G'day from Down Under
April 12, 2008 Posted by George in : Bristol , trackbackHi there, firstly I’d like thank Connecting Bristol for the opportunity to connect with you. I am so excited to be blogging with you and I promise not to ramble too much. I am famous for going on forever once I get on my soapbox, so if you permit me I’d like to break this up in a few posts. I guess a good place to start is myKP, which I hope to you give some personal insight on and an understanding of what motivates us to connect with Connecting Bristol and more importantly you. myKP is a collaboration of many talented people with a desire to make a difference, a group of individuals I can’t possibly give enough accolades to.
My desire with these posts is to make this experience a personal one with you, so I commit to blog openly. For me myKP is my digital karma project. I’ve worked in the telco industry a long time and experienced its rewards, have made some amazing friends, and have been fortunate to travel the world doing what I love most. For some time I’ve have harbored a desire to give something back (must be my superman complex), hence myKP was born with the aim of connecting people, helping to bridge the digital divide and having fun and bringing opportunity, starting in our own back yard and then hopefully the rest of world. It is our belief that only through association with like minded organisations such as Connecting Bristol and individuals such as you that this is possible.
That said, who’s ready to start a revolution with us? I can feel your eagerness and excitement vibrating across the bits and bytes, and I am looking forward to teaming up with you. However, let’s get something straight right of the bat, Broadband, Wi-Fi, and Internet Access (whatever your flavor or you want to call it) is really boring. myKP for some time has contemplated about, how to make a topic filled with arcane legal and technical underpinnings simple and understandable enough to benefit rural and regional communities, and develop a model that would be sustainable as well as act as a platform to grow from.
At the moment here in Oz, much like the rest of the world, there is a tremendous push for connecting underserved, rural and regional communities from the highest levels of government through to us common folk. As large a nation (mass) and as dispersed as we are makes for delivering quality Internet access to everyone a difficult task and rightly so, traditional telecommunications providers have found it difficult to justify the costs of deployment against the small return for shareholders.
To date, the popular concessus for boosting connectivity in these communities, again much like the rest of the world, has been government incentives and subsidies for service providers to build infrastructure. However, government incentives may not be the answer but more rather education and a coming together of a shared vision of organisation such and Connecting Bristol and myKP , the connection of our users and the involvement of those with most to gain from enabled communities. No…… not the end users….. but the companies and organisations wanting to reach them. Absolutely Governments must get involved and lead by example, however perhaps not in the way that first comes to mind.
Touring Australian rural and regional towns, the first thing that strikes you is the resilience and capability of the people, along with their desire to help themselves. This we are certain is the same world over. Hence, our first point of call was how do we get these people to help themselves when it comes to accessing the Internet. One tried and proven way is to show how quality Internet access can improve and enable other areas of community concern, like health care and distance learning. By showing people how it works, perhaps through demonstrations of remote education, or distance doctoring.
But we’ve done this. Countless studies, submissions and expert opinions have shown us the inherent benefits of Internet access. There is clear awareness and evidence at all levels of public, private and government sectors of the benefits it can provide. But, since when did we want to eat our vegetables just because mum said they were good for us?
Eventually, the more we talked to people, the clearer things became and the answer pretty simple. I remember talking to a grandmother in the central western town of Gilgandra, New South Wales (population roughly 3000), about how we wanted to bring affordable, quality Internet access to the town and all she was interested in was receiving e-mails with pictures of her new grandson, not a word about any medical diagnosis over web cam. A local olive oil producer wanted help to put his products on e-bay and develop an e-commerce site so he could sell his produce in the “big smoke”. These examples were repeated over and over again in every town we visited.
During our research period we made some amazing friends, and the myKP Community project for us very quickly became about what it should have from the beginning, not technology, not about the delivery platform but about its application, about the content not the possibilities and most importantly about, people.
Have I lost you yet? This is where we interact, what do you think, are people the most important thing about the Internet?
Comments»
Hi George, welcome to the blog.
Its a pretty fundamental question you ask here- the technology that we get to work with can be very compelling and impressive. We can get a bit spellbound and distracted by its complexity and shinyness- like its a modern form of magic. But the work we do is about leveling the playing field around opportunities to use technology to communicate and access products and services online. Of course the technology needs to work intuitively, effectively and efficiently but for me it is just a tool to address the broader issues of exclusion.
Absolutely! For far to long we’ve focused on the technology (magic).
Anyone else, agree with Kevin?
Exclusion, there is no purpose or reason for it. Technically speaking, there is no logical justification, why any person in our communities should be excluded from accessing the Internet if they want to. 10 quid says, you can’t give me one, and Kevin will pay you if you can.
:-)
Kevin,
I think that I agree. From my perspective the technology is secondary and the effectiveness of the communication and content (e.g in a news story) is key.
If the technology doesn't solve our problems then it is just shiney stuff.
Look at the Sinclair C5 in the 80s? Cool looking but completely useless.
Sinclair C5, Matt, mate, you’re showing your age. Great example, great idea and theory but has a couple of things missing (except the washing machine motor, that was pretty cool, come on).
- Gas / Petrol wasn’t anywhere near as expensive as it is now,
- no David Beckham or Paris Hilton would be caught dead in it, nowhere near sexy enough
- technical issues (not just windows bugs, the thing could actually kill you)
- commercial issues, and lets face it,
- not enough Greenies around
Now, put in context. Technology works (proven), commercials can be worked out (many ways to skin a cat), easily repairable (every community has a PC dude or dudett), reason for using it (apps, fun, entertainment, research, e-mailing friends, photos of the grandkids, flirting, even sex and love)
Sinclair C5 1985, meet Sinclair 2008, what do you think the Sinclair concept if brought back to life today would focus on? The fact that you can save money on fuel, save the environment, or maybe something like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_scooters or even this http://www.segway.com/
What’s the difference? Apart from the obvious, it’s about people. A product and solution focused on the desires of people. So, in theory community networks focused on the ‘actual’ deliverable desires of the community, not the ‘eat your vegies they are good for you’ approach actually works, and the inherent benefits (the goodness) comes right along with it.
Economically speaking, there is logical justification. Virtually every household in the UK is subject to a communications tax (the TV license) of £140 a year and they then have to buy cable/satellite TV, mobile/landline telephone connections and broadband on top. This is an expensive business, so something's got to give.
Why not use the license fee to redistribute and fund a free UK-wide broadband network out of it rather than unwatched cable TV channels, a huge (but inaccessible) website, pop radio gibberish and the rest?
Do I win £10 for that?
…Why not use the license fee to redistribute and fund a free UK-wide broadband network….
Because this is pretty much happening anyway.
Beyond the license fee, if you want one, a freeview box is £20. Providers are offering broadband free with BT line rental. In less than ten years, mobile phones have become ubiquitous and one of the best ways to reach those who are otherwise excluded.
It's hard to argue that the market isn't working here, let alone suggest that a government-backed national monopoly would do better (as anyone who has ever had to deal with France Telecom could tell you).
And if you want to stop funding the BBC, then you've created a media landscape that looks like the US. That doesn't feel like a step forward either.
So as the cost of distribution and access is getting cheaper anyway, then I'd say myKP and Connecting Bristol are right to focus on promoting content, takeup and the use of technology rather than the technology itself.
I don’t think it has to be free. Yes, what Connecting Bristol and myKP are doing should be free, but a national broadband network that is free is not possible. No one is saying provide it free. However, it should definitely not be as expensive as what it is. Why, because aside from the traditional benefits of the web, it’s a huge shopping centre / mall, with that in mind considering the amount of businesses either directly or indirectly vying for your online dollar, and the cost to them of attracting you… don’t quote me, but last time I checked Google made around $16 Billion in advertising revenue last year. Someone paid for that right?
So free to air TV - how great was that when it came out. It set of a revolution that built multiple industries, jobs, etc.. and created revenue streams across the last 6 or so decades for so many of these industries which would be impossible to calculate in full (not enough zeros). How about the social impact, news, documentaries, live footage, the list goes on and on. A couple of questions:
Who paid for it?
How much do you pay your free to air TV provider?
If you don’t pay, you’re limited to their content correct?
If you are happy to and can afford to, you pay for more content correct?
Free to air Internet is not a sustainable business model though, unless you are myKP or Connecting Bristol that is. Why, because it’s about connecting people, and providing a service that is not over commercialised. There are enormous amounts of ways to recover the costs of deploying free community Wi-Fi, and ultimately it’s a stepping stone to bigger and better things, a catalyst to help the community go from free-to-air TV to Pay TV. The only thing needed is human interaction, provide applications and content that users will want to have (sure you can’t give them everything, but can do the basics) and you set of a wave that is unstoppable, and does not have to be forced.
Yes but this all comes at a high cost. In our household broadband, landline phone, mobile phones, TV license and cable TV is accounting for 7-8% of our disposable household income at present. Then, of course, there's the hardware costs. We're not the poorest of households in Bristol either. To give some perspective: fuel poverty is defined as having to spend 10% or more of your disposable income on fuel. Modern communications come at a price.
You can't have it both ways. If we're talking about "digital exclusion" then clearly the market isn't a complete answer is it?
France Telecom may well be an example of a poor government-backed national monopoly; conversely the BBC is a reasonably good one. Government backed business doesn't have to be bad, that's just a pro-market conceit not backed up by any evidence. Indeed when it comes to creating and running large scale infrastructure, the state is probably the only body capable of delivering. Does anyone think that Branson and Virgin could run our road network? Or have a look at the state of the UK's private rail network if you want to see poor private monopoly provision and market failure. Who owns infrastructure is not that important, it's how its managed.
I never proposed we stop funding the BBC; I proposed that the money was spent differently. This is going to happen anyway, any fool can see the BBC is dying a slow death. Sky is producing better rolling news at 10% of the cost; their cable TV channels are unwatched; their local/regional output is an underfunded farce; they're spread way to thin and it can only get worse. I'm simply proposing they move funds away from content and into infrastructure, which will serve more people more effectively.
No but paying £140 a year (through the license fee) is.
Ok, Bristol Blogger are you saying, if everyone paid £140 a year that would then fix all the rail network problems, and then £140 for roads, £140 for buses etc.. or is one more important than the other so should cost more. Why stop there? How about public education, hospitals, health clinics, dental care…? Would this be before or after you pay your personal income tax?
£140 a year (through the license fee) is.
Ok then.
Who get's paid to manage it, upgrade it, protect it, who's liable for it, which (IP provider are you going to use to provide the Layer 3 Internet component, BT, France Telecom, AT&T), which access provider is going to operate the access network (the one to your home), the backhaul? Will that mean who ever that is will have a monopoly on Internet access and pretty much contradict what the Internet is? What happens to the people working in jobs at carriers or service providers that are not chosen to deliver the £140 a year service?
The problem is you can't think of Internet access the same way you think to running roads, trains and other similar types of infrastructure. On the web, content is king, and applications are queen. Definitely, Branson and Virgin could run the roads better, the issue is 'we' society is not prepared to pay the cost of running it better (or can't afford it ). You can have better trains, on time, clean, new, with spas and pubs in them if you want as well.. but that all comes at a cost most commuters are not prepared to pay. Managing such enormous infrastructure at a cost of sale point, that it actually gets utilised, is a fine balancing act that no matter who runs it will have issues. Hence, why Branson and Virgin aren’t doing it in the first place, they stick to stuff that is a lot easier.
Community Wi-Fi access networks, built for specific purposes, produces speific results that normally 'profit driven' infrastructure entities will not commit to, as they shouldn't, their priority should be their share holders.
I'm not clear about the point you're making here. I'm just saying that the business model - if you can call it that - for the BBC, could just as well be applied to building broadband infrastructure and might prove a better investment. If it works for creating television content why would it not work for infrastructure?
The BBC.
Yes. But only in the sense that it's a monopoly anyway. There's only one cable going into my house now (owned by Virgin I think), they'll still only be one cable going into my house (owned by the BBC). What's the difference?
If you consider the internet to be a collection of bits of wire. You said above it's about the people didn't you?
It's the way of business that if you provide a high-cost, underinvested technically inferior service sooner or later you'll get superseded. Although in terms of jobs, you'll probably find staff will move to the new provider and it'll only be the businesses themselves that suffer.
Any reason why not?
Yes and on the roads the highway code is king and the cars are queen. What's does this metaphor actually mean?
TBH, this statement is borderline bonkers. Branson can't run and invest properly in a railway line up the west coast of England even with huge public subsidy. The argument that he could run the roads better is reality-defying madness
Not investing long term and creaming profit is indeed easy. But who and how are you going to replace the copper wires that deliver my high-cost, slow-speed broadband. Or will I have to pay that myself or lump it? Is that really what passes for a long-term economic strategy now?
Can these deliver faster and more consistent speeds than my current crappy 10mb broadband from Virgin?
If you are going to apply a Tax (140) to the Internet, so you can get it for free or cheaper (same way other taxes are suppose to cover public infrastructure). Then, should we be increasing existing taxes (fees), to apply to other infrastructure improvements, since they are not adequate either? Like the failing railway example..
How about if you’re happy with 10Mb access, and the person down the road wants 50Mb. Do you both pay the same 140? So, we all pay and share, aggregate, if you eat more than me, no big deal I’ll support you….sweet thought but somehow I doubt that very much. Or does the 140 cover basic service only..which would be up to who to decide?
Monopolies haven’t worked in the past, hence deregulation, privatizations etc.. why would it now? Just because the business model or application of a private rail network is flawed does not mean that the concept, theory behind it is as well. We just need to find a better, more sustainable way to deliver it. Think laterally..
Same way with the Internet, the way we (service providers) currently price it / sell it / support it / is not working to the benefit of the entire ‘community’, only our share holders. Hence, myKP and Connecting Bristol offer a ‘community focused’ offer, not share holder, which may or may not be as high speed or offer the same level of service but it’s a starting point for bigger and better things and is better than nothing at all.
“Yes. But only in the sense that it's a monopoly anyway”
I am not certain of your regulatory environment, but I assume it would be very similar to ours.
Here in OZ, , you can pick who delivers the service on the copper cable coming into your house, you can port from one service provider to the other. I am sure it’s the same in the UK. There is a minimum, regulated charge other service providers have to pay the incumbent for maintaining and operating it, but that charge is the same for all providers (a set fee). So technically , in Oz anyway, any service provider can deliver services to your house on the cable.
“You said above it's about the people didn't you?”
Yes, it’s about people.. but also open, unfiltered access to it.
Will BBC block all Peer-to-Peer traffic, will it block all child pornography, or other potentially offensive material. Will it also have a guaranteed Service Level Agreement with ubiquitous access for every home in the country? , With a penalty like you get your 140 back if they don’t meet their KPIs? Will it always deliver the best available service and technology? How about, when you can upgrade the cable to 1Gb at home, do we automatically get it? Or does your 140, become 1400?
Privatisation and deregulations has done 2 things we all agree on, dropped the cost of access and increased competition ( I used to pay $2 a minute under the previous monopoly to call the UK, now it’s 2 cents) I don’t want to go back to paying $2.
“It's the way of business that if you provide a high-cost, underinvested technically inferior service sooner or later you'll get superseded. Although in terms of jobs, you'll probably find staff will move to the new provider and it'll only be the businesses themselves that suffer.”
Your first sentence is spoken like a true supporter of capitalism and open, competitive environments. Everything a monopoly is not..
Your second sentence, why would they have to hire them? They are a monopoly there is no other service provider to go to , and as per your first sentence “ under invested technically inferior service sooner or later you’ll get superseded ” by who, if it’s a monopoly? Or would you.. privatize it again, deregulate so there are no monopolies?
By the way, who owns BBC? What is the return on investment for the shareholders? Do they make a profit or not.. how much profit, who determines that?
Yes, Branson and business look after themselves. That’s nothing to be ashamed of.. its good business.
There are ways to replace the copper at your home with something better, or use it smarter, maybe, Ethernet over copper.. up to 40Mb symmetrical services available now. Service providers do it here in Oz now, the problem is it would cost a bomb (they like ripping us of)
How about, fibre to your home, Japan does it, South Koreans do it.. Maybe check with the Bristol Council, do they mandate that any new house builds,developments , estates etc includes fibre installed to each dwelling?
TBH, the point I am trying to make is, its fantastic to be having these debates. What is shows, is that there is no silver bullet, not all models will work for everyone. Community wi-fi style projects have a part to play in the overall picture and a role in introducing the Internet, and applications to those that otherwise may have founded to difficult to access. It’s also a tremendous way for bringing people from different communities together, a grea way to get people outdoors even. How great would it be if your Connecting Bristol account also got you access on myKP when you pay a visit to Oz?
Stay positive, solutions are coming (soon) but most likely from nowhere expect it..