Why does Vodafone continue to block skype?

As the momentum around Skype for iPhone + Blackberry(followed by their previous announcement on Nokia N73) gathers rave reviews from customers and media alike, I wonder why Vodafone continues to block Skype?

This is very old fashioned and as a long standing Voda customer, it may be cause to switch operators who will not do so.

Apart from the walled garden implications .. this affects me directly as a Vodafone customer and as a frequent traveller.

I have a friend who says that: SE C905 doesn’t allow me. It runs many JME apps, of course, but denies installation of quite a few, including Skype. So much about Open Gardens…

I see no reason now for Vodafone to block Skype now that its on Nokia, Blackberry and the iPhone.

Any reason why Voda could be legitimately blocking it?

Sadly, I will have to switch Operators if this does not change .. I have a large address book on Skype and the more that address book works on a phone .. the better it is for me ..

I probably won’t switch to the iPhone .. but being a Nokia + Blackberry user historically – N97 + Blackberry seems to be a good choice ..

Open Clouds: The pitfalls of framing new discussions in context of the old paradigms ..

Open - cage or a playframe.JPG

Like many people, I did not think highly of the Open Cloud manifesto episode last week and now that some resolution seems to have come of it with the apology from CCIF , its time to leave the CCIF manifesto episode behind to the wider issues.

I have been trying to take a pragmatic view about the current and future role of standards for some time, albeit from the perspective of mobility where the issue has existed for a while now.

Standardization for the Cloud offers an opportunity to rethink standards themselves since many of the older paradigms do not apply in the new world dominated by the Cloud(or rather they become irrelevant/commodities).

So, much like the parable of new wine in old wineskins, there is little point in framing new discussions in context of the old.

Let me explain ..

In a widely publicised article, Larry Ellison – founder of Oracle corporation – criticised Cloud computing calling it meaningless. And Cloud computing is a trap warns Open source pioneer Richard Stallman.

Both Ellison and Stallman have the same thing to fear from Cloud computing – it makes them commodities.

For instance – when we use Google, we all become users of Linux(Open source) since Google servers run on Linux – but we don’t care that Linux(i.e. Open source) is used(and nor should we!).

With the Cloud, all you care about is the Service(The Service level agreement). Once the customers(business or consumer) have a SLA(service level agreement), who cares what database it runs on or if it uses Open source?

Essentially, if we want to enhance the uptake of Cloud computing – (and the precise definition of Cloud computing itself still remains a bit clear ..), there are four issues to consider(happy to add to this list)

a) Process level interoperability: i.e. a process or object on one cloud should be able to invoke a process or object on another cloud from a different vendor

b) Service level agreements – i.e. the relationship with the customer

c) Legal issues i.e. the legal implications of having data in the Cloud and

d) Data level interoperability

The businessweek article – Meet the Open Cloud Manifesto – IBM and other tech companies have issued a statement of principles that calls for keeping cloud computing services as open as possible says

Depending on how cloud service providers set up their technology, they can make it harder or easier for applications living in one cloud service to interact with those living in others, or for their customers to shift to a different service provider.

What does this mean and more importantly How does it apply to the Cloud?

Process level interoperability (a) is hard and almost no one will be able to do it(example -Google’s cloud seamlessly calling a process/object on Amazon’s cloud). In contrast, Data level interoperability has always been possible. I used to work for PeopleSoft(now Oracle corp) – and migrating ERP systems – while not easy – was possible.

Tim O’Reilly has done some excellent thinking in this space which I have been following for some time (and I was truly disappointed that this was not linked by the Open Cloud Manifesto folk)

Tim O Reilly, speaks of the idea of ‘Reasonably open’ i.e. a more pragmatic view

This isn’t just a “moral” appeal, but strategic advice. The first provider to build a reasonably open, re-usable system service in any particular area is going to get the biggest uptake. Right now, there’s a lot of focus on low level platform subsystems like storage and computation, but I continue to believe that many of the key subsystems in this evolving OS will be data subsystems, like identity, location, payment, product catalogs, music, etc. And eventually, these subsystems will need to be reasonably open and interoperable, so that a developer can build a data-intensive application without having to own all the data his application requires. This is what John Musser calls the programmable web.

I think thats the kind of thinking we need ..

When I spoke at CEBIT I also mentioned the idea of a playframe instead of a cage(which was originally said by Robert Hamilton of Google in the session I chaired previously in Mobile World Congress – Barcelona called Business of Mobile 2.0 – i.e. when we mean ‘Open’ – we don’t mean the LACK of any structure – rather we mean the a structure which can evolve (allow users to experiment and reuse – like a playframe unlike a cage which restricts)

Gartner said over the weekend –

In all cases, there are claims of customer interests and the good of the industry, etc. etc. While there is some legitimate interest in standards, make no mistake that all vendors act in their own (and shareholders’) interests (as they should) and that if those interests line up with those of users, then great. But none are just altruistic and looking out for their customers only as they claim.

That was painfully apparent over the weekend.

There are many ways we could discuss this – starting with a taxonomy of ‘Open’ – the ten meanings of Open and understanding the various anomalies – ex Skype follows open source or open standards but wants the networks to ‘Open up’; Opera does not believe in Open source – but believes in W3C(web) standards.

And we could go on ..

I think it was Napoleon who said that all my troops are ready and prepared to fight the LAST battle – but not the NEXT battle ..

In other words, we cannot frame the discussion in terms of last years battle (Open source, Open standards etc) – and blindly apply it to the emerging paradigm(Cloud)

It seems to me that a discussion about the Cloud offers an opportunity to take a more pragmatic approach from first principles – taking into considerations what ‘Open’ means as in a Taxonomy of Open considering the different perspectives and then what Open means to the Cloud

There are many good ideas:

a) Define what Open means in terms of various possibilities(process level, Data portability etc)

b) Maybe create a more transparent process itself modelled on Wikipedia?

c) Discuss how to involve customers in the Open debate(again the wikipedia approach is transparent)

d) Discuss how the discussion could also include emerging economies? After all we have a G20 – and not a G10 (something which I am painfully aware of living in London this week!)

e) Consider the success of simpler initiatives like Microformats rather than considering complex, top down initiatives

f) Incorporate the ideas of ‘reasonably open’ i.e. playframe vs. rigid structure(obviously that’s an approach I have favoured)

g) Clearly we cannot ignore innovation over standardization. Ex – in the browser community – the most interesting developments have come from Google Chrome which has a completely different architecture which is a hybrid between a browser and an Operating system with process level isolation between browser tabs

But there could be many more

To conclude, The Open Cloud manifesto says that

The Manifesto was written as a rallying cry for the cloud computing community to come together around open Technologies .. .. I don’t like manifestos and rallying cries .. but I believe that its time to have a discussion around Cloud in context of a wider standardization process.

However, let us not succumb to the pitfalls of framing new discussions in context of the old paradigms

Comments welcome. Will add more to this later

Image credits: http://www.the1foru.co.uk/ekmps/shops/the1foru/images/action_tramps_2005_271%5Bekm%5D465x300%5Bekm%5D.jpg



Open mobile summit – London ..

open mobile summit.jpg

I am speaking at the Open Mobile Summit in London. This is an interesting and a successful event from last year. If you are attending/speaking – very happy to catch up

Some initial description ..

The Open Mobile Summit 09: Unleash the Internet

June 10-11, London

As internet and wireless worlds collide, Open Mobile is the board level

deal-space for the new mobile economy. Featuring 50+ world-leading speakers

from across the ecosystem – operators, handset OEMs, software, internet and


This outstanding industry event examines the impact of the current trend to

open the mobile value chain – on operators, software, handset, Internet,

application and mobile web companies. And seeks to define where the value is

going to be in wireless.

Follows a highly acclaimed, sell out launch event in San Francisco last


“Way exceeded my expectations. Roll on London!”

Ray Anderson, CEO, Bango

“One of the best mobile conferences I have ever been to”

Jai Jaisimha, VP Mobile, AOL

“Fantastic show! Fantastic line up of speakers! Top notch.”

Matt Yerington, Vice President Mobile, Front Porch

“Very high caliber of speakers, and the agenda was right on target. An

invaluable insight into how the mobile marketplace is changing and how that

will impact our business”

Lauren Thorpe, VP Products, THQ Wireless

Why should Barack Obama grant an exclusive interview to the FT(Financial Times)?

FT obama exclusive.jpg

Sometimes, you get two unrelated emails which make you think ..

Today, got two such emails:

The first from the financial times alerting me to an ‘exclusive’ interview with Barack Obama to be published on Monday in London. The second is from a blogger called Lynn Marentette who commented on one of my earlier posts about Business models for Open Mobile/Converged media: Converged services based on Attention and metadata ..

Let’s start with the FT email .. A Financial Times Exclusive!

Barack Obama talks to the FT

In Monday’s FT, don’t miss Barack Obama’s first interview with a global publication. As Tim Geithner launches his regulatory overhaul, the US president talks to FT editor Lionel Barber about the global downturn, his government’s response so far and potential future strategies.

Now, this made me think ..

Would it not be better for Barack Obama to NOT do an exclusive.

How many people will read it?

The FT is now very expensive. The online content is also paid for. Hardly the most far reaching way to get the message out

Now one would argue that the FT has good analysis .. That, it may have i.e. its reporters are knowledgeable..

But with all due respect – when I look at the credit crunch .. No one predicted it .. Not even the great financial publications like the FT.

Hence, today I take any such mainstream analysis with considerable cynicism

What’s the solution?

Don’t give the ‘exclusives’ to the big media folk

Open up the process

Ask for questions in advance

Choose the best ones/recurring themes

Barack Obama’s team should post the responses online

Then … this is the important part .. Ask for analysis from everyone (including the FT) which should all be posted / summarised online

This would be very significant, inclusive and would give more insights rather than just an ‘exclusive’ to the financial times ..

Which brings me to the second email from Lynn Marentette. I had a quick look at her blog Interactive Multimedia Technology and it is very interesting indeed.

The blog says:

This blog focuses on how interactive technology can support collaboration, communication, and engaged learning. It also touches on ways technology can support intervention & prevention efforts in health, mental health, and related fields. You’ll find information about interactive touch screen applications, HCI, universal usability and accessibility, Universal Design for Learning, serious games, and innovations. Enter a term or phrase in the search box to find something that interests you!

And what surprised me is she is a ‘School psychologist’ (I must admit I am not 100% sure what that means ..) – but clearly from the blog very interested in wireless sensor networks, embedded systems etc and as she says lately, further motivated by the two weeks I spent with my father in the ICU.

I correlate this to another open feedback that the EU requested about the Internet of things – the results of which you can see HERE

These are useful of course .. But incestuous .. And by that I mean .. It’s the same groups of people(companies like Nokia, SAP etc) and researchers(including me wearing a research hat).

I was thinking it may be a better idea to get a more holistic perspective i.e. people who are not the usual suspects.

That’s what I mean by the insights from people like Lynn Marentette, working as a school psychologist – but clearly interested in the subject, who are not a part of the traditional community can be more useful in many ways ..

A lesson for Mr Obama perhaps before the next such exclusive for the big media guys ..

Today, there is no reason for government to favour big media – and I truly believe that politicians will get a better response from opening up the discussion and seeking a two way feedback.


Open Cloud manifesto: Is IBM the new Sith Lord of Open standards ..

IBM sith lord.jpg

Over the last few days, much has been said about the ‘closed’ ‘Open Cloud’ manifesto.

There are a number of reasons why the Open Cloud manifesto – freely circulating on the Web as leaked by the Thinking out cloud blog – is not a good idea and is in fact a backward step

Having said that, it brings to light something I blogged about before – i.e. Open now seems to be the new ‘closed’. In other words, you can claim something is ‘Open’ and then use it to hide all sorts of sins

The only good thing about this ‘manifesto’ is this will allow us to take a fresh look at Open systems and at standards

Firstly, if you want to create an ‘Open’ standard – why not simply create a Wiki and invite contributions? That process is well and truly proven and gets a neutral point of view

It is not a good idea for one vendor(supposedly IBM ) to drive a secret agenda.

Why not simply create a blog post if you wanted to create Cloud level contributions. Invite comments from all at a Wiki. Then work transparently to create a discussion.

THAT’s open!!

As it stands, it appears like an Invite only club with IBM the ringmaster (or as I say – the Sith Lord – A shadowy figure who manipulates from the background)

One of the contributors laments the leaking of the open cloud reflecting a view similar to my own

It’s probably a bad idea to release even an industry opinion piece without public commentary. IBM, et al, left the door open for Microsoft to label the entire effort as “closed” by trying to rush to a declaration of success without allowing any public community or industry input whatsoever. Big mistake, in my opinion, because open source software has changed the game forever for technical initiatives.

The document itself comes up with vague statements like:

Cloud providers must not use their market position to lock customers into their particular platforms and limiting their choice of providers.

The concept of ‘lock in’ is not clear for the Cloud.

So, are we saying that IBM’s cloud will be able to invoke a process on Google’s cloud?

I doubt it. If you want to be truly compatible, we have to define process level compatibility – which I doubt anyone will truly support however ‘open’ they may claim to be. The rest may not matter that much from a customer standpoint (except possibly data level interoperability) since the most important feature of Cloud applications from a customer standpoint will be the quality of the ‘service’ itself.

The manifesto itself as many have pointed out looks to be much ado about nothing with six woolly principles which mean everything or nothing.

Much has been said of Microsoft’s reaction to the document – but Amazon’s reaction to the Open Cloud manifesto is even more interesting ..

We just recently heard about the manifesto document.

(Translation: We were not invited)

“But, what we’ve heard from customers thus far, customers who are really committed to using the cloud, is that the best way to illustrate openness and customer flexibility is by what you actually provide and deliver for them.”

(Translation: We have real customers .. who pay us real money .. you have a woolly document. We understand that the real issue is the service level. So, F*** off! )

Hence, the Sith lord comparison

Having said that, I think good will come of it.

Many including me had been disillusioned by the politics and the double standards of the usage of the word Open – and now we will get down to really discussing what Open standards and Open systems really mean.

This discussion is badly needed since times have moved on from the Open source/W3C debate to a different domain

To conclude, We can blame Thinking out cloud blog for leaking it, Microsoft for commenting on it, Amazon for not joining it – but the real problem is the process by which this ‘open’ manifesto was written.

The elephant in the room: Can agencies be a part Agency 2.0?


Jonathan Mac Donald who is a very clued on guy twittered about the Agency 2.0 Model a presentation from Giles Rhys Jones of Ogilvy

The presentation is interesting .. And Ogilvy is doing some interesting work in this space more than most agencies – but I can’t help but think if it is ignoring the Elephant in the room .. Which is ..

Can agencies be a part Agency 2.0? I.e. The future of Agencies (Agency 2.0) may be out of the hands of the Agencies themselves

To explain:

Much of what the presentation talks is not new .. And most people accept these ideas today(users creating content, crowdsouricg etc etc).

However, when it comes to agencies .. We have a different question ..

To take a step back: There are three constituencies:

a) The advertisers

b) The agencies who manage the advertising dollars and

c) The media (ex TV).

This relationship worked well when TV ads were sold based on simple TV metrics(consumption based! i.e. users passively consume content). The agencies ‘managed’ the total advertising budget on behalf of the client which could span to a number of media like TV, Billboards etc. Mostly, it was TV though. All was measurable and reportable for the advertiser.

This works nicely … and more importantly has a clear role for the agency(a one stop shop that can manage deliver a quantifiable response to the campaign)

In the Web 2.0 world, things change because the advertiser need not go to the agency.

Many web based social networks including Glam media, FM publishing etc have advertising platforms and a sales force. As will telecoms networks over time.

More importantly – these social networks control the data, interact with the users and can provide quantifiable results. In the new world, the agency neither controls the data nor does it have a direct relationship with the users.

For instance – networks like FM publishing are taking on the role of the agency by interacting directly with advertisers, providing results based advertising through their blog networks

The traditional agency has no such advantage since they have no network – and by extension no access to data and metrics.

Clients have a choice.

They an just as easily go to FM publishing or GLAM as they can go to an agency

In a recession, I believe that there will be a tendency to go where the audience is .. And many of the Web based networks interact with their audience directly

Hence, the question ..

Can agencies be a part Agency 2.0? I.e. The future of Agencies (Agency 2.0) may be out of the hands of the Agencies themselves

On the other side of the fence, the media platforms (especially TV) are also stuck in their own time warp – see I don’t need two government funded TV channels – I need a wikipedia button on my Sky remote ..

To conclude, It is easier to frame a question from the perspective of the status Quo (Agency 2.0 vs. Agency 1.0) – when a more disruptive question would be to question the existence of the status quo itself ..

Let us not lament the change in the status quo. The creation of the existing framework is often a result of an older power struggle which has played out – and the results of which are now accepted. Look at the map of Africa and see how ‘geometric’ the boundaries between Libya, Algeria, Egypt, Mauritania, Mali etc are. Almost looks like someone drew a line on a map and created them – with no regard to the people who lived there i.e. the farmer who lived in one village may find as a result of an artificial ‘line on the map’ that he needs a visa to draw water from a well because it is now in a different country!

So, the status quo is often artificial – and more importantly may not exist in future – especially a recession driven future ..

That’s why I ask very basic questions like .. The future of Agencies (Agency 2.0) may be out of the hands of the Agencies themselves .. which is the proverbial elephant in the room that is not being addressed in a discussion of Agency 2.0 when agencies try to define their future.

Business models for Open Mobile/Converged media: Converged services based on Attention and metadata ..

This post brings together my thinking from a number of different areas in response to many questions at conferences/blogs etc

The Business models for Open Mobile/Converged media are converged services based on Attention and metadata ..

To expand on what this means ..

a) Attention and especially the co-relation of metadata from various media formats(old and new) – is the main business driver for ‘Open’.

b) Different media formats (like TV) will adopt this to greater or lesser degree.

c) It is also the vision of Google to understand and leverage as much metadata as possible without ‘controlling or restricting’ the user.

d) This metadata can be used to create better services(by that I mean more personalised, interactive services)

e) As users and the other media formats (like TV) understand this vision a bit more, there will be increasing demands from users for controlling their own profile

f) Hence, see Google’s initiatives of allowing users to influence advertisements based on profiles

g) There may be a model for a completely independent third party or user managed vault for the lack of a better word that keeps the profile. Attempts have been made in this direction for a while including OpenId to some extent(esp. Open Id 2.0 which has attributes) and more recently Myid.is

h) ‘Mobile’ of course fits in very well in this due to capturing content at the point of inspiration, context aware content etc etc

i) Increasingly we are seeing a new trend of ‘consumer’ technologies/developments which influence enterprise(unlike the other way round). Ex Cloud(hotmail), social networking(facebook), mobile – all originate from consumer and go to enterprise.

j) This will mean that these developments – Cloud, Mobile and Social networking will act as a bridge/glue across various other means like TV, Enterprise etc.

k) The common thread that unifies Cloud + Mobile + Social networking will be services – driven by attention and metadata.

l) I see an extension of the ‘mobile’/'TV’ stack as follows. taking example of Android

Chipset + OS + App layer(Web/Dalvik) + network + Cloud(web and mobile) + Social networking/Cloud

This is one of the key ways I ‘differ’ from the traditional telecoms view i.e. I see the whole Web + Mobile + TV ecosystem as one – and with metadata(call it Web 2.0/Mobile Web 2.0 et al – as the unifying glue). That’s why specific technologies and Mobile developments don’t excite me too much if they are not interoperable at EITHER the network level OR the service level. In contrast, Twitter fits the interop model at a service /platform level – hence powerful


1) Mobile payment is not exciting unless it has a chance to be ubiquitous – which it will be at a service layer(for which it will be decoupled from the network)

2) Location took the same route

3) Emerging platforms like the Internet of things will also have the same service – metadata model

4) The ability to harness metadata and the influence of that metadata on new, converged services will be the REAL differentiator for businesses

So, ‘Open’ goes hand in hand with ‘Metadata’ (and consequently attention leading to better services)

m) I see ‘social networking’ as the topmost layer of the ‘stack’ which spans both Telecoms and Web(and also ultimately TV)

n) This will mean that data portability will be an important component(as will be the ability of users to maintain their own profiles) and we will see the definition of ‘Open’ move from open standards/Open source to a wider definition of Data portability . (Which ties to attention business models)

Two things

a) I blogged about Variant of APML for mobile devices. Also see the work on attention.xml from tantek Celik and others


b) See Alex Iskgold’s 20 thoughts on attention

I don’t need two government funded TV channels – I need a wikipedia button on my Sky remote ..

TV remote.JPG

I discussed these ideas when I gave the keynote at the LUCID project earlier this week

and also at forumoxford

There is talk of the Government funding Channel 4 in the UK to complement BBC.


I don’t need a second state funded broadcaster (and more tax spent on layers of middle management)

What I really want is a wikipedia button on the remote.

Why do we continue to define the framework in terms of two broadcasters – a bit like a fight between two dodos – In the end both will become extinct.

It is easier to frame a question from the perspective of the status Quo – when a more disruptive question would be to question the existence of the status quo itself!

To elaborate ..

Most traditional mediums like Television are trying to incorporate some form of ‘controlled interactivity’ – think SMS voting etc etc.

Interactivity is interesting but it is old stuff .. especially if it is ‘managed’ – ex SMS voting

I want ‘non linearity’ in addition to interactivity.

What I mean is: I don’t like linear things(podcasts radio TV etc). I watch almost all my TV ‘recorded’ where I can fast forward not just the Ads but ALSO in some cases the content!

My mind works best with ‘hypertext’ i.e. follows an unpredictable/personal path. Which is my style of absorbing knowledge

Qs is how many people exhibit this behaviour(or may do so in future?)

A wikipedia button on my Sky TV remote would be GREAT but traditional media will not allow it since they like linearity(for advertisements). They fear that I may ‘go away’ – which I well might. But that’s how my mind works .. i.e. I will come back to the provider who allows me this freedom(If Google were to ever design a TV service – I bet it would not be ‘locked in’ in a similar way)

Often, I will scribble a keyword on my blackberry(before wifi at home which makes browsing from phone free) and then see it later.

But I want to ‘break’ the program and go to wikipedia

For example:

I was watching a documentary last night about the Battle of Tarawa and wondered how the island of Tarawa looks today(which you can see HERE )

and I wondered how common this behaviour was(and would be?)

It’s the same problem when I see traditional journalists write articles or blogs.

They don’t provide outlinks (or at least avoid them). In contrast, often you will find outbound links in the very first or second sentences of my blogs i.e. the user could ‘go’ and ‘may never come back’

THATS why I think radio and TV will suffer .. If more people take this behaviour for granted (esp. the younger generation) – the more we see the need for media to change their mindset

Walter adamson added these excellent comments as below

Comment 1 from Walter on forumoxford

Yes convergence implies digital; Non-digital broadcast radio (and TV) is dead, although many players have their heads in the sand.

Now, interesting question comes up – since the only future for radio (and TV) is digital the question of Platform arises – one of Ajit’s current favourite topics.

The means of survival and making money are certainly around the edges of the digital radio network and platform, but the players haven’t seen that at all they just see an expensive and unnecessary investment in going digital and in some cases as it being driven by their “IT guys”.

Because the choice of digital broadcast radio has not been made with the understanding of the monetising platform, but rather just as a “clearer” transmission encoding, then I think digital radio is in for a rocky ride.

It could have been a tremendous leap forward, but is is almost a leap backwards because they face the task of having to convince people to buy a new radio and for what purpose? Clearer signals – thanks mine are already clear enough. The value-add is minor in the perception of most people. If they had have been able to present an “integration” with digital PC iPod etc and convergence through digital feedback etc then whole different story.

In Australia the commercial radio industry has dug a deep hole for itself because they didn’t and still don’t understand that they have made a platform choice and for them they made a horrendous one.

In Australia the only ones excited are the Retailers and that’s because they’re desperate in the current climate for anything of novelty value: “Retailers are excited about the interest digital radio will generate in the audio retail market…


It’s a somewhat parallel story for digital broacast TV including mobile but the industry structure is dramatically different and therefore different forces at play in the platform decisions and politics. But is comes down to the same thing – if it enables frictionless mashing with the digital world then the medium has a future, otherwise not.

Comment 2 from Walter on forumoxford

its about the metadata! digital broadcast streaming whether radio or TV contains metadata streams and those provide a big key for convergence, feedback and integration with your wiki key.

In this case presume that Battle of Tarawara tagged in the metadata with a variety of links to matters of interest, maps, google maps, wikipedia, twitstreams, flickr, and a number which could be called voip for connecting to the agent for the next tour of the battleground.

Then it is just a matter of a programmable internet connected device being setup to display your preferences and display options and away you go. This could be the TV itself or a media centre controlling the TV (and the digital radio).

I think this point is what is missing in the whole debate about digital broadcast whether satellite, terrestrial or mobile and whether TV or radio its all the same proposition – if the platform is chosen correctly within the context of the ecosystem.

For example all that “digital TV” means in Australia is that the existing spectrum/broadcast license holders lobbied successfully to be given a 5 year monopoly if they sent out digital TV signals. The Government agreed that there can be no new players in the TV industry for 5 years in return for the TV station owners investing in new technology.

Why they should get a monopoly for keeping up investments in technology is beyond me but it fundamentally speaks to the crippled mindset of the advisors to the Government who tend to be economists even in such matters as this. The owners had to promise to launch new free-to-air digital channels in return, by end 2009. So they are now rushing to air with rehashed NBA and NASCAR which for god’s sake is not even known in this country – our basketball league went bankrupt last year because of lack of interest.

But wait, it gets worse! So now we are getting 3rd rate US broadcast quality shoved down our digital channels and sold to us as HD. It beggars belief.

In summary we are stuck in the digital broadcast backwaters for 5 years because the TV owners and the government saw digital TV as simply a replacement for a analogue transmission system and not a platform.

There you go, first time I’ve put all that out there, now to go and cool down !!! ha

Image: http://www.global-b2b-network.com/direct/dbimage/50234898/TV_Remote_Control.jpg

Orange Reveals Mobile Media Habits – Strange self reinforcing study from Orange ..

very odd study ..


82% of respondents have the operator’s portal as their mobile Internet home page, making this page an extremely valuable piece of marketing estate.


??? - Does anyone else observe this? Is it some kind of default? Which cant be changed?

Orange Reveals Mobile Media Habitsalmost reads like an advertisement for Operator portals selling media ..

Disappointed .. No appstores, no iTunes .. no UGC ..

Could have been done 3 years ago .. Not so relevent today .. except as PR material ..

Organic computing – MIT sixth sense – following up from Mobile sensor based interface to the cloud to jump start the Internet of things

Close on the heels of my last post The phone becomes a magic wand to the cloud services: Mobile sensor based interface to the cloud to jump start the Internet of things ..

see this cool development from MIT called sixth sense

My best bit is: Newspapers have a future :) and the ‘phone call from hand’

More information about the developer MIT sixth sense developer Pranav Mistry

As crunchgear says ..

describing it as a “sixth sense” device doesn’t quite capture what it’s all about. It’s really more of an organic computer than anything else, you yourself being the “organic” half. Whip your hand out and draw the “@” on it, you’re able to check your e-mail. A stranger approaches you at a party, then the projector projects all their pertinent info: name, Web site, blog address, what they like and dislike, etc. “Wait a minute, you actually like Lost? Well, I know we’ll never be friends, so let’s not waste each other’s time.”