Colt Technology Services v Ofcom – [2013] CAT 29 – Appealing a telecoms regulatory decision

A recent and interesting case (Colt v Office of Communications [2013] CAT 29) has shed some light on when and in what circumstances the decisions of the UK's telecoms regulator can be appealed.     

The most ambitious plan in 26 years of telecoms market reform? No way!

The European Commission's claim that their proposed new telecoms regulation² constitutes “the most ambitious plan in 26 years of telecoms market reform” is preposterous. That honour must belong to the set of new European directives in 2002 which transformed the structure of telecoms regulation and facilitated competition throughout Europe. Instead the plans make great play of a number of actually pretty minor changes and, the Body for European Regulators for Electronic Communications (“BEREC”) has been particularly critical that the proposals will create unnecessary complexity and uncertainty and limit innovation and competition.     

The case for Agrarian capitalism: A response to albritton

Albritton finds Brenner's designation ‘agrarian capitalism’ inappropriate for early English agriculture, as the law of value and the commodification of labour are undeveloped. But Brenner is not theorising a ‘full‐blown’ capitalism. His theory traces a process of transition, by which new rules for social reproduction and a new capitalist logic unfolded gradually. Albritton's evidence, moreover, actually supports Brenner's thesis. Charges of class reductionism misconstrue Brenner's efforts to overcome the tendency to dichotomise society into political and economic spheres. Brenner's theory provides what the bourgeois paradigm does not: a logical explanation of how market dependency and capitalist classes emerged.     

Precautionary Maybe,but What's the Principle? The Precautionary Principle,the Regulation of Risk,and the Public Domain

The 'precautionary principle', originating in the field of environmental protection but now widely applied, is a major point for discussion in the regulation of risk. Though promising proactive and pre-emptive intervention to prevent potentially irreversible harm, its precise meaning remains somewhat unclear. Legal systems tend to view it as procedural rather than substantive, and debates abound regarding its 'stronger' or 'weaker' versions and, indeed, the very concept of 'risk'. It is also necessary to discuss how the principle operates in varying administrative and constitutional contexts but the key task is to clarify the principle's fundamental value base. If its essentially collective orientation is highlighted, it may better ensure that democratic and non-pecuniary interests are given due prominence in regulatory contexts otherwise dominated by economic interests and technological imperatives, and it may then play an important role in reasserting the values of the public domain in the face of powerful private interests.     

Science,Evidence and Logic

Bernard Robertson and G.A. Vignaux, Interpreting Evidence: Evaluating Forensic Science in the Courtroom , Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 1995, xxi + 240 pp, hb £24.95.