seamless and they’ll work with any 3G mobile phone. If it cost me nothing, I’d certainly get a femtocell. Despite clear line of site to the mobile tower, the walls of our 1920s house whittle puny 3G signals down to a squeak. And I do mean it’d have to cost me nothing: I’m already paying my mobile network (O2 at the moment) for network coverage.

If it weren’t for Virgin Media’s lack of focus and difficulty in maintaining the quality of its current product set, I’d suggest they’d be in the best place to benefit from femtocells. They have an extensive broadband network and an MVNO in the form of Virgin Mobile. With femtocells, they could avoid paying transit fees to their mobile network provider (T-Mobile) and without the expense of building a full mobile network.

You know you’ve listened to too much Last.fm when you reach for the “Love it” button on your car stereo.

BBC Three is rebranding. It’s not just a new logo, though: it’s also “a huge step forward in multi-platform”.

Danny Cohen - the channel’s controller - is credited with this banal quote in the official Beeb press release:

“BBC Three is aiming to become Britain’s most ambitious multi-platform network – combining television and the web into a single, integrated offering.”

In other words, BBC Three is going a bit YouTube and a lot Nathan Barley. Just as content was king in the 90s, today user-interaction is the media mantra. The channel that brought us such programming delights as “Fuck me I’m a hairy woman” has set itself the lofty aim of having “regular slots for user-generated content in prime-time”, while “interactive ideas will be placed at the heart of many programmes”. Some may welcome the broadcast of viewers’ own mobile phone videos of hairy women but I imagine the new BBC Three will make many nostalgic for even the shoddiest examples of reality TV.

At a time when the BBC is cutting funding to current affairs and wildlife - two of the genres that strengthen arguments in favour of the BBC being funded through taxation - BBC Three’s £93.4 million annual budget looks hard to justify.

Although BBC Three doesn’t help itself by commissioning shows with childishly shocking titles (see Paxo’s famous interview with BBC chairman Michael Lyons), that’s almost a distraction when considering whether the channel should exist.

The first two questions we need to ask are:

• Is BBC Three providing a service that would not be provided by the commercial sector?
• If it is, are the benefits of that service sufficient to justify funding it through taxation?

The Department of Culture, Media and Sport sought to ensure BBC Three would be “genuinely distinctive, genuinely public service and genuinely innovative” when granting approval. The conditions it attached were sufficiently wooly - e.g. programming must be of high quality - or otherwise of questionable benefit to the tax paying viewer - e.g. the BBC had to agree to promote digital uptake - as to be of little help in answering our two questions.

A quick trawl through the BBC Three schedules shows that, alongside the self-consciously yoof shows, unfunny comedy and the odd rerun of a Hollywood film, it has some examples of what makes the BBC great: The Mighty Boosh, Ideal, Japanorama, Nighty Night. However, each of those shows would have sat happily in the schedules of BBC Two in the 90s.

So, here’s why I think BBC Three is so important to the BBC that its budget remains in tact while other, arguably more important, areas of output are cut: it’s the gateway drug of the Beeb. We all hear meeja punters telling us that the BBC will find it difficult to justify the licence fee in the non-linear age where TV channels will no longer exist and we’ll all have hovering servant robots. As BBC One shuffles along in its desperate bid to become ITV1 and BBC Two has lost its commitment to risk-taking, there’s nowhere in the BBC’s output for the yoof audience. When they’re not busy drinking alcopops and watching happy slapping on t’interweb, they’re watching commercial TV. That’s no good if you need to justify the medium-term future of the tax/licence fee that funds your organisation. Perhaps that explains why BBC Three fairly quickly abandoned its government mandated target audience of 25 - 34 year olds for much of its programming. 30 year olds are already hooked, for the most part.

I think there is an argument for public service broadcasting aimed at people in their late teens/early 20s. However, I’m not sure BBC Three is serving that audience well - nor its 25 to 34 year old mandated audience - and I certainly don’t see how turning it into some sort of Web2.0, hand-wavey, social networking whore goes any further to justifying the use of £93.4 million of our money.