I'm guessing that "The Internet Consumer Bible" is the other...

Fine, so we have a quango consisting so far of:

- two junior ministers I've never heard of (not even on "Any Questions")

- one production company manager with an obvious financial interest in the subject

- three consultants of such outstanding excellence and renoun in the industry that their only appearances on the first page of a Google search are as members of this quango or (Tess Read) as an author of one book and (Chris Earnshaw) as a senior BT manager.

So far this strikes me more as an exercise in pumping taxpayer's cash into the pockets of Government friends than as a genuine attempt to plan for future communications trends. One is left wondering what these individuals have done and for whom to deserve such largesse.

I am saddened by such an example of cynicism and negativity, but am heartened by the steps our wonderful British Government are taking to address any current minor shortcomings and uncertainty in this important area of national infrastructure.

We now have a chance to leverage ourselves into a whole new paradigm in the area of data convergence. We can have confidence of success based on our government's amazing track record in the area of data management in general.

The future is on it's way, embrace it with joy, or miss it.

for my pork please.. how do we apply to join these quango's..

no, let me guess, invitation only..

Underground, overground, wombling free.. wombles of wimbledon common are we.. remember you're a womble, remember you're a womble.. ahem.

So, the government wants to gain an understanding of what is likely to happen in the next few decades of t'internet and the media etc. How does it go about this?

1) Rely on the experiences of those within the governemnt, and use the imaginations of MPs to predict what could happen.

2) Get groups of people from the street to form focus groups and ask them.

3) Ask the big corporations to tell the government what they think will happen.

4) Put together a list of people you think are experts in the field and who are fairly independently minded and see what they say.

Option 1) is a complete joke. Modern politicians have enough trouble keeping in touch with reality from inside their own fields (look at the mess Tony Blair the lawyer has made of various aspects of the Criminal Justice System) - very few MPs have any high level education in either IT or science. Option 2) is an even bigger joke, after all, these are the people who think we should bring back the death penalty. Option 3) is an open invitation to the big corporations to influence future legislation in their favour (eg as happens in the US).

Only Option 4) holds any hope of giving an even vaguely likely idea of what may happen in the future. Of course, the government will choose to ignore what the 'think tank' says if it runs against their own beliefs or plans...

Perhaps Option 5) is better - create a science and IT literate government that is capable of dealing in real time with technology in a flexible and objective way that both encourages change yet protects the most vulnerable individuals from the negative side-effects of these changes. Hang on, I think I've had too much Xmas sherry!

"Modern politicians have enough trouble keeping in touch with reality from inside their own fields (look at the mess........"

Reading this in a tired state as I am, I thought you were making a joke about politicians being donkeys who produce lots of crap. Then I read the rest of the sentence. Then I realised I was right. Then I realised you weren't joking.

I'll go sip another little drink :)

So what's the difference between (3) and (4) exactly?

Culture Secretary James Purnell seems to move as fast as as the proverbial greased pig, in political terms at least.

It must have been only the week before last that El Reg had a piece on an EU program of "education" in net-saviness for all citizens of "Europe", and behold here is Comrade James already putting his shoulder to the British wheel of the EU wagon.

Little matter that Comrade James's straining like a mountain has produced the usual ridiculous quango of a mouse - someone somewhere will notice, and doubtless Comrade James will have his reward in Brussels, after the next election has confined nu labour to oblivion. Ecce homo! as it was once said. He has only to hope his eagerness has not caught the eye of Big Gordo, whose dilatory style over signatures in Lisbon is surely the example he should have followed.

This 'think tank' is supposed to be dealing with communications-technology, and - by inference - what's being communicated over it.

Given the vague descriptions that provide instruction to the panel (of which any politician would be proud), they're already start out behind: I'm not sure what they're meant to be communicating.