Archive for the News Category
The UK Revenue Assurance Group is holding their Winter meeting tomorrow, and the theme will be Big Data, with a packed schedule featuring speakers from the UK, USA, and even Australia! Everyone who has an interest in revenue assurance is welcome to join us in London – if you have not received an invite, then there is still time to contact the organizers and get yourself added to the guest list.
Tomorrow’s keynote speaker is Julian Hebden, Head of Big Data at Telstra. He will be joining us by videoconference to answer this question: is assurance the killer app for Big Data? There will also be talks by British Gas about the implications of smart metering, from Cartesian about new opportunities for data analytics, and from Elutions about asset and power management. The day closes with two speakers from the USA. Peter Mueller, CTO of ATS, will give his views on what Big Data will teach telcos, and how telcos might be surprised by what they learn about their customers, and about themselves. Finally, Dan Baker of TRI and Black Swan will give his overview of the range of Big Data solutions now being marketed. Phew! For a ‘small’ meeting of revenue assurance practitioners who do not like to publicize themselves, the RAG always delivers a great agenda! Factor in the splendid lunch, lively debate, networking, coffee and doughnuts, ultra-modern real-time surveys, old school gossiping, and an after-hours trip to the pub, and it is no wonder that RAG is the must-attend event for every RA pro within range of London :)
Posted by: Eric in News, Opinion
Let me begin by apologizing to everyone who does not live in the USA. Sometimes, when discussing the internet, you have to discuss what is happening in America.
And let me also apologize to everyone who prefers to avoid politics. Sometimes, when discussing the internet, you cannot avoid politics.
Phew. It is a relief to get the apologies out of the way. Maybe only 20% of you are still reading. I congratulate you for making it this far. The title for this piece includes the name of the current US President, the name of a high-profile Republican Senator who would like to be US President, and the words ‘net neutrality’. These subjects encourage people to have strong feelings, and fixed opinions, sometimes before they acquaint themselves with relevant facts. But if we, as professionals, do not understand how the net neutrality debate is fundamentally about the pricing of communication services, and what the real issues are when setting those prices, then there is little hope that the general public will ever share that understanding, or that governments will make the best decisions. The vacuum of ignorance creates the potential for politicians to say all sorts of things, take all sorts of policy positions, without caring if they help anyone but themselves. And if you are not interested in how prices are set for the internet, and who gets to decide those prices, then perhaps you are in the wrong line of work.
This article is about a very short speech given recently by US President Obama, and the reaction it provoked. But before I discuss Obama’s words, I want to show you an image. It is an image that people saw, before they heard Obama’s words.
This was captured two seconds into the playing of a video taken from the White House’s official YouTube channel. Let me be clear: it is not a graphical representation of any actual buffering that occurred before the video started playing. This is a frame of an animation that is part of the video itself. It suggests that buffering is taking place, but there is no buffering. Play the same video over and over, and this pseudo-buffering animation will always look identical, always last the same duration. It is a simulation of the graphics sometimes displayed when buffering occurs. Why include this animation before a seemingly important announcement by the most powerful man in the world? A generous answer would say it illustrates the speed of the internet, in a way that people can relate to. I think that answer would be too generous. This animation is very short, and no subsequent attempt is made to clarify that people were shown a simulation. Most people will wrongly believe they waited a few seconds for some buffering, before the video of Obama actually began. Public understanding of net neutrality is poor. Leaders should explain complicated issues fairly and honestly. That President Obama’s communication team decided to use this deceptive animation before Obama spoke on the topic of net neutrality creates a very bad impression of their sincerity, and their transparency.
So what did Obama say about net neutrality? Here is the 2-minute video, and I analyse the transcript below.
Hi everybody. Ever since the internet was created, it’s been organized around basic principles of openness, fairness, and freedom.
It would be more accurate to say the internet has been disorganized since its creation. Obama makes it sound like thoughtful people sat around a table, and made a conscious decision that the internet should be open, fair and free. On the contrary, the character of the internet has been driven by the absence of authorities that could impose their values – whether benevolent or otherwise. The TCP/IP protocols direct how data moves around a network; they contain no mystical insight into the concept of fairness. Businesses that laid cables did so because they wanted to charge others for using them, not because of a holy devotion to increasing liberty.
There are no gatekeepers deciding which sites you get to access.
This is no longer true. It was true during the very early days of the internet, but ever since governments started censoring and curbing the use of the internet for a variety of reasons – to stop child pornography, to combat terrorism, to protect copyright, and so on – there have been gatekeepers who decide what content you can access. Maybe you always agree with their decisions, but gatekeepers definitely exist.
There are no toll roads on the information superhighway.
Except for the most obvious one, paid by every consumer. We all pay an access fee, in order to use the internet. What is that, if not a toll? This particular toll road runs over the final mile, connecting our home (or our mobile phone) to the rest of the network. What Obama means is that, after you pay for access to the network, there are no further tolls that might influence your journey.
This set of principles, the idea of net neutrality, has unleashed the power of the internet, and given innovators the chance to thrive.
Or rather, the internet is it what is, and allowed innovators to thrive. Later on, some people started talking about principles, and gave names to them. In this case, the reality of net neutrality existed before the idea of net neutrality.
However, I recognize that you could take a different view, and argue that net neutrality means nothing more than implementing networks so they manage the flow of traffic in a neutral manner. In that sense, I would agree that the internet was designed to be neutral. However, the neutrality of a network is not the same as the neutrality of all networks. Some confusion can occur here. Suppose I build two, completely separate, neutral networks. One has high bandwidth, one has low bandwidth. They are both neutral, in the original technical sense, because no traffic prioritization occurs on either network. Now suppose I choose to connect person A to the high-bandwidth network, and put person B on the low-bandwidth network. The political and economic issues that Obama refers to as ‘neutrality’ have more to do with this scenario – who is serviced by which network, and whether that leads to some inequality of practical outcomes – than by the conception of neutrality in its original technical sense.
These arguments get very confused because we can be very unclear about the subject of conversation, when we talk about a network. In some senses, the internet is just one network. But by analogy, that would mean I should think of the North American road network as just one network, and not as many different roads. I can drive a car from any part of the road network to any other part of the road network, and the internet is similarly connected. However, concepts like fairness cannot be realized simply by asserting that the same rules should apply to every part of the North American road network. I must also understand that if an inadequate highway connects two towns with growing populations, that road will get increasingly congested. At the same time, some authority might decide to waste money by building an unnecessary road elsewhere. It is meaningless to talk about the rules being fair, if the practical reality is that one driver speeds along a road which only he uses, whilst many other drivers are stuck in jams for hours on end. Managing the relationship between infrastructure and use requires more sophisticated thought than that offered by dogmatic, but ultimately meaningless demands for fair rules. In this context, fair treatment is tied up with practical issues that cannot be reduced to a few simple rules.
Abandoning these principles would threaten to end the internet as we know it. That’s why I’m laying out a plan to keep the internet free and open.
Which is fine and dandy. Except it is not clear who, exactly, is threatening to ‘abandon’ these principles. Or whether there is any evidence that they intend to do so.
Note the importance of what we mean by ‘net neutrality’, and how different meanings are given to the phrase by different people. If we stick to the original, narrow, technical meaning, then two customers could be connected to two neutral networks, and be charged very different amounts for very different quality of access over those networks. When Obama talks about ‘abandoning’ net neutrality, he is talking more about prices and economics than about the technical aspects of neutrality.
Please keep in mind that if we treat neutrality like a religious dogma, then we would never discriminate between a personal email and unwanted spam, between a video of cats falling over and the streaming of hardcore porn, or between the purchase of an ebook via Amazon and the purchase of heroin via the Silk Road 2.0. We need to ask hard questions, about what politicians mean, when they use words like ‘free’ and ‘open’.
And that’s why I’m urging the Federal Communications Commission to do everything they can to protect net neutrality for everyone.
They should make it clear that whether you use a computer, phone or tablet, internet providers have a legal obligation not to block or limit your access to a website. Cable companies can’t decide which online stores you can shop at, or which streaming services you can use.
Forgive me, but at this point I can no longer take Obama seriously. The history of electronic communications, and the commercial interests of the businesses involved, has yielded no evidence that communication providers want to censor or restrict communications. They make money by selling access, not by limiting access. The few times that comms providers have experimented with restrictive models, such as when mobile providers pushed users on to walled gardens, the free market has rapidly forced them to abandon their foolishness. Internet providers give unfettered access not because of government protections, but because customers want it, because rivals will offer it, and because customers can switch suppliers if they do not get what they want.
On the other hand, there are plenty of examples of internet providers being criticized for being too free in allowing access. Who criticizes them? Who wants to impose restrictions upon them? Very often it is politicians who want to limit access. In some cases those politicians are backed by other kinds of big business. Whether we are talking about anonymous online financial transactions using crypto-currencies, or controls that stop youngsters from seeing pornography, or darknet markets for illegal drugs, or obstructing P2P traffic in order to reduce piracy, typically communications providers are vilified for not doing enough to control the traffic that flows over their networks. Many times they have been accused of indirectly profiting from crime, if they do not stop their customers from doing unlawful things. At such times, politicians often present themselves as white knights, riding to the rescue. But then it makes no sense to damn internet providers for interfering too little, whilst whipping up fears that the same companies may interfere too much.
And they can’t let any company pay for priority over its competitors.
This is the real issue: who pays for what. Obama misled the public, by pretending that corporate censorship poses a threat to net neutrality. His real concern is over payment, and if he really wanted to explain the issues to the public, he would have concentrated on this topic.
To put these protections in place, I’m asking the FCC to reclassify internet service under Title II of a law known as the Telecommunications Act.
Title II is economic in character. It follows a long-established model used in other sectors, as well as telecoms, to prevent monopolistic behaviour by controlling prices. For all Obama’s guff, it would be unbelievably crude to deploy this mechanism just to prevent websites from being blocked. There would be a hundred better ways to impose rules to make every websites available to everyone – and whatever the rules are, they would need to be reconciled with those occasions when the government mandates the blocking of websites.
The FCC is the US communications regulator. If the FCC applied Title II to the internet, they would have far more control over the prices and payment for internet services. Obama wants them to control prices. If Obama wants the public to understand the issues, he should make an argument for increased price control, not by telling scary stories about websites being blocked.
In plain English, I’m asking them to recognize that for most Americans, the internet has become an essential part of everyday communication and everyday life.
In plain English: yada yada. I think the FCC is already aware of the importance of the internet, without needing to be told by Obama.
The FCC is an independent agency, and ultimately this decision is theirs alone. But the public has already commented nearly four million times, asking the FCC to make sure that consumers, not the cable company, gets to decide which sites they use.
It is true that the public has strong opinions. But if the public was asked to explain net neutrality, they would give four million different explanations, and many of them would be wrong. The public has a right to express all sorts of opinions on all sorts of topics, from how election finance laws should be changed, to who should win this year’s Nobel Peace Prize. Politicians often choose to ignore opinion, just as Obama did when the public was outraged by revelations that America’s secret services had extensively spied on private electronic communications, using them to track millions of law-abiding American citizens, and to monitor foreign allies like German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
Having torn into Obama’s verbal manipulations, I now want to succinctly state the key issue, which Obama omitted from his speech. The nature, and future of the internet, will be determined by whether differential pricing can ever be allowed. The point is not whether a packet gets treated the same as the next packet, but what is the right way to charge for the flow of those packets. At the moment, ISPs may charge the same monthly amount to two neighbours, though one uses the internet far more than the other. Meanwhile, charging for internet use differs greatly, depending on whether the final connection involves a wire or radio. If we want a society where the same prices are applied to all internet traffic, we must agree consensus answers to sensible questions about what it means to say one service is the ‘same’ as another. That has not happened yet, and most politicians have avoided such intelligent debate.
A simple but mistaken assumption is that the only conceivable reason to permit differential pricing is to allow internet providers to charge differential prices to their consumers. But this does not match the real-life examples raised by network providers. They argue that they want to negotiate fees from the big businesses that encourage traffic, not the individuals who consume the traffic. That way, a big business which requires a lot of bandwidth to thrive – such as Netflix – can be charged for having its needs satisfied. Instead of focusing solely on the final mile, as seen from the consumer’s point of view, pricing might better reflect the source of content. Obama’s intervention implies he does not want businesses like Netflix to receive tailored bills for a tailored service. Such a development would contradict neutrality, as Obama sees it, because it means not all users of the internet are treated the same.
Obama suggests that net neutrality is necessary to protect the little guys, in a struggle of consumers vs. big business. The truth is that this debate is more of a struggle between consumers, big businesses, and other big businesses. Aside from the network providers, there are many other large corporations who profit greatly from the internet, and who perceive neutrality regulation as a mechanism to keep their costs down. I will not express an opinion on how these businesses have influenced the debate, and whether their interests should be protected. However, I do believe it is despicable for Obama to use an emotional topic – censorship!!! – to justify price controls without clearly stating how some big corporations might benefit from price controls. In particular, if internet providers could levy higher charges from big businesses that rely on the internet for their profits, that would imply consumers would represent a smaller share of total revenues. Wherever the revenues come from, those revenues will ultimately determine the investment that is made in the internet.
For all the principles, platitudes and emotional language, it is not logically obvious that consumers must benefit from net neutrality, in the way Obama understands the idea. Consumers might be better off if more internet investment was fuelled by revenues from the big businesses that run the most popular, and most bandwidth-intensive, websites and services. At the very least, this is not an argument that can be resolved by loose talk about ideas, fairness and freedom. This is fundamentally a question of economics, and the relationship between prices, supply, demand and investment. In other words, this is the kind of topic that lots of people might express an opinion about, but unless they have some data that supports a coherent economic model that predicts investment in network infrastructure, then we should not be listening to them.
At this point I should mention the intervention of Senator Ted Cruz, who responded to Obama’s speech. Sadly, the Texan legislator and favourite of the Tea Party did not share an economic model that will forecast investment in network infrastructure. But he did tweet about net neutrality, and here it is.
The problem with this tweet is that it responds to Obama’s lousy analogies about net neutrality (we need to protect the principles espoused by the mythical internet founders by massively increasing regulation!) by offering an equally lousy, though opposing analogy. Obamacare was the President’s attempt to reform the provision of US healthcare. It essentially shifted some of the costs from those who most need healthcare, to other people who did not want to purchase health insurance. Because Obamacare is a kind of government intervention that influences the price of healthcare, there is a tenuous analogy to one implication of applying Title II to the internet. But beyond that, the two policies have little in common. One reason that Obamacare is unpopular is that it forces people to buy a service, even if they do not want it. Nobody is suggesting that people should be forced to invest in network infrastructure, even if they do not use the internet. Obamacare changes how much consumers pay for healthcare, and finds a new balance in who pays for what. The best objection to Title II is that it would prevent internet providers from shifting more of the cost away from consumers, and on to big businesses.
As a result of his poor analogy, Cruz has strengthened his opponents more than he has weakened them. Thousands of self-appointed net neutrality advocates have flocked to the web, to ridicule Cruz’s understanding of the internet. For example, The Oatmeal lambasted Cruz for not understanding net neutrality. That author made the following statement:
I’m going to… explain to you exactly how net neutrality works.
The author then proceeded to give a ludicrously simplistic explanation. This only proves:
- it was written by a pompous clown with no idea of how net neutrality works; and
- that it is impossible to give an exact description of net neutrality because so many people are so obviously talking at cross-purposes.
However, there are very many pompous clowns like this author. They believe they are experts because they have a computer and they like to use it. At the same time, they are clueless about the economic issues entwined with net neutrality. Many of them are so busy delivering sermons that they never hear valid opinions that differ from their own. That is why they make time to crucify Cruz, but seemingly failed to notice any errors or oddities in Obama’s speech – including that peculiar buffering animation. If Cruz wanted to exert a positive influence on the net neutrality debate, he should have taken time to explain the issues surrounding price controls in simple terms, and made them relevant to consumers. It is unfortunate he did not, preferring to throw out an attention-grabbing but unhelpful soundbite instead.
Is this net neutrality debate relevant to you? You are reading this on the internet right now, so you must care a little bit about it. And whilst you may not be in the US, you will be conscious of America’s influence over the internet, as well as the possibility that other governments will follow the example set in the USA. What makes net neutrality so significant to our line of work is that lots and lots of people – including the President of the USA – have revealed themselves to be complete asshats, spouting wild opinions about what fuels network investment, what leads to improved internet services, how to efficiently manage traffic, and how to set prices, without showing any data to support their beliefs. One reason they can get away with this nonsense is because the communications industry has traditionally been lousy at gathering and interpreting the relevant data for itself. Many important investment decisions have been justified by little more than gut feelings and guesswork, or by a herd instinct where one telco takes a lead, and every competitor follows. This is not a great way to run a multi-billion dollar collective enterprise that connects every person on this planet. We claim to be intelligent; we should use more intelligence when making decisions.
At the core of our difficulties is trying to understand the relationship between investments, and the returns they generate. Building network infrastructure is a long-term activity. Customers purchase communications services on a much more short-term basis. Infrastructure decisions will have lasting consequences, but a YouTube video is watched on a whim. For all the talk about Big Data in the comms industry, there can be no better use of data than to improve our understanding of which network investments will yield the best returns, and which prices generate the best profits. The debate about net neutrality sits right at the fulcrum of these issues, because it has the potential to change the dimensions of who makes which decisions, and why. Whoever makes these decisions, whether it is a private company or a public servant, the quality of the decision will depend on the quality of the data they used. To get the best results, we will need more than fine talk about principles, and simplistic analogies about fairness and openness. We need lots of data, and sophisticated forecasting models. Without them, we are all guilty of coasting in neutral, unable to drive investment in the right direction. That is because we lack the substance to back our talk, and to justify our decisions.
Posted by: Eric in News, Opinion
Credit should be given where it is due. The TM Forum recently showed encouraging signs that they will defend the integrity of their published advice, when this is undermined by the marketing shenanigans of certain TMF members. The incident began when a telco employee asked an innocent question on one of the TMF’s community pages.
Subject: Revenue Assurance Solution
From: Jimmy Zuñiga, Telefonica
Posted: Oct 27, 2014 11:17
I am new in the area of Revenue Assurance. Actually, we are following the TM Forum Standard in my area and we want to acquire another solution that aligns the TM Forum. So, if you can give some recomendations about market solutions , I will appreciate it.
After a few days, Jimmy’s question attracted the attention of cVidya, the Israeli software vendor, who could not resist the opportunity…
From: Efrat Nissimov, cVidya Networks Ltd.
Posted: Oct 30, 2014 06:48
cVidya’s methodology and product, Money Map, work according to TM Forum standards as defined in GB941 and TR131, MoneyMap is certified against Business Process Framework (eTOM), Information Framework (SID), Release 9.0.
And offer him to have a call to provide more details.
I will be happy to provide additional information,
Nissimov’s response drips with insincerity. “And offer him to have a call to provide more details.” How should we interpret this sentence, except that Nissimov did not write this reply, but dictated it to her secretary, who then mindlessly repeated it verbatim?
More importantly, we must question the assertion that Money Map works “according to” TMF publications TR131 and GB941. I wrote large amounts of the content in TR131 and GB941. I would never state that any software could work in the way described by these documents, because they were not written to describe how software should work!
Saying that cVidya’s software is consistent with TR131 is like saying my motor car is consistent with TR131. My motor car will never do anything non-compliant with TR131, but that is because TR131 says nothing relevant about how my car works. GB941 and TR131 gives advice for what Revenue Assurance departments should do; they do not dictate how to design or implement software. These documents should not even be described using the word ‘standard’ because they are merely guidelines, and are not as authoritative as a real standard should be.
There is a better, more positive way to answer Jimmy’s question. That answer confirms that the RA products from all the major reputable software vendors are equally consistent with the TMF’s RA guidance. All those products do essentially the same things. They all support conventional RA requirements.
In some respects, it is a complimentary to the TMF to observe the consistency between published TMF guidance and so many RA products. The TMF’s advice has been so widely accepted that it is difficult to imagine anyone trying to create an RA product that is inconsistent with TR131 or GB941. If anyone made a product that clashed with TR131 and GB941, the first argument would be that the product should not be labelled using the words ‘revenue assurance’. TR131, in particular, gives a definition of what revenue assurance is. If you make a product that is inconsistent with TR131, it must be because the product is doing something different to revenue assurance.
On the other hand, observing the consistency between TMF advice and RA products is also a statement of the obvious. Trying to select an RA product by asking about consistency with TR131 and GB941 would be like trying to select a car by asking how many wheels each model has. With very few exceptions, all cars have four wheels. Having four wheels is just a really obvious, really practical aspect in the design of cars. The TMF’s guidance establishes common sense basics for how to do revenue assurance. Though well-written, the advice is not unique; others make similar recommendations. Just like suggesting a car should have four wheels, the TMF’s advice suggests basic activities that might be performed by an RA function, so long as they are relevant to the needs of the telco. Some of these activities can be automated in very obvious ways. Various vendors have automated them. Trying to pretend that one particular RA product was created with the intention of following the TMF’s RA guidance would be like marketing a particular car by saying it has four wheels and that having four wheels makes the car especially safe and efficient.
Thankfully, the TMF intervened, and deleted cVidya’s marketing puff. In its place, you now find this statement:
From: Megan Lunde, TM Forum
Posted: Nov 03, 2014 12:26
I recommend that you check out the TM Forum Conformant solutions in this area. You can view the list of these here: Conformance Certifications Awarded.
A reminder to all members of this community that commercial messages are not permitted per the Community Usage Policy.
Megan could have gone further, by pointing out it is not possible to award conformance certifications in respect of TR131 and GB941. This might have undone any misconceptions that have been deliberately encouraged by cVidya. But at least the offending material has been stripped from the TMF’s community pages. The TMF deserves praise for standing up to cVidya, and curbing their misbehaviour. cVidya is a long-standing customer of the TMF. But then, the TMF needs to protect its publications, and dispel misinformation about them, if it wants to be respected as a trustworthy source of reliable advice. I encourage the TMF to enforce strict rules on all its member companies, prohibiting them from turning decent community-created content into degraded marketing slush.
Posted by: Eric in News, Opinion
It is too soon to give a proper review of the Subex User Conference 2014, which was held in Istanbul last week. So much great content was presented at the event, it will take me a little while to compile my notes and gather my thoughts. But the event did leave me with vivid feelings and memories, and they are easy to share.
The gala dinner was held on a boat, sailing up and down the Bosphorus. At the completion of the meal, Turkish dancers entertained the audience, inevitably dragging some onlookers from their seats, teaching them the steps to traditional dances. When the professionals left the dance floor, the amateurs happily remained, and their numbers swelled. We witnessed the happy spectacle of Africans, Europeans, Arabs, Americans and Chinese, all dancing together to a soundtrack of joyous Indian music, upon a boat floating halfway between Europe and Asia. That says a lot about who we are, and what we do. At times like this, you realize we live in a global village, where the binding forces of what we have in common are more powerful than the differences that push us apart.
The communications industry has played a tremendous role in bringing people together. Whilst we may work for rival operators, we are not defined by our rivalry. Our better nature encourages us to be co-operators, working and playing together. We often gain more by sharing than we lose by revealing our secrets. As chairman of the event, I opened with a few words that encouraged the audience to interact with the speakers and each other, to share their knowledge, to ask questions and engage in conversation. Their response left me feeling very privileged to chair this conference.
The presentations were of very high quality, matching the standard set by the 2013 Subex User Conference. Better still, the telco case studies were refreshingly honest, describing not just successes, but also mistakes that were made. Subex were robust but down to earth, attentively and politely listening when told about areas they needed to improve. The telcos also found fault with themselves, frankly sharing the lessons they had learned about their own weaknesses. I had the feeling that the room was full of people who had the confidence to admit that they are imperfect. As a consequence, the supplier was unashamed about asking how they could do a better job for the customer, and the customer was equally open in talking about how they could have done more to help their supplier, and to help themselves.
We are grown-ups, and we all know that people get things wrong from time to time. In fact, there would be no need for business assurance if nothing ever went wrong. Sometimes we learn more from failure than we do from success. I cannot give enough praise to the speakers and audience at Subex’s conference, for how they shared their experiences, both good and bad, so that everyone could learn from them. I have never attended an event where there was so much open, constructive and realistic dialogue around how to do revenue assurance and fraud management.
Even when I think of it now, several days after the event, I am staggered by what happened during the question and answer sessions that occurred at the end of each presentation. I have chaired a fair few conferences over the years, and one reason I get asked to do that job is because I can be relied upon to think of a couple of questions to put to each speaker. Speakers often work hard to compile their presentations. Many of them are nervous about speaking in public. There is nothing worse for them than reaching the end of their talk, and discovering that nobody wants to ask a question. It makes them feel that nobody cared about what they said. As a chairman, my job involves more than introducing and thanking speakers, starting the applause and keeping track of time. I also need to ask questions, if nobody else does. But in Istanbul, there was never the need for me to do that. The number of questions posed by the audience was overwhelming. I have never experienced anything like it.
The volume of questions may have been partly encouraged by the innovation of allowing people to use their smartphones to submit questions over the internet. During one talk, I discovered the audience had already asked two questions, via smartphone, in the time it took me to return to my seat after introducing the speakers. Instead of interrupting speakers or forcing the audience to save questions to the end, this technology seemed to free the audience to immediately share a question as soon as they had thought of it. As a consequence, we found that some of the Q&A sessions ballooned in ways I had never seen before. After some talks, we projected the questions on the big screen, so speakers could choose the order to take them, and whether to group some of them together. In the time it took to answer one question, two new questions would be added to the list on the screen! Obviously that makes it impossible to answer all the questions in the time available. Thankfully, Subex has agreed to compile all the unanswered questions and to pass them on to the speakers, encouraging them to give written answers which will be shared over the web.
Whilst this technology may have helped stimulate more questions, the source for each question is a person in the audience. The sheer number of questions proved that the audience was incredibly engaged, and that the speakers had done a brilliant job of holding the audience’s attention. This remained true from the first speaker to the last, and they all deserve praise for that.
Of course, people do not ask questions unless they believe they will be answered. One telling moment came when Surjeet Singh, Subex CEO, took to the stage and asked his customers for feedback. Unafraid, he also had their questions projected on the big screen, unfiltered. Surjeet proceeded to work his way through them, though once again it was an impossible task due to the number received and the time available, even though his Q&A overran well into the lunch break. For me, his time on stage epitomized the conference. When you put a lot of people in a room, it can be hard to manage a dialogue. Some people may not be heard. Or maybe people are unwilling to speak. However, this event overflowed with open, constructive dialogue. That is because people felt free to speak, and sure they would be listened to. I attribute the success to both the character of Subex’s management team, and the enthusiastic spirit exhibited by their customers.
I only felt the need to correct a speaker on one occasion. Reto Meier of Swisscom was last on stage, on the final day. During the preceding coffee break, Reto humbly confided that he intended to keep his talk short, because people wanted to leave. I politely disagreed. Anybody in the room had chosen to be there, and they wanted to hear what Reto, and his colleague Urs Schmitz, had to say about implementing their upgraded FMS in Swisscom. A more charming person might not have contradicted Reto, but I wanted him to know his contribution would be appreciated. What is more, the audience was so engaged that I had no concerns about them desiring an early end. Reto and Urs received a string of questions at the end of their talk, demonstrating that the audience’s attention had not wavered over the two days of the conference.
And then something else happened, which cannot be faked, and which showed how happy the attendees were. During the final day, people would occasionally ask if I was tired, having been on stage so much, and having enjoyed the evening merriment as much as anyone. I said I felt fine; nobody feels tired when they do things they enjoy, and it had been a great pleasure to chair this conference. Though I had listened a lot, and learned a lot, I still felt plenty of energy. It seems I was not alone. A talk in another room had overrun, and some of Subex’s customers were hanging around, waiting for me to do my final job: to give the brief words of thanks that would conclude the conference. I took to the stage for the final time, and congratulated the audience, the speakers, and Subex, for how they had all come together and created an outstanding event. And then, joking around, the guys looking after the audio-visual equipment turned up the dance music. So I danced a bit. Within moments the stage was full, and I was once again dancing with people from around the globe, as both customers and Subexians joined the spontaneous bop. The world of business assurance is populated by hard-working people whose efforts should be appreciated. I feel proud to state that, for a couple of days in Istanbul, they got the celebration they deserved.
After the Hungarian people took to the streets to protest, Hungary’s government today shelved proposals for a new tax on internet use, according to Reuters.
The government, led by Prime Minister Viktor Orban, originally planned to charge for every gigabyte of data used by the Hungarian people. Widespread criticism led to a watering-down of the proposals, with the introduction of a monthly cap on the amount that could be taxed. However, this was not enough to placate Hungarian citizens, who continued to participate in demonstrations around the country. As a consequence, Prime Minister Orban stated today:
If the people not only dislike something but also consider it unreasonable then it should not be done…
The tax code should be modified. This must be withdrawn, and we do not have to deal with this now.
The Hungarian government had promised that telcos would pay the tax whilst being prohibited from passing the cost on to consumers. This is a perfect example of politics ignoring reality in order to twist the truth of how governments raise money; the extra cash would have to come from somewhere, and telcos are not charities. Taxing the consumption of communication is a terrible deal for the individual, for businesses, and for the economy as a whole. The rapid fall in the cost of communication has fuelled economic growth worldwide, and enabled unprecedented social and economic mobility for countless people. Justifying extra taxes by observing that a lot of trade occurs via modern telecommunications is like applying the air brakes to a passenger jet because the plane will arrive at its destination much sooner than a ship would. The point is that we are always better off if we arrive sooner, and we are always better off if we communicate with each other.
Orban is not the first politician to try to levy a stealth tax whilst hiding behind communications providers. However, some other politicians now understand that the people benefit most from a free flow of information, unfettered by tolls and levies. European Commission spokesman Ryan Heath described the tax as “bad in principle” because it was a national tax applied to a global system. He went on to say it was:
…part of a pattern… of actions that have limited freedoms or sought to take rents without achieving wider economic or social interest.
Ordinary Hungarians have won this battle, but the fight is not over. Orban announced that his government would engage in public consultations about internet taxes and regulations. These consultations are promised for January 2015. Orban’s goal remains unchanged, as evident from how he described the purpose of the consultations:
There are two questions, the question of internet regulation, what can and cannot be done, and the financial questions of the internet.
We really should see somehow where the huge profits generated online go, and whether there is a way to keep some of it in Hungary and channel it into the budget.
Congratulations to Hungary’s people, who have defeated a harmful stealth tax. It is sufficient to tax telcos on the profits they make, like any other corporation. Individuals and businesses should not be taxed every time they communicate with each other, because communication is good for the economy, and good for society. Let us applaud this victory, and hope the Hungarians keep setting an example for all of us, in the ongoing political fight for cheap and unrestricted communication.