Ofcom asks some "questions" . . .

The UK uber-regulatory body for communications (Ofcom) has put forward a (PDF) request for public discussion on Next Generation Networks (NGNs). Among the many points of discussion, Ofcom would like to hear from the public on "Investment Incentives and Net Neutrality." The request contains these gem-like bullet points on the issue:

4.65 One way that operators may plan to monetise investments in next generation access is through offering content providers different levels of quality of service to deliver their applications to consumers. This issue continues to be discussed within the US and Europe as part of the net neutrality debate. For example, if a service provider wished to provide a high definition TV on demand service, the access provider might charge the high definition TV application provider a premium for offering to guarantee the quality of service with which subscribers received that service.

4.66 This could make a substantial difference to the business case for such infrastructure investments. In this regard, next generation access is an example of a two-sided market. Just as magazines charge both advertisers and subscribers, next generation access providers may plan to secure payments from both consumers and application providers.

4.67 Were regulation introduced in Europe which restricted service providers from acting in this way, it could affect their incentives for investing in next generation access networks. This issue is currently being considered in the context of the Review of the European Regulatory Framework.

4.68 This issue is still being debated in Europe. But it is important in the context of next generation access: as regulation in this area evolves, this could have significant implications for operators’ incentives. Regulation that prevented these strategies could remove a potential source of revenue and return for next generation access networks.

Now, Ofcom also states, among its regulatory principles that it:

. . . will strive to ensure its interventions will be evidence-based, proportionate, consistent, accountable and transparent in both deliberation and outcome.

Are these bullet points really aligned with the principle of "evidence-based" and "proportionate" deliberation?

From where I'm sitting, it's more like they've taken a page from Fox News' question-mark journalism. Ofcom are clearly looking for support on a position they've already adopted. Otherwise, the bullet point might read:

4.68 This issue is still being debated in Europe. But it is important in the context of next generation access: as regulation in this area evolves, this could have significant implications for operators’ incentives. Without regulation preventing these strategies, providers could tier access to broadband services which would inhibit NGN investment, because high capacity networks would obviate the need for QoS and therefore deprive them of a potential source of 'revenue'.

Is this how Ofcom plans to bend the UK consumer over for the benefit of greedy telcos?

I'm just asking.