On Sabbatical! New research findings next year...

I am on sabbatical until January 2010, so I will not be blogging for a while.

Over the next six months, I will be researching broadband outcomes in Jordan, continuing my comparative study but this time adopting a least-similar approach. In Jordan, I will be focusing on the phenomenon known as "technology leap-frogging", where nations without legacy infrastructure are able to skip the typical evolutionary approach to infrastructure deployment which tends to affect the highly-industrialised nations.

Cheers,

Michael.

Victorian Premier John Brumby launches Youtube Channel

Victorian Premier John Brumby has launched a Youtube Channel where Victorian citizens can ask questions of the Premier. Questions voted in the top 5 will be answered by the Premier on the channel.

This is a great initiative but the response from the traditional media has been lukewarm.

NBN on the right track

While we wait patiently in Palmerston via Gungahlin for faster and more reliable broadband connections, today's announcement is good news:

The Rudd government has named six broadband-deprived areas as the first recipients of its $250 million cash injection to kickstart the $43 billion national broadband network in rural areas.

Following the announcement of the roll-out in Tasmania, it is good to see that 'Emerald and Longreach in Queensland, Geraldton in Western Australia, Darwin in the Northern Territory, Broken Hill in NSW, Victor Harbor in South Australia and South West Gippsland in Victoria' are being fast-tracked for the NBN.

It is important that the least served areas receive the access first. It is easy to complain about poor broadband services, harder to imagine life without any.

One of the issues for the Commonwealth is that the approach to deploying the NBN infrastructure is quite novel in Australia. As has been seen in Tasmania, the decentralised approach has been let down by a lack of engagement with citizens and stakeholders.

It is unfortunate that the highly centralised approach to communications policy in Australia is such a political issue. Broadband is crucial infrastructure and its lack will affect Australia's international competitiveness whether we like it or not. I am convinced that only non-users or those who already have fast and reliable Net connections would disagree on the importance of broadband for our national prosperity.

But one aspect which is still overlooked is the correlation between citizen involvement in the process and the corresponding take-up of services. While many may be disinterested (or even uninterested) in the process, there are plenty of individuals and groups who are keen to be informed of or involved in the roll out. Such community champions are being underutilised by government.

To be sure, things are changing quickly and recent moves such as the Gov 2.0 Taskforce and Public Sphere are helping to change 'way things are done here'.

It will be interesting to see how NBN Co will function - moving the deployment one step away from politics could be a good thing - but the company must engage with stakeholders. This is a real challenge for those who will lead the charge. The $43 billion price tag will always keep the NBN in the top level of political issues. But leadership may just be the key.

Public Sphere Model: Local issues must be next

Senator Kate Lundy's innovative approach to citizen engagement using social networking tools and new media is proving very successful in enabling citizens to have a voice in policy development. So far, the model has focused on giving citizens a voice in Government 2.0.

The obvious next step is to see the model used to engage with citizens on local issues. I have been arguing for some time that we need a balance between centralisation and decentralisation.

To borrow Roger Clarke's concept (from Public Sphere #1), centralisation leads to systemic failure, whereas decentralisation leads to sporadic failure. It would seem a balance between the two is appropriate for a connected world.

The trouble I see at this point is that Australia's approach is highly centralised, and we are lacking in capabilities (infrastructure and culture) to engage in a decentralised environment.

That is not to say that centralisation is all bad. The idea of 'centrality' (as opposed to 'centralisation'), particularly leadership from federal politicians (such as Senator Lundy), is crucial to enabling local communities to take advantage of the benefits of new media (leading to decentralisation).

As I argued in my presentation at Public Sphere #2 (see video below), we need to develop decentralised research and learning facilities at the local level to overcome the problems of our deep-seated tradition of central control.

Feedback from some of the 'tweeters' at Public Sphere #2 suggested that my idea of 'centres' for social innovation went against my approach of avoiding 'centralisation' (and I agree).

After discussions today with an emerging community of online collaborators at the University of Canberra, I mentioned this feedback and we came up with the label 'Social Innovation Exchanges'. Stay tuned for some online initiatives in this regard soon.

So where to next? I think the Public Sphere model of short presentations - video recorded, live blogged, tweeted and then followed up with blog comments and a briefing paper (with wikis to be added soon) - would work well for citizen engagement on local issues.

For example, activities such as the recent consultation on the future of the Scullin shops would have been a great issue to experiment with the Public Sphere model on a local problem.

Starting off with a fairly innocuous issue is important to get the model right for local communities, as it would enable interested parties to present their views - even if they could not attend a particular public meeting - about the issue for public review without being too controversial.

There are many opportunities and challenges ahead in the digital future. What we do now in the quasi-digital present will be an important step in the evolution of new media models for citizen engagement.

I have conceptualised where we are at now using the 'forming, storming, norming, performing' process (outlined in much of the project management literature) in the presentation below.

Keep your ears to the ground about current developments at the University of Canberra. We have a proud and strong community which lends itself to an actively engaged and online 'Community 2.0'. But more on this in a future post!

Public Sphere: Government 2.0 - Michael De Percy from Kate Lundy on Vimeo.

Wikis to broaden policy debate | Australian IT

I didn't think this would happen for some time. But here it is: Public Sphere made it to the news:

Mr Tanner told the second Public Sphere event in Canberra that Web 2.0 tools such as blogs and wikis had allowed citizens to "bring their knowledge, perspectives and resources inside the tent" of government.

Politicians and bureaucrats will have to overcome the old and reflexive mistrust over the release of information, and learn to accept that citizens will assemble and combine it in new ways, he said. We also have to accept that when we open ourselves to public discussion through chatrooms, blogs and online forums, we won't always like what we hear.

The link to the original article is here: Wikis to broaden policy debate Australian IT

Some related sites or those mentioning 'public sphere':

• Minister Tanner's Speech
• Gov 2.0 Taskforce
• Kate Lundy (includes a list of other blogs mentioning Public Sphere)
  
• Open Australia
• Open Forum
• TweetMP
• Technology & Business on 'Public Sphere'
• CASE Blog
• TechWorld
• Creative Commons Australia
• Computerworld
• Liveblog from Public Sphere #2
  

Government 2.0 Taskforce launched today

I participated in today's Public Sphere #2: Government 2.0 event in Parliament House, Canberra, where Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner and Special Minister of State and Cabinet Secretary Joe Ludwig announced the launch of the Government 2.0 Taskforce. The Taskforce has a website using open source architecture with a Creative Commons 2.0 licence.

(photo courtesy of Stephen Collins)

The Taskforce is a great initiative and has a public competition running until 3 July to design the banner for the website. It appears that the Taskforce will advise the government on the use of Web 2.0 technologies and will also provide funding to assist innovative uses of new technologies for citizen engagement and open access to government information:

The Project Fund is a $2.45 million fund available to the Taskforce to support the development of Web 2.0 tools and applications that either enable engagement between government and the community or support the innovative use of government information.

Members of the Taskforce, chaired by Dr Nicholas Gruen, include:

• Ms Ann Steward (Deputy Chair)
• Mr Glenn Archer
• Mr Sebastian Chan
• Mr Adrian Cunningham
• Prof Brian Fitzgerald
• Ms Mia Garlick
• Mr Peter Harper
• Ms Lisa Harvey
• Mr Martin Hoffman
• Ms Pip Marlow
• Mr Alan Noble
• Dr Ian Reinecke
• Mr David Solomon
• Mr Martin Stewart-Weeks

The Project Fund is being provided through a partnership with Microsoft, with Cisco providing some of the 'telepresence' infrastructure for the group. Funding will be provided on a competitive basis:

[T]he Taskforce will run competitions that will invite interested individuals and groups to submit ideas and Web 2.0 designs to the Taskforce for consideration and potential prizes and other benefits such as funding for pilots.

It would seem that Gov 2.0 has commenced in Australia.

Business 2.0: Consumer Culture in Australia

How does Australian consumer 'culture' impact upon a businesses' ability to engage with customers using new media?

I recently wrote about Australian civic culture, so today I take a look at Australian consumer culture. Let me make it clear that when I talk about 'culture', I usually mean 'the way things are done around here'. If you have ever tried to introduce new ways of doing things in your work (or any group setting for that matter), you have probably heard the cultural context expressed as 'that is not the way things are done around here'. When businesses try new approaches to customer engagement, the phrase is not uncommon, too. So I have penned a few thoughts below on consumer culture in Australia and how businesses might be able to overcome some of the barriers. It is not an exhaustive examination but this might be a worthy future research project.

Some initial observations concerning consumer culture in Australia:

1. When I first wrote a pdf newsletter (years ago) for a professional organisation and emailed it to members, there were many complaints. 'Take me off the email list'; 'The file is too big and it took me X hours to open my email app'; 'How did you get my email address?'.
2. In a community forum, the culture was so constrained you had to be very apologetic if you dared to have a voice. It was OK to advertise the latest cookie drive, but not to advertise a discount on a commercial product or service - that was just plain 'wrong'. But the culture is changing rapidly.
   
3. In most government forums, anything which is slightly commercial is usually unwelcome. There is a time and a place for marketing (unless you are a major sponsor, of course).
4. On most new media apps, everybody is an expert in making you money online. Predominantly from overseas. Indeed, it might even be legitimately 'unAustralian' to market oneself as such.
   
5. If you have ever hear an acquaintence mention 'I would like to discuss a business opportunity with you', you now know which firm they are talking about and you haven't gone back for a second take.
   
6. The Do Not Call register was so popular the server crashed in the first few minutes of operation. But then again, so did Canada's.
7. When a company launches a consumer information campaign in Australia, it is deemed to be 'corporate propaganda' (but public-funded advertising telling us how good a new policy will be hardly gets a mention).
8. The traditional media is quick to point out when new media 'fails', especially if it can be construed in such a way as to support so-called 'mainstream' views of the world.
9. On some new media forums, so-called 'businesses' will follow you, only to unfollow you once you follow them back. This annoys me no end.
10. I cringe when I buy a pair of cheap sunglasses and the salesperson says 'the system won't let me complete the sale unless you give me your address and telephone number'.
    

So how are 'things done' around here? I am convinced that the first hunch is not necessarily correct. It is important to take an objective view of things.

For example, to test the community view of things in (2) above, I set up a voluntary survey using VotApedia. The results were surprising: the apologists achieved only 35% in favour of the conservative, polite approach to broadcasting information. It seems that in many ways the 'culture' may have been the domain of the vocal minority. The culture has changed since others have become confident enough to have a voice. We need to conduct more research into the dynamics of online engagement and take the findings seriously.

But how does this relate to business?

First, I think it is important to acknowledge that one negative comment from a customer, journalist, participant or other observer is not necessarily representative of the group. If the 'negatives' happen to be very vocal, it is easy to develop a skewed view of the whole. Adequate market research is the key.

Second, managing customer expectations is essential. Customers want everything, right now, for free. You can never meet all their desires, but you can manage what they expect from you. This is where new media represents a major improvement on the old-style engagement mentioned in (1) above. Email provides a sense where we must respond or at least take some action (such as deleting the email), whereas it is too easy to ignore something that is not interesting in new media forums.

Third, it is difficult to sort the wheat from the chaff. Points (4) to (9) above make this a difficult task. Competition is great for consumers, but how can the average consumer make an informed decision when there is too much information? Information must also be comparable and the dilemmas created by 'fine print' make the task very difficult, even if a customer wanted to engage with a business. Conversely, if a business tries something new and the news media takes a particular view of it, then things can go publicly wrong. I am hoping this will change as the number of participants increases.

Fourth, the artificial delineation between business and government suggested in (3) above is really just that: artificial. To say that business is not a legitimate participant in a liberal democracy denies the actual role of the liberal democratic state. I am certainly not a proponent of free markets, but markets exist because of the state. To think otherwise is simply naive - companies should not have free reign but neither should governments. Indeed, such naive views tend to be counter-productive by creating a culture which restricts civic participation, reduces innovation and prevents new ideas or new players from entering the marketplace.

So what can businesses do?

I argue first that businesses must establish their legitimacy. Point (5) suggests that sneaky marketing practices will lead to short-lived business opportunities. Twitter, for example, is looking into a beta version of Verified Accounts to deal with the issue of legitimacy. Establishing legitimacy takes time, too, but there must be an element of 'genuineness' about the process. New media provides numerous opportunities for customer engagement.

But how can a business be genuine with customers? I think the first step is to engage online with existing customers, rather than using new media as an opportunity to gain new customers. This would, in my view, overcome the appearance of being 'spammed'. And it must be more than an attempt to collect information from customers without offering something in return - see point (10) above. I happily use Google's tools because I get access to a capability by simply sharing my data and I know others do the same.

Another area which businesses tend to overlook in Australia is educational institutions. Sure, there are plenty of Australian Research Council linkage grants designed to encourage greater interaction between researchers and business, but these are for the most part the domain of the superstars only. I often draw upon educational material from North America and advertising is a part of the material. I doubt North American students would moralise the use of advertising funding for educational material production, but I can imagine the furore such an 'innovation' would cause in an Australian university!

I have also found that it is useful to 'interconnect' the face-to-face experience with the online experience. I have written about this elsewhere on social policy engagement with youth online. There are many opportunities for businesses but I think it will take some time before Australian consumer culture views customer engagement as more than just a way for businesses to increase sales. The involvement of businesses in the higher education sector, in particular, would demonstrate a more meaningful connection with society. Getting a foot in the door would be another matter, but this has already happened in terms of email outsourcing and so on, so why not in teaching?

One observation of using new media in my teaching suggests that there must be an equal amount of openness on the part of both lecturer and student. While some of my colleagues' research suggests that students see lecturers online as an invasion of privacy, I have not had this experience. When we tried Facebook as a teaching tool a couple of years ago, the student satisfaction correlated with the number of students who opted to use Facebook. But I (and consequently my tutors) tend to be quite open in the online environment. Where the lecturer acts as a 'lurker', rather than a participant, the results tend to reflect my colleagues' findings. I would not be surprised if a principle of 'equal openness' could equally be applied to a customer engagement model.

Some hasty generalisations

It is difficult to make an empirically-verifiable generalisation about consumer culture and how this might affect businesses' ability to engage with Australian consumers using new media. Nonetheless, I will make a few 'hasty generalisations':

1. Businesses must establish themselves as legitimate participants in the online environment.
   
2. Australian consumers tend to view attempts by businesses to engage online as a an infringement on consumers' personal time, especially when the engagement is unsolicited.
3. There should be 'equal openness'. If the customer must provide all their personal details and contribute to marketing statistics, then the business must give something in return.
4. Businesses should be given more opportunites to participate in the higher education system, and not just with the superstars. After all, businesses are the real customers of universities (if you think this statement is incorrect, see my earlier comment on the role of the state).

New media provides many opportunities for businesses to enagage with customers, but there are a few issues which must be addressed. Rather than viewing these as cultural impediments to businesses, it is arguable that businesses have a duty to amend their practices to suit the consumer culture. That is not to say that businesses need to meet the unreasonable demands of consumers, but at least meet the realistic expectations of consumers (avoiding unsolicited spamming is an obvious example). But on reflection, I think that Australian consumer culture is less of an impediment to customer engagement than civic culture is to citizen engagement. But while the stakes are higher in the latter, the benefits might just be more tangible in the former.

Can Australian civic culture accommodate Gov 2.0?

On Monday 22 June, I will be speaking at Senator Kate Lundy's 'Public Sphere #2: Government 2.0' at Parliament House in Canberra. Program details are available here.

The ideas for my presentation are developed from my work at the University of Canberra where I have been experimenting with new media in teaching and research for some time. My experience from numerous consultations with community groups and involvement in social media also informs the ideas outlined in the slideshow below:

Public Sphere 2 - Gov 2.0

View more OpenOffice presentations from Michael De percy.

I am not convinced that Australia's civic culture sits comfortably with open government and online policy engagement. While there are plenty of interested citizens and groups, my prediction is that there will be a period of 'cultural' upheaval as citizens (who historically have not been involved in formal democratic processes) gain greater access to government.

The demands of citizens will arguably multiply as citizens come to expect more opportunities for active engagement with governments at all levels. This trend, which has commenced in the US, will no doubt permeate the news media as events unfold there. In the meantime (and enabled by new media), blocking citizens from accessing government information will be like holding back the proverbial tide.

But the education sector has a significant role to play in providing citizens with the skills to become effective participants in open government. One of the major challenges is that educational institutions are part of the fabric of Australian civic culture. Indeed, I would argue that a culture of openness is yet to develop in our educational institutions.

How we meet these challenges will require significant cultural change. How we get there means there are very interesting times ahead.

NY Senate to 'open up'

Thanks to Twitter:

RT @JeffreyPeel RT @dalezak: Wanna see the future of politics? http://open.nysenate.gov #opengov #gov20 #g2010 - way to go NY!

New York is opening up access to state data for use by citizens. This is fantastic news!

During a number of recent presentations, I have argued that all sorts of public information should be available for use by citizens. My favourite example is the bus timetable information in Ottawa which was developed by Canadian citizens. The OC Transpo service is already second-to-none in my experience, so this adds an extra value dimension.

I am very keen to see if something similar could be developed by citizens in Canberra, especially so I could work out how to catch a bus in Palmerston via Gungahlin. But can you freely access the information?

I say more power to the people. In the meantime, mash away NY!

Australia beats US for broadband access | Australian IT

The release of this media report on Australia's international broadband standing raises some interesting issues.

While I agree that broadband penetration should be measured by households, not individual connections, there are several other issues concerning how broadband is measured.

A major problem is how 'broadband' is actually defined. The OECD still uses 'always on' with a download speed above 256kbps. Hardly broadband in the Web 2.0 era.

Synchronous (two-way) 1.5mbps is generally accepted as the minimum speed for adequate teleconferencing facilities, and this is the measure Canada adopted in the early 2000s. The ACCC's earlier reports on broadband adoption in Australia have used 200kbps or above. This measure significantly lowers the bar.

Further, the methods of collecting data are problematic. The OECD relies on 'theoretical' best speeds and advertised prices, in addition to government-produced estimates and statistics, in ranking member countries.

The Akamai 'State of the Internet' report, I understand, uses data actually collected from participating servers worldwide. The Quarter 4, 2008 report records Australia as well below both the US and Canada in terms of 'fast' broadband. To make matters worse, Palmerston via Gungahlin (see earlier post) has theoretical speeds of 1.5mbps which drop to below dial-up each evening.

Until the problems of data collection and reliability are resolved, I remain very sceptical about reports which claim Australian broadband is more accessible than in the US.

See the full article: Australia beats US for broadband access Australian IT.

Bloggers to have greater say in legislative debate | Australian IT

The article (below) in Australian IT is a promising sign of the times. The issue which we will face soon is how we educate people to operate in the new policy environment. Universities will play a major role here. I will be speaking about some of these issues at the next Public Sphere event on 21 June 2009 at Parliament House.

Article: Bloggers to have greater say in legislative debate Australian IT

Netiquette: The next big challenge

Time and again, I am seeing online participatory forums reduced to public arguments which lead to a reduction in participation (and subsequently constructive discussion) in otherwise positive online communities.

Most of the arguments are about what content is 'appropriate' for inclusion in a particular forum. This is hardly surprising, but it does not bode well for our digital future.

Broadband networks will enable more people to connect online in ways which are yet to be devised. But as with most innovations, the limits to connectivity are not all related to technology. I have argued elsewhere that technology is not entirely deterministic; nor is it entirely constructed by society.

Technological momentum is a middle-of-the-road theory which suggests that both technology (and its potential uses), and society (and the way society uses technology), each have an impact on the possible futures and uses of broadband technologies.

But in most of the relatively 'localised' social networks I have observed, recently there have been many bouts of conflict. This suggests that the momentum of technology has advanced, while society and its uses of the technologies are yet to evolve. I would argue we are on the cusp of a change in how we, as humans, interact, as the evolving public e-sphere empowers the voices which for a long time have been excluded from a public hearing.

How we proceed will determine the extent to which our increasingly collective views of enabling an empowered society are more than just rhetoric.

In many regards, there was some merit to the 'old ways'. Content was filtered by the hierarchies which govern the provision of information. Easy to control when you are a one-way broadcaster, but much more difficult to control when you are involved in an any-to-any conversation.

In the past (at least increasingly since 1975!), content which was viewed as racist, sexist, or in any way viewed (by the majority, or at least the law) as discriminatory, was simply excluded. Open up the communications network to the masses, and the situation changes dramatically.

As more people are exposed to the rigours of public life (which broadband and new media participation ensues), the need for an institutionalised sense of Netiquette is fast becoming a priority. Incorporating 'Netiquette' in educational curricula is a necessary next step.

One of the biggest impediments to an ideally inclusive digital future is how our educational institutions will deal with the challenge of emerging ideas about Netiquette. The extent of exclusion from earlier ideas of the 'public sphere' is well documented. But the voices which will be heard in the emerging 'public e-sphere' will be hard for the old hierarchies to hold back. Historically, education is the most effective way to deal with such challenges.

The emerging ideas about 'Netiquette' will require a great deal of soul-searching if the traditional gatekeepers are to play a useful role in the digital future. At this stage, it is difficult to imagine a future without gatekeepers. Nonetheless, it is obvious that the 'rules of entry' through the information gates must be changed for the better if we, as humans, are to benefit from the potential provided by modern communications technologies.

Presentation at the 4th Annual Broadband Forum

On 11 June, I presented some of my research findings to the 4th Annual Broadband Australia Forum at the Sydney Harbour Marriott. There is a tendency for academics to get caught up in their own silos, so having an audience of prominent industry players was very helpful. I have included a copy of my presentation below.

Informa: A comparison of broadband policy: Canada & Australia

View more OpenOffice presentations from Michael De percy.

NBN: Tasmania gets it right

With the Tasmanian Government's $12.7 million contribution to the NBN, there are some early signs that 'the times they are-a changin'. Co-investment and greater cooperation between all levels of government are essential if we are to get the most out of the NBN.

Interestingly, local councils have a strong showing in the submissions to the NBN regulatory reform paper and these will hopefully encourage greater involvement by this often-overlooked level of government.

It would seem timely that in addition to NBN Co., a national research institute be established to facilitate innovate uses for the forthcoming NBN. CANARIE Inc in Canada is a very good example of how this organisation might look.

However, CANARIE is not directly controlled by government, and this is where Australia consistently misses out. CANARIE are considering all sorts of innovative approaches to broadband networks.

For example, the 'homes with tails' idea suggests that individuals and local communities could invest in their own fibre connections. This idea would see the fibre connection to the home become a part of home ownership.

The Tasmanian decision is good news and represents a significant change to the centrally-controlled approach to communications infrastructure which is predominant in this country. Building Australia's innovative capacity is an important 'next step' in ensuring that this historic investment in infrastructure will be worthwhile.

But a research centre based on the CANARIE Inc model is yet to be discussed, and it is timely that such an organisation is established in Australia.

Sour Grapes? Sol Trujillo was right

In my latest ABC Unleashed article, I argue that Sol Trujillo was right. The sour grapes belong to politicians.

Pipe Dreams: A vision for a connected Australia

Click to Play

Presentation on Australia's possible broadband future by Senator Kate Lundy, Professor Keith Lyons and Michael de Percy, University of Canberra, 21 May 2009.

The live blog from the event (by Pia Waugh and Minh-Tam Nguyen) is available here.

Kate Lundy’s Public Sphere #2: Government 2.0

Senator Kate Lundy has organised the next Public Sphere event on Government 2.0 to be held at Parliament House on 21 June. The event is free, but attendance is limited. You can book a seat here.

This event will include international speakers via video conferencing.

As per the format, speakers will have 15 minutes each but this event will run from 9am to 5pm. You can submit a presentation ‘abstract’ via the website if you wish to speak at the event.

Targeting Telstra: The negative side of separation

Recent media reports again have Optus suggesting Telstra should be structurally separated. This would no doubt help Optus to compete more effectively in many ways and might even help with improving competition, leading to cheaper prices, more customer choices and so on.

But there is a negative side. Despite the urban myths and the political rhetoric, many studies (1) indicate that small businesses do not contribute to innovation and employment to the extent that large businesses do. Indeed, Telstra is one of Australia's major innovators and employers. If Telstra is functionally or structurally separated, how will this impact upon innovation? Telstra is also a large employer, so what about employment?

The (functional or structural) separation debate needs to be visited carefully. Some of the questions which are escaping the onslaught of Telstra-bashing include:

1. What will Telstra look like once its wholesale and retail arms are separated?
2. How will this affect innovation and employment, especially during the global financial crisis?
3. Telstra is one of the top telcos in the world. How will Telstra's separation affect its international competitiveness?
4. If the government is going to let Telstra buy 49% of the NBN, will the NBN company utilise Telstra employees?
5. Who will train the people needed to run the NBN company? Will it be necessary to duplicate Telstra's expertise to run the NBN?

These are some of the questions which remain unanswered, and there are no doubt many more which will need to be addressed.

In the meantime, the consultation on regulatory reform has fallen back (at least in the news media) on how to constrain Telstra; not on how to make the ailing system work.

The reform consultation provides a major opportunity to fix a problem which has plagued Australia for close to three decades. Telstra is only one small part of the problem but it is popular to blame the world-class company for woes which have never really been its fault.

Leo Gray, Sydney specialist media barrister, pointed out what needed to be done years ago:

[W]e do not have a systematic body of communications law which allows new technologies and new uses for old technologies for that matter, to be conveniently slotted in to their correct place in a single integrated regulatory framework (cited on p. 29 of the 1989 Standing Committee on Transport and Communications Infrastructure Report)

The problems associated with technological convergence were raised by the then Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (ABT), calling for a 'radical overhaul' of the broadcasting, telecommunications and radiocommunications laws. Despite the expert voice of the ABT, the policy changes were hardly radical.

But the problems have mostly fallen by the wayside and pragmatic solutions remain elusive. Instead of focusing on the regulatory system and getting that right, the focus is on how to reduce Telstra to a non-world-class company, reduce its innovative capacity, and most likely reduce the number of jobs the company provides.

The situation hasn't really changed much from the 80s, and getting it right means breaking from the old ways. Regrettably, focusing on Telstra will make it great for the other telcos, but leave the benefits to citizens (which technological convergence enables) suspended in the future. The trouble is that the benefits have been there for decades.

Notes:

1. See, for example:

Ács, J. & Audretsch. D.B. (1990) Innovation and small firms. Cambridge: MIT Press: 16.

Hoffman, K. Milady, P., Bessant, J. & Perren, L. (1998) 'Small firms, R&D, technology and innovation in the UK: a literature review'. In Technovation, Vol. 18, No. 1: 39-55.

Nooteboom, B. (1994) 'Innovation and diffusion in small firms: Theory and evidence'. In Small Business Economics, Vol. 6, No. 5: 344-345.

Worries mount on ABC web ambition | Australian IT

The ABC is moving into the digital age quickly. Yet commercial networks are screaming 'unfair advantage'. Who will lead the charge: government or business? It seems government can do it, but the private sector won't because there is no money in it for them. Seems tragic that improving Australian content and access to communications infrastructure will be hindered by self-serving and entrenched interests.

Not that commercial interests are necessarily bad - but in this case the old ways are holding back the digital economy and consequently, Australia's international competitiveness.

read more | digg story

[Broadband] Life in Palmerston via Gungahlin

My family first established themselves in Australia at Tenterden via Guyra, NSW in the 1850s. Such addresses were quite common in Far North Queensland where I grew up and once worked as a surveyor's assistant: Sudley Station via Weipa, Queensland, for example.

I never thought I would find myself within view of Parliament House with an address like Palmerston via Gungahlin. But here I find myself every Sunday night.

For some time, Gungahlin, the fourth satellite suburb of the Australian Capital Territory, has been left behind in the generally outstanding infrastructure available to Canberrans. It is common knowledge that the Gungahlin region experienced very little access to typical metropolitan services (and continues to do so) for many years since the region's establishment.

There have been many improvements in recent times (for example, greater presence of emergency services - with a response time second to none), but the simple things still matter:

• No bike racks on the buses to Civic (at least via Palmerston);
  
• No responses from contact via the TAMS (formerly DUS, effectively the 'local council' of the ACT) website about local issues;
  
• No local 'diner' (can you believe the G Spot is now closed? - once apparently the only roadside food vendor in Australia with Foxtel).

But these things pale in comparison to the access to broadband services.

I pay for a 1.5mbps connection that delivers approximately dial-up quality services lately, every Sunday evening. A far cry from the problems experienced 40 km away where people can't even get television reception, and in remote regions where Net service is even worse. But the place I live in is the capital of our great nation, not a remote region.

So, I now refer to my address as Palmerston via Gungahlin. A place where you would expect to receive metropolitan-level services, but receive remote region services in full view of Parliament House. Bring on the NBN - and who really cares who pays for it? I am happy to have my taxes pay for a connection that works, rather than 'user-pay' for a connection that doesn't.

NBN 'breathtaking'

Larry Smarr, one of the early pioneers of the Internet, says:

the Rudd Government's announcement last month of a new broadband network is "breathtaking" and puts Australia at the forefront of government policy around the world embracing "intelligent infrastructure".

read more | digg story

Given the criticism of the project from many on the conservative side of politics, this will be welcome news for the government. The NBN represents a significant change in Australian communications policy, although it maintains the historical role of the government in controlling communications infrastructure centrally. The bold move certainly puts Australia into the 'world leader' category for the first time in a very long time.

But how we manage the many changes in government, business and society the NBN will no doubt usher in remains to be seen. Chairman of the ACS, Kumar Parakala, makes some valid points on some of the pending issues here.

Pipe Dreams: A vision for a connected Australia

The University of Canberra is hosting a free public seminar on Thursday 21 May 2009 from 12:30pm to 1:30pm. Details of the event are available here: http://www.canberra.edu.au/announcements/current/pipe-dreams.

Speakers:

• Senator Kate Lundy: New Media and Citizen Engagement
• Professor Keith Lyons: Connecting communities: Bandwidth and incandescence
• Michael de Percy: Broadbanding the Academy: Changing the rules of the gam

Please indicate your attendance by emailing me: michael.depercy@canberra.edu.au.

CSIRO: Pleasantly Public

The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) has been at the forefront of research for a very long time. Most recently:

The CSIRO has won its long-running battle to enforce a patent on technology used in Wi-fi connections that have become virtually ubiquitous in laptops and other devices around the world.

read more | digg story

The CSIRO is a statutory authority operating under the Science and Industry Research Act (1949).

The achievements of the CSIRO are so numerous it would take me too long to develop the list. Most lists on the Net appear to be segregated by reseach area, the achievements are so comprehensive.

In addition to Wi-fi technology and defending its patent, CSIRO has also ventured into the Creative Commons area. My favourite application for teaching (and soon research) is a *relatively* little known wiki-based application called VotApedia.

I have always wanted an application which enables the capacity to gauge audience opinion. Like 'the worm' used during political debates. VotApedia provides this capacity through mobile phones (you call a number which corresponds to your answer - to an engaged signal for free) or through the web (like SurveyMonkey, but CC).

In my lectures of about 460 students, VotApedia is perfect for providing 'the worm'. But I have also found it useful to gauge opinions about almost anything. It took me about two minutes to set up a quick web survey today to investigate respondents' views on Net etiquette on a particular application. Poor survey design on my part, but an interesting experiment nonetheless.

The CSIRO is one of the more successful Australian statutory authorities. Statutory authorities have been one of the more useful innovations in the Australian political system. The approach should have been used to deploy the NBN. Regardless, the CSIRO deserves credit for the work it does. Often overlooked and undervalued, but certainly at the bleeding edge of innovation in Australia.

And it is pleasantly public. Well done, CSIRO, and more of the budget to you!

Wowsers beware: Public Sphere 2.0 is here

Last week I attended Senator Kate Lundy's 'Public Sphere: Higher bandwidth for Australia' at the ANU. The event raises many possibilities for enhancing the citizen experience.

My musings on the event have been published by ABC Unleashed here.

Presenting my research at UC

On Wednesday 13 May, I will be presenting some of my research findings at the National Institute for Governance, University of Canberra. The event will run from 12:30pm to 1:30pm in Building 6, Level B, Room 34.

Details of the event are available here.

NIG - Broadbanding The Nation

View more documents from Michael De percy.

Broadband Reform: Getting it right

I have written a piece for Open Forum, an independent public policy think tank, on broadband reform. My blog is also 'Blog of the Day' today at Open Forum. You can read the article here.

Some interesting broadband statistics comparing Canada & Australia

I have put together some interesting statistics from the OECD, Aikima, Statistics Canada and the Australian Bureau of Statistics to compare broadband in Canada and Australia. Given the similarities (apart from the Big Mac Index purchasing power parity indicator), there is plenty of reason to argue that 'competition' or lack thereof has not been a significant factor in the differences in broadband adoption and take-up.

Click on the picture below to see the table.

Kate Lundy's Public Sphere

Already the impact of citizen engagement using new media is providing opportunities for politicians to develop creative ways to enable greater participation in policy development.

Senator Kate Lundy is an active user of new media and will be hosting a forum on 'High bandwidth for Australia' at the ANU on Wednesday 7 May 2009. Details are as follows:

Workshop details
Topic: The opportunities and issues around getting high bandwidth Internet in Australia
Place: Australia National University, Seminar Room 101, in the Department of Computer Science Ground Floor
Date: 7th May
Time: 8.30am for a 9am start till 12pm
Agenda: To be published by 5th May, but short 10 minute talks with simultaneous online discussion and questions
Social Media: Twitter: #publicsphere or blog: publicsphere or ”Public Sphere”
Online Participation: via Twitter using #publicsphere as the tag. Participants both in the room and remotely will post questions to @katelundy and comments and feedback on the content as it is being presented to #publicsphere. Speakers will see the questions as they come up and be able to deal with them either throughout their talk, or at the end. By driving everything through Twitter we hope to effectively be able to both encourage and capture different perspectives from all participants, local and remote.

This workshop provides an opportunity for citizens to participate either face-to-face or online. The workshop will also provide an excellent case-study of how citizen engagement can occur in the New Media era.

You can RSVP for the event here.

OpenAustralia: Community and the Net

A recent venture by Open Australia to list 'real' politicians using twitter is a fine example of the capability of the emerging Net community in Australia.

The use of new media in bringing citizens closer to their representatives is not everyone's cup of tea. But organisations such as OpenAustralia, which aims 'to make it easy for people to keep tabs on their elected representatives in Parliament', are certainly moving in the right direction.

The use of new media enables people to be involved in the emerging public e-sphere. For most citizens, work and family commitments make it difficult to participate in democratic processes. With technology making it easier for citizens to participate, the dreams of cyper-citizenship and e-democracy are fast becoming a reality.

New media presents many challenges to governments and traditional approaches to citizen engagement. But community organisations now have access to an efficient and cost-effective means of providing information to citizens and influencing public debate.

Once the NBN becomes available, community participation in the public e-sphere will likely increase. Organisations which take advantage of new media in the early stages are likely to establish their credentials for years to come.

Legitimacy remains an important element in democracies, but with the ability to remain anonymous on the Net, many people are wary of e-democracy in practice. The Net community has a role to play in providing such legitimacy, and OpenAustralia is to be congratulated for taking some of the first steps with their latest initiative.

The NBN: Visionary Nation-Building or Bliss for Video Addicts?

It seems the NBN will solve all sorts of problems. But there are very different views on each side of the political divide. It depends on the potential benefits we perceive high-speed access to the Net will bring us.

Here is what the NBN will do, according to our political leaders:

Broadband Minister Stephen Conroy: Productivity benefits of smart grids (internet-enabled electricity grids), digital tracking of goods (e.g. RFID), new broadcasting opportunities, remote health diagnosis and patient monitoring, real-time freight management, video conferencing, telecommuting and advanced science and research applications.

The Opposition: A faster network for downloading movies.

read more | digg story

These differing views beg the question: Should Australia spend $43 billion on the NBN?

But there are much larger issues at stake. What is the vision of the future we are moving toward? How will the NBN impact upon current industry structures? Can such divergent views on the value of high-speed connectivity help Australians benefit from the digital economy?

A look at Australian laws which set out the objectives of 'broadband' policy rarely include statements about the benefits to citizens beyond cheaper prices:

The Telecommunications Act 1997 focuses on:

(a) the long-term interests of end-users of carriage services or of services provided by means of carriage services; and

(b) the efficiency and international competitiveness of the Australian telecommunications industry.

Compare the above objectives to Canada's Telecommunications Act 1993:

It is hereby affirmed that telecommunications performs an essential role in the maintenance of Canada's identity and sovereignty and that the Canadian telecommunications policy has as its objectives:

(a) to facilitate the orderly development throughout Canada of a telecommunications system that serves to safeguard, enrich and strengthen the social and economic fabric of Canada and its regions;

(b) to render reliable and affordable telecommunications services of high quality accessible to Canadians in both urban and rural areas in all regions of Canada;

A common theme in Australia's 'broadband' policy for many years has been the lack of a clear vision. Further, Australian consumers have been generally ignored in the development of such policy. Leaving the fate of such important infrastructure in the political realm means that the divergent views of politicians will determine Australia's digital future.

Canada's approach is markedly different. For example, the CRTC has powers which enable the specialist regulator to forbear from regulating particular carriers, but the public must be consulted:

The Commission may, by order, exempt any class of Canadian carriers from the application of this Act, subject to any conditions contained in the order, where the Commission, after holding a public hearing in relation to the exemption, is satisfied that the exemption is consistent with the Canadian telecommunications policy objectives.

Canada's policy objectives go beyond Australia's focus on consumer prices. For example, the Telecommunications Act 1993 is designed to: 'respond to the economic and social requirements of users of telecommunications services'. Whether the wording of legislation makes a difference is worthy of debate, but the differences in citizen engagement are reflected in the words.

The point is that Australian consumers continue to be spectators, rather than participants, in the debate over our digital future. With political leaders at logger-heads over the purpose of high-speed network connectivity, what better time than to ask the people (who will ultimately pay for the NBN) what it is they actually want?

The NBN is certainly visionary. But will it really only benefit video addicts? At a time when 'evidence-based policy' is being thrown about to justify political decisions, listening to the citizens' voice in the debate is well overdue.

ACT Politicians at the Bleeding Edge

Party politics aside, when it comes to needing the help of a local representative, most of us are rarely disappointed. Maybe the outcome doesn't necessarily suit us, but my experience of being an active adult citizen for the past 21 years has not provided a single instance of poor form from a local representative.

But in the ACT, many local representatives (of all political parties) are moving toward the 'bleeding edge' of technology and actively engaging with citizens. This presents advantages and disadvantages for politicians.

I have always been an advocate of the Net as a great freedom machine. A place to find information that was previously limited to professionals; a public sphere which provides accessibility to more citizens (who tend to be overwhelmed by work and family commitments) than can be found in face-to-face engagement.

While undertaking my undergraduate degree (online at Deakin University) in the 1990s, I was struck by the power of the Net. One of my lecturers, Dr Andrew Vandenberg, was working on the ideas of cyber-citizenship at the time. But much of what we discussed in the mid-1990s was only a pipe dream then.

So it is pleasing to see that advances in technology are making those early ruminations a reality. However, as we have seen with the Fake Stephen Conroys et al, there are many issues to be worked through.

The good news is that in the ACT, many of our representatives are at the 'bleeding edge' of technology adoption. This is a brave move on their part: while following the Prime Minister and the Opposition Leader may be passe, it is much more involved for politicians without the resources of more senior representatives.

More on this later, it seems that putting together a list of politicians who are already engaged in New Media is a good place to start. If you know of any, I would appreciate you posting the links as comments. Segregating the real representatives from the fakes is a necessary first step - any ideas how this could be done are most welcome!

ISP Filtering: Evidence-based policy or policy-based evidence?

What constitutes evidence in policy-making? Is it a case of making policy based on evidence, or making evidence to support policy?

Obviously, an ISP filtering trial will provide evidence about the success/usefulness/cost etc of filtering Net content at the ISP. But what about the 'evidence' which suggests that Australians do not want mandatory ISP filtering?

The point I am making is that the use of the term 'evidence-based policy' is purely spin in this instance - in effect, it is policy-based evidence-making.

Why do we need evidence on a policy which nobody wants? The Minister for Broadband was provided with considerable 'evidence' on ABC’s Q&A recently: http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s2521164.htm.

Indeed, the results of Netspace’s customer poll on compulsory ISP filtering were quite conclusive (with a sample size of 10,000).

But what 'evidence' do I need to suggest that ISP filtering is a case of putting the cart before the horse? The major problem for us lowly citizens is getting access to the evidence when even the federal opposition needs to use FOI laws to get access to the government’s information. What chance does the average citizen have?

I maintain that ISP filtering is a side-issue. Nonetheless, it is good to hear from the Minister for Broadband that the NBN will be rolled out on a fast-track plan where market failure in broadband access is occuring:

The ACCC has confirmed that places with only a single provider of backhaul services include: Geraldton in Western Australia, Mt Gambier in South Australia, Broken Hill in New South Wales, Mildura in Victoria, Mt Isa in Queensland, and Darwin in the Northern Territory.

Connecting the Big Tube to the Big Screen

I like the ITU's explanation of 'broadband'. What surprises me is that there has been little push by firms to come up with a consumer-friendly setup to connect the Big Tube to the Big Screen.

PayTV (especially in Australia) is an absolute rip-off. There is simply not enough content. Meanwhile, there is so much content on the Net but it is expensive to buy all the equipment and difficult to obtain the know-how to set up a Big Screen with a PC for watching Net content.

If I had a Net business, I would work out the least expensive way to setup the Big Tube to the Big Screen and package the equipment with a Net plan so that I would never have to be 'broadcast at' again - I could simply 'tune-in' or find what I wanted when it suited me.

In the meantime, I would be interested in any ideas on how people are veiwing Big Tube to Big Screen content. I just hope it happens in my lifetime and is not thwarted by the interests of those who wish to keep me stuck with free-to-air television programs which are little more than Big Ads.

Minister for Broadband: How much 'evidence' do you need?

Optus will participate in the government's ISP filtering trial. If I was an Optus customer, I wouldn't be now! Imagine knowing that your ISP was blocking your access to the Net? The Big Brotherness of the whole idea is just unpalatable.

According to the Minister for Broadband, the justification for the trial is to provide 'evidence':

"The participation of Optus will help ensure the government obtains robust results from the pilot, which will inform the evidence-based development of our ISP filtering policy"

Evidence-based policy, as the process is known in policy circles, is meant to provide a rational means for developing policy. It fits comfortably with the ideas of the rational, choice-making individual operating in a market economy. Yet not everyone agrees that policy-making can ever be a rational process.

But the problem is so irrational it must be poking the Minister for Broadband's eye out. How much evidence is needed to prove that ISP filtering is unwelcome in Australia's liberal democracy? Do you really need the statistics to prove that this policy deserves to be scrapped now? Has there been a single voice which supports the idea of ISP filtering? How much evidence do you really need to stop pushing this policy?

This feeble attempt at 'evidence-based policy' should be called what it is: nothing less than a sham.

This post was me exercising my right to free speech. Regrettably, Optus customers may have trouble viewing my post.

Traditional media on the ropes?

Since refusing to pay the ridiculous prices for PayTV services, I have been reduced to watching free-to-air television. Watching 'Today' this morning, I notice that the traditional media is increasingly turning to youtube, Facebook and twitter for content.

The content on 'Today' consists of a significant portion of New Media snippets. Even the Hollywood session was dominated by twitter and youtube.

'Today' has become 'The Footy Show' of New Media. Commentary on youtube videos and so forth is a bit like watching former footy players talk about what is happening on the field. It seems the traditional journalists are increasingly taking on this role as 'former' and commenting on the breaking stories emerging from New Media.

Does this mean the traditional media is on the ropes?

UniTwitter Update 3

I was asked to add the full matrix of following/followers/updates, so here it is as at about 8:30pm this evening:

1. RMIT - 307/934/240
2. UNSW - 466/475/237
3. Uni of Melbourne - 290/469/416
4. La Trobe - 93/398/171
5. Monash Uni - 165/377/48
6. Flinders Uni - 34/252/47
7. Uni of Wollongong - 188/176/65
8. Uni of Adelaide - 99/97/52
9. Charles Sturt Uni - 89/94/56
10. Uni of Sydney - 0/74/0
11. UniSA - 75/74/23
12. Uni of Canberra - 51/56/15
13. ANU - 18/37/0
14. Aust Catholic Uni - 0/22/8
15. James Cook Uni - 3/19/1
16. USQ - 20/16/17
17. Central Qld Uni - 23/12/10
18. Swinburne Uni - 0/6/0
19. Charles Darwin Uni - 20/4/1
20. Deakin Uni - 0/2/0 (but status updates by request only)

Happy to receive any additions/corrections (corporate sites only please!).

UniTwitter: Update on Australian Unis on Twitter Poll

This is the best I can do for now (I cannot guarantee all are correct corporate sites - I did this for fun!). Unis ranked by number of followers as at about 1:30pm today:

1. RMIT - 934
2. UNSW - 472
3. Uni of Melbourne - 470
4. La Trobe - 396
5. Monash Uni - 376
6. Flinders Uni - 251
7. Uni of Wollongong - 176
8. Uni of Adelaide - 95
9. Charles Sturt Uni - 91
10. Uni of Sydney - 73
11. UniSA - 71
12. Uni of Canberra - 53
13. ANU - 37
14. Aust Catholic Uni - 22
15. James Cook Uni - 18
16. USQ - 16
17. Central Qld Uni - 12
18. Swinburne Uni - 5
19. Charles Darwin Uni - 3
20. Deakin Uni - 2 (but status updates by request only)

Happy to receive any additions/corrections (corporate sites only please!).

Australian Universities on Twitter

This evening, during a period of extreme procrastination, I took a poll of Australian unis on Twitter (those that I could find) and the number of followers and have ranked them below (by number of followers):

1. RMIT - 926
2. UNSW - 468
3. La Trobe - 391
4. Monash Uni - 371
5. Flinders Uni - 251
6. Uni of Wollongong - 174
7. Uni of Melbourne - 170
8. Charles Sturt Uni - 87
9. Uni of Sydney - 72
10. UniSA - 72
11. Uni of Canberra - 49
12. Aust Catholic Uni - 19
13. James Cook Uni - 17
14. USQ - 12
15. Charles Darwin Uni - 2
16. Deakin Uni - 2 (but site is blocked)

UTS has several profiles but these are for individual areas, ie it is not a corporate site.

UWS has a Faculty profile with 130 followers.

I could not find any other university profiles but would be happy to be corrected.

For academics, Jason Wilson at Uni of Wollongong has started a self-listing post of Australian researchers on Twitter here: http://gatewatching.org/tag/twitter-academics-listing/

When will New Media be old?

I often wonder at what point New Media will become old? A quick glance at communications technologies from the time of the telegraph to telephone, television and radio reveals long periods of stability punctuated by rapid change as each new technology was adopted by consumers.

However, New Media never seems to settle down. I have been using the net since 1994. I cannot recall a single period of stability in 15 years. At an IBM presentation for the Queensland Industry Development Corporation in 1999, the presenter mentioned how software updates were being released every 6 months. This was likely to be reduced to 3 months (during 1999) with industry commentators suggesting the release time would be reduced to just 6 weeks by 2000. I remember being impressed at the time.

Now, software updates occur in real-time and download automatically without us really noticing. But the 'killer app' remains elusive. Over the last two years, I have noticed how discrete communities developed around particular applications. For example, MySpace was more popular for musicians and in certain parts of Sydney, whereas Canberrans tended to be more active on Facebook. But this stability has remained short-lived.

Twitter and other networking sites have brought about a truly global reach (at least to those who have broadband access). The change in terminology from 'Friend' to 'Follower' is significant: psychologically, it is easier to 'follow' someone you don't really know rather than be their 'friend'.

Since the Internet became available for public use, not only has the timeframe for software upgrades become irrelevant, but the number of applications available for communicating is increasing so rapidly it is difficult to keep up. A few weeks ago, a student suggested that a site which links all the different applications would be a useful tool. Tonight, I stumbled upon unhub which claims to do just that.

The point is that New Media (as we know it now) is disrupting what seemed to be the period of stability promised by broadband networks. The time taken for technological advances to be adopted by consumers is decreasing, while the availability of applications is increasing. Industry structures and the delivery of services by businesses and governments throughout the world is changing rapidly.

This brings me to the original question: when will New Media be old? It seems that the term is useful for now, as each application becomes, in turn, a new medium. It will take a significant paradigm shift for the current period of instability to end. With businesses, governments and even individuals entering the flurry of Net activity, there seems to be no end in sight. 'Change' has taken a place beside 'death' and 'taxes' as the major constants. And how we should deal with these changes has become one of the most pressing questions of our time.

Telstra & Twitter: Embarrassed or Innovative?

Journalists are having a field day with Telstra's new social media policy. But some of the traditional media reporting on Telstra's new policy has been overly conservative.

While the Fake Stephen Conroy episode on Twitter provides an interesting example of the difficulties for corporate governance in the New Media era, reporting on Telstra's policy is simply more Telstra-bashing:

AFTER being embarrassed by one of its employees on micro-blogging site Twitter, Telstra will today release a new policy governing how staff can talk about the company online, even in private conversations.

I am sick of Telstra-bashing. Telstra is what it is because the previous federal government made it so. Nothing more, nothing less. Yet in the absence of any leadership from the federal government on New Media technologies, which have unlimited potential to improve democracy through citizen engagement and participation in policy development, Telstra leads again.

Telstra's handling of 'Twittergate' has been exemplary. It indicates that the company is serious about using New Media as part of its operations. No employer allows staff to 'go public' without consequences. I don't see the new policy as mitigating 'embarrassment' at all. This is simply a case of the company experimenting and developing policies as new issues arise. The so-called 'guardrails' Telstra has developed are a step in the right direction.

Australia is already stuck in the innovation mud with conservative mindsets. No matter how many reports on innovation the government drums up, unless the collectively conservative mindset is changed, we will continue to be at the wrong end of the innovation spectrum.

Journalists really need to get with the program. Innovation is essential if we are to get out of the GFC hole. But the collectively conservative mindset is a hindrance to innovation and such conservative reporting doesn't help at all.

Maybe the traditional custodians of free speech are feeling a bit threatened by New Media? Some advice I have received in the past is relevant here: When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

Telstra should not be embarrassed, it should be applauded.

read more | digg story

Obama names first US chief technology officer

US President Barack Obama has named a Harvard-educated Indian-American to the newly created post of chief technology officer in an appointment much-awaited by Silicon Valley.

read more | digg story

The move to an e-White House has inched closer with the appointment of a Chief Technology Officer in the US. However, one of the major hindrances for Obama's vision of an open democracy using new media technologies is the barriers created by antiquated practices:

But hopes that the president can unleash a technology revolution and create a new e-White House in government have come up against antiquated government technology and privacy and security restrictions.

The implementation of new media technologies is essentially contested. Privacy represents individual liberties whereas security represents the collective good. It is difficult to improve one without impinging upon the other.

There are no quick solutions to the individual liberties/public good dilemma, but there are ramifications for getting it wrong. At least in the US, some steps are being taken toward overcoming the traditional barriers to new media use. However, Australia is nowhere near this level of consideration in the policy process. While it may be happening in-house, the public are simply left out.

What must happen is an open, public debate to determine the public interest. There are some specific questions which must be addressed: What is more important, individual privacy or national security? Are issues concerning individual privacy and national security more important than a technologically-driven and open democracy? How important are social media to the economy and standards of living?

Australia tends to adopt a wait-and-see approach which has advantages and disadvantages. The major advantage is that resources are not wasted on dead-end approaches. The major disadvantage is that developing a national culture of innovation remains a pipe dream.

The promise of the digital revolution is on our doorstep now. It remains to be seen whether the federal government will open the door or wait to see what the neighbours do before acting. The trouble with the latter approach is that we are always one step behind.

Given our small population and vast resources, we have the capacity to take the lead in the use of new media as the NBN is rolled out. However, as the US is discovering, antiquated practices are a major hindrance.

Ordinary citizens have few options unless the federal government takes the lead. But the first step is to have the public debate, and new media are the vehicles which will enable the debate to happen.

We are all waiting. Your move, Mr Rudd.

Independent body must supervise NBN rollout

Some homes will miss out on the Rudd government's $43 billion plan to roll out fibre-optic broadband cables to households, a frontbencher admits.

The NBN is an ambitious project and has certainly turned previous ideas about addressing Australia's broadband woes on their heads. But small towns will still miss out on fibre access under the current plan for the NBN.

While small towns 'missing out' is not such a good thing, the announcement this week that Australia will launch more satellites to cover remote areas is good news.

But politics will either make or break the Rudd Government's ambitious plan. It is time that an independent government agency was established to remove Australia's communications infrastructure from day-to-day politics. Afterall, politicians have avoided the issue for over two decades.

Another reason for removing politics from the infrastructure is technological convergence. As the NBN impacts upon television, newspaper and other traditional media businesses, there will be calls to protect them from becoming irrelevant in the broadband era.

My view is that if these businesses have not kept up with changes in the media communications industry, then the public should not have to put up with outdated modes of veiwing content to keep a handful of people rich.

Creating an independent government agency with clear goals to connect Australia must be considered in the early stages of the NBN. If this doesn't happen, you can be sure interested parties who occupy the periphery will present a major risk to the success of the NBN. The infrastructure is too important to be caught up in the political point-scoring games which are sure to follow once all the traditional interests converge.

read more | digg story

NBN Reaction: ZDNet Video

Check out this video from ZDNet: Sydneysiders' reactions to the NBN.

Can the Aussie Ute cope with a Rolls Royce NBN?

I have been conducting research to explain the differences in broadband speeds and take-up between Canada and Australia since 2005. An obvious theme, aside from the Canadian anticipative versus the Australian passive approach to technological convergence, has been decentralisation (Canada) verus centralisation (Australia).

Until the announcement of the NBN (Rolls Royce version), an obvious solution to Australia's broadband woes was the structural separation of Telstra (pre-privatisation). However, now Telstra is what it is, I am reluctant to support any government move to destroy a world-class company. I am also sceptical about anything the Opposition has to say. After all, they dropped the broadband ball on their watch.

The NBN announcement this week has put things in a flat spin and many questions remain unanswered. Why spend $43 billion on broadband and not healthcare or education? If Australians have access to fibre-to-the-home (FTTH), will they use it? Where should it start, in the bush or in the city? How much will it cost?

A national FTTN network would put Australia as #1 for broadband networks in the world. Industry analysts agree the FTTH would be the best option to future proof the NBN. Although 55% of statistics are made-up, I would think that 90% of Australians are keen to see the government roll out the largest nation building project since the Snowy Hydro scheme.

Politics will determine the government's ability to roll out such an ambitious project. I think this would be the most substantial long-term policy goal ever undertaken by an Australian government. But like many others, I am concerned that the NBN might eventually become Telstra 2.0.

It seems apparent that the debate must now focus on the 'public interest'. Clearly, a FTTH NBN would usher in the end of debates over convergence. But are Australian industries ready for the change? How will the government deal with these issues? Why not give the Taswegians a chance to pilot the NBN? Indeed, why not the 'bush' too? Most of us are sick of waiting for the 'trickle-down' effect promised in the 1980s.

My main concern is the government's ability to roll out such an ambitious project without it being stalled by traditional politics. After all, the NBN (Rolls Royce version) will bring to the fore a whole bunch of interests which to date have been segregated by divergent views and industry structures. How will this affect media ownership laws? Is it important enough to simply roll it out and see what happens?

I think it is. But then I regard the Net as the ultimate freedom machine and therefore I am biased. Yet Australia's international competitiveness rests on its ability to engage in the digital economy. If not now, then in the very near future. But do we have the institutional capacity? Can the government do what it suggests it can? I hope so. But the NBN (Rolls Royce version) will travel a rocky road. Let's hope the good old Aussie ute is up to the task.