Telstra through BigPond has become the latest ISP to try to monetise customers mistyping of URLs (or following broken links).
The idea is simple, your ISP runs a DNS server that your browser goes and queries when it is trying to find a web page (the DNS relates domain names as they appear in URLs to the IP addresses that routers atually use to make connections). When the server identifies that there is no match for the domain name then normally an error is returned to you - and what happens depends on your own browser settings.
The monetisation comes by sending mistyped requests off to search and producing a search page with typical sponsored links. There is a more advanced version of cyber-squatters who actually register the domain names of frequently mistyped domains (a good example is aple.com).
ISPs, of course, justify it as being a "service" to users. I guess personally I don't really mind because I will ignore the returned page anyway. But is it really just indicative of the whole damned relationship between telcos and customers? Isn't it really just abuse of the position of a service provider to attempt to profit from a customer's misfortune?
Thoughts....
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Monday, November 23, 2009
Broad and broadband
Much is being made over some recent comments by the CEO of AAPT Paul Broad that criticise Government policy making with respect to the National Broadband Network (the NBN). These comments are really part of a long running critique by Broad, and also reflect yet another strategic error by Telecom New Zealand with its AAPT asset.
I've found three Broad comments on the NBN to reference. The first was at the time of the bids for NBn 1.0 closing where Broad questioned the need for the additional speed. More significantly he indicated that the need for more broadband could be simply solved as;
There's willingness from all industry participants in this debate to pull a chair up to the table and ensure the access rules we play by prevent any one player obtaining an advantage.
This rather naive view was followed by an immediate criticism once the NBN morphed into NBN 2.0 (the FTTP) where he appeared on Lateline Business and criticised the economics of the proposal. At core however was his comment;
Getting speed into parts of the economy, where it hasn't got speed: right thing to do. But, please, don't duplicate what's already out there. Recognise that we've actually grown speed in this market considerably in the last two or three years, leveraged what we've done, incrementally changed the investment profiles that all of us have made. And we as a nation'll be better off.
His most recent comments appeared in the Oz where he claimed there was no need for the NBN and that it really was just a ploy to separate Telstra, saying;
The NBN is absolute rubbish. It is a political ploy to separate Telstra. It is a political tool to beat Telstra up with because (former Labor government communications minister Kim) Beazley got it wrong all these years ago when they formed Telstra. This is a way of trying to correct it.
Apart from the fact that the real decision not to separate was made by the Howard government (at privatisation) this statement is big on the claim that the NBN is only about industry structure.
The reality is that since its inception the NBN has been a plan with TWO goals. The first is to create the national broadband infrastructure needed for the 21st Century, the second has been to correct the market structure issues in the industry (that lay at the heart of Broad's first set of criticisms). The need for intervention to achieve the infrastructure outcome has been clear ever since Telstra announced in 2005 that it wanted to speed up the CAN, but do so in a way that denied their existing wholesale customers access or did so without regulation. The need for intervention was further revealed by the policy cock-up of the Howard Government in proposing to conduct a tender for policy outcomes (the plan of the original expert panel).
The structural issue is one where the ALP had looked before under Lindsay Tanner as shadow minister and recognised the practical difficulties of achieving a separation. Instead they turned their minds to the concept of a prospective separation, that is achieving separation at the time of the construction of new network.
Neither the need for speed nor the structural conundrum alone is the motivation for the NBN policy, it is both.
The really interesting question is why the CEO of AAPT has become the leader of the anti-NBN cheer squad. The answer can be found in the long stream of strategic errors made by TCNZ with AAPT.
The first of these was to acquire only 80% and leave the remaining 20% that was largely in the hands of management, this set up some interesting debates about conflict. The second was to buy a company that had come into play through a placement of 15% new equity to fund capital programs, and then not really be prepared to further invest. The third was to immediately fragment the business with two "Trans-Tasman" business units in mobile and internet created. These businesses, especially the internet one, proceeded to make a series of decisions that stalled AAPT's entry in its own name into the residential broadband market. The mobiles business ditched its original CDMA vendor Samsung to go with the vendor in NZ Lucent, a decision that failed to recognise that the Australian network requirement was more like the network Samsung built for Hutchison (Orange) than Lucent was building for Telecom.
These errors saw AAPT abandon its "CLEC" strategy that had required the capital funding. The next five years saw a dedicated focus to implementing an "infrastructure light" telco model. This included the decision to invest in a new customer service platform in Hyperbaric. A key feature of that platform was its ability to provide service in an infrastructure light model.
AAPT did very well in this cycle, growing both revenue and profit as the big lumps of underperforming investments and abandoned projects worked through the system, including the CDMA cost and the LMDS cost.
It did not, however, do well enough to justify the original price paid by TCNZ at the top of the telco boom. Part of its success was its developing relationship with Telstra as a wholesale customer. A focus on clearing disputes and positioning AAPT as an effective channel worked well. The failure in the strategy was to keep asking for too much, to seek new input prices on the promise of finalling getting to inking a longer term strategic relationship. This left AAPT exposed. When sentiment at Telstra changed against wholesale, AAPT had no medium term protection, and, indeed, some contacts at Telstra who had grown sick of the AAPT negotiating stance.
At this point AAPT was faced by a choice. Work harder on rebuilding the relationship, or make the call on buying infrastructure. At this time a third option was presented to TCNZ - sell the AAPT entity. This strategy was pursued but resulted in the party who had first approached TCNZ to acquire not even formally bidding at the end. TCNZ found no satisfactory buyer, but decided to instead buy one of its suitors, PowerTel, and make the decision that it was getting into the infrastructure business.
One of the key reasons AAPT stayed infrastructure light was that AAPT recognised that broadband over ULL was at best an interim technology and that a move to FTTN was almost certain. This was clear from the industry fights in 1999 and 2000 over the migration of loops from exchanges to pillars. This took some time to be realised - but from 2005 it was clear that something would happen.
Indeed through the period that TCNZ first tried to sell AAPT and then buy PowerTel there was not only the Telstra proposal, but the counter proposal from what was the G9 but became Terria. It appears that though PowerTel and AAPT were both part of this consortium, it was the belief of some that the combined entity did not need the partnership and (in TCNZ) a belief that nothing would happen.
They were wrong on both counts. Paul Broad's pronouncements on the NBN should be interpretted for what they are - the commentary of a CEO who has backed the wrong strategy.
I've found three Broad comments on the NBN to reference. The first was at the time of the bids for NBn 1.0 closing where Broad questioned the need for the additional speed. More significantly he indicated that the need for more broadband could be simply solved as;
There's willingness from all industry participants in this debate to pull a chair up to the table and ensure the access rules we play by prevent any one player obtaining an advantage.
This rather naive view was followed by an immediate criticism once the NBN morphed into NBN 2.0 (the FTTP) where he appeared on Lateline Business and criticised the economics of the proposal. At core however was his comment;
Getting speed into parts of the economy, where it hasn't got speed: right thing to do. But, please, don't duplicate what's already out there. Recognise that we've actually grown speed in this market considerably in the last two or three years, leveraged what we've done, incrementally changed the investment profiles that all of us have made. And we as a nation'll be better off.
His most recent comments appeared in the Oz where he claimed there was no need for the NBN and that it really was just a ploy to separate Telstra, saying;
The NBN is absolute rubbish. It is a political ploy to separate Telstra. It is a political tool to beat Telstra up with because (former Labor government communications minister Kim) Beazley got it wrong all these years ago when they formed Telstra. This is a way of trying to correct it.
Apart from the fact that the real decision not to separate was made by the Howard government (at privatisation) this statement is big on the claim that the NBN is only about industry structure.
The reality is that since its inception the NBN has been a plan with TWO goals. The first is to create the national broadband infrastructure needed for the 21st Century, the second has been to correct the market structure issues in the industry (that lay at the heart of Broad's first set of criticisms). The need for intervention to achieve the infrastructure outcome has been clear ever since Telstra announced in 2005 that it wanted to speed up the CAN, but do so in a way that denied their existing wholesale customers access or did so without regulation. The need for intervention was further revealed by the policy cock-up of the Howard Government in proposing to conduct a tender for policy outcomes (the plan of the original expert panel).
The structural issue is one where the ALP had looked before under Lindsay Tanner as shadow minister and recognised the practical difficulties of achieving a separation. Instead they turned their minds to the concept of a prospective separation, that is achieving separation at the time of the construction of new network.
Neither the need for speed nor the structural conundrum alone is the motivation for the NBN policy, it is both.
The really interesting question is why the CEO of AAPT has become the leader of the anti-NBN cheer squad. The answer can be found in the long stream of strategic errors made by TCNZ with AAPT.
The first of these was to acquire only 80% and leave the remaining 20% that was largely in the hands of management, this set up some interesting debates about conflict. The second was to buy a company that had come into play through a placement of 15% new equity to fund capital programs, and then not really be prepared to further invest. The third was to immediately fragment the business with two "Trans-Tasman" business units in mobile and internet created. These businesses, especially the internet one, proceeded to make a series of decisions that stalled AAPT's entry in its own name into the residential broadband market. The mobiles business ditched its original CDMA vendor Samsung to go with the vendor in NZ Lucent, a decision that failed to recognise that the Australian network requirement was more like the network Samsung built for Hutchison (Orange) than Lucent was building for Telecom.
These errors saw AAPT abandon its "CLEC" strategy that had required the capital funding. The next five years saw a dedicated focus to implementing an "infrastructure light" telco model. This included the decision to invest in a new customer service platform in Hyperbaric. A key feature of that platform was its ability to provide service in an infrastructure light model.
AAPT did very well in this cycle, growing both revenue and profit as the big lumps of underperforming investments and abandoned projects worked through the system, including the CDMA cost and the LMDS cost.
It did not, however, do well enough to justify the original price paid by TCNZ at the top of the telco boom. Part of its success was its developing relationship with Telstra as a wholesale customer. A focus on clearing disputes and positioning AAPT as an effective channel worked well. The failure in the strategy was to keep asking for too much, to seek new input prices on the promise of finalling getting to inking a longer term strategic relationship. This left AAPT exposed. When sentiment at Telstra changed against wholesale, AAPT had no medium term protection, and, indeed, some contacts at Telstra who had grown sick of the AAPT negotiating stance.
At this point AAPT was faced by a choice. Work harder on rebuilding the relationship, or make the call on buying infrastructure. At this time a third option was presented to TCNZ - sell the AAPT entity. This strategy was pursued but resulted in the party who had first approached TCNZ to acquire not even formally bidding at the end. TCNZ found no satisfactory buyer, but decided to instead buy one of its suitors, PowerTel, and make the decision that it was getting into the infrastructure business.
One of the key reasons AAPT stayed infrastructure light was that AAPT recognised that broadband over ULL was at best an interim technology and that a move to FTTN was almost certain. This was clear from the industry fights in 1999 and 2000 over the migration of loops from exchanges to pillars. This took some time to be realised - but from 2005 it was clear that something would happen.
Indeed through the period that TCNZ first tried to sell AAPT and then buy PowerTel there was not only the Telstra proposal, but the counter proposal from what was the G9 but became Terria. It appears that though PowerTel and AAPT were both part of this consortium, it was the belief of some that the combined entity did not need the partnership and (in TCNZ) a belief that nothing would happen.
They were wrong on both counts. Paul Broad's pronouncements on the NBN should be interpretted for what they are - the commentary of a CEO who has backed the wrong strategy.
The Committee that never ends
I was thinking of making a late submission to the Senate select committee on the NBN and noted on the website that today is the reporting date.
However, I note from the Dynamic Red that today there will be two motions today;
No. 641 – Chair of the Select Committee on the National Broadband Network (Senator Fisher) – Extension of time to report
No. 642 – Chair of the Select Committee on the National Broadband Network (Senator Fisher) – Authorising the committee to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate today.
I have no idea whether they are seeking a short extension, or another long one on the basis that they need to see the Implementation Study first. In any case if the extension is more than four days then the report might as well be delayed to February (though it could be tabled out of session).
However, I note from the Dynamic Red that today there will be two motions today;
No. 641 – Chair of the Select Committee on the National Broadband Network (Senator Fisher) – Extension of time to report
No. 642 – Chair of the Select Committee on the National Broadband Network (Senator Fisher) – Authorising the committee to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate today.
I have no idea whether they are seeking a short extension, or another long one on the basis that they need to see the Implementation Study first. In any case if the extension is more than four days then the report might as well be delayed to February (though it could be tabled out of session).
Customer Service Again
Further to my post two days ago, Paul Sheehan in the SMH has recounted his own recent telco horror story.
A part of that is his frustration with offshore "call centres". It does seem to me that this is a triumph of efficiency over effectiveness. That is, all our customer calls cost us a lot of money so let's bring the cost per call down rather than the harder task of reducing the need to call.
All customers will tell you, the best customer service is when I don't have to ring you.
A part of that is his frustration with offshore "call centres". It does seem to me that this is a triumph of efficiency over effectiveness. That is, all our customer calls cost us a lot of money so let's bring the cost per call down rather than the harder task of reducing the need to call.
All customers will tell you, the best customer service is when I don't have to ring you.
Broadband penetration - econometric wars
The FCC in the US published research by the Berkman Centre at Harvard to assess the impact of certain policy parameters on the speed of broadband adoption.
This research has been much criticised, with one particular criticism by George Ford focussing on the econometrics involved.
The issue has a particular Australian resonance because the original econometric model used is one developed by our own John de Ridder who first presented this work at the 2006 Communications Policy and Research Forum.
At issue is the appropriate econometric techniques to be used in estimating broadband demand, with the study utilising a simple OLS approach estimating demand only, rather than a simultaneous version that estimates demand and supply. I do not propose to enter that debate at all, except to note that this debate reflects an ongoing problem with almost all econometric studies. That is, the degrees of fredom available to researchers.
It also highlights another factor which is the relationship between published results and data sets. The Berkman report acknowledges John for making the data set available. I am surprised that in the age of the Internet it is not manadatory (or at least the expected norm) for datasets (unless confidential and the confidential detail cannot be "masked") to be published online.
The question for me is whether Panel data can ever be meaningfully used in either form to assess factors that determine an adoption rate. My reasoning is simple, that all adoption cycles follow some kind of S-curve and it is the shape of the curve that needs to be "explained" and that the points on the curve (the observed data) need to be first fitted to the curve and then the parameters of the curve estimated through a second exercise. Put another way, what needs to be explained is not the adoption level, but the rate of adoption.
Using Panel data (i.e. cross section data) in either of the methods used above carries an implicit assumption about what effects the shape of the curve.
First let's consider why adoption follows an S-shaped curve. I can identify three simple factors that would individually result in S-shaped adoption curves. The first is a simple demand effect, and the relationship of demand to income. Assuming price remains unchanged there will be an adoption process as progressively more people for whom the product is of interest can afford to buy it - that is as relative incme increases compared to supply costs.
The second is a supply effect, that the well known concept of the "experience curve" in production means that the cost of supply declines with increases in cumulative production. That is mathematically a similar effect to the above, but is driven by decline in cost rather than increae in income.
The third, and perhaps most important, is a variety of network effect. In the study of economic dynamics a simple exercise is to develop an adoption model that assumes that an individual's propensity to acquire a service is proportional to how many other people have already acquired it. This generates the simplest of all adoption curves, the logistic curve. This model also provides an interesting interpretation of the often claimed great Australian propensity to adopt. In practice Australian adoption curves start out very slowly, and then increase rapidly. An interpretation of this is that Australians are more influenced by what others do than other countries. In popular culture it looks like fast adoption because it progresses rapidly once it starts, but this ignores the slow start.
Fitting adoption to S-shaped curves suffers from a lack of clarity about what is the appropriate form of the curve, the fact that as a non-linear estimate it requires the study to choose some initial values and the fact that the "fit" may not be unique. The flip side is that the cumulative OECD data provides some very good data for the analysis - that shows all countries with some kind of S-curve with vastly varying slopes.
Finally, one has to wonder whether trying to use econometric analysis to determine the effectiveness of different policy settings on broadband adoption isn't just an overall inappropriate application of a tool. The data set cannot be adjusted forv the varying quality of the product, nor the complicated pricing structures.
Full credit to John for trying the initial study, I thought it was dodgy then and I still do. But equally I think the Ford conclusions are equally dodgy.
Note: Many thanks to Grahame Lynch of Communications Day for bringin the controversy to my attention through the pages of his newsletter.
This research has been much criticised, with one particular criticism by George Ford focussing on the econometrics involved.
The issue has a particular Australian resonance because the original econometric model used is one developed by our own John de Ridder who first presented this work at the 2006 Communications Policy and Research Forum.
At issue is the appropriate econometric techniques to be used in estimating broadband demand, with the study utilising a simple OLS approach estimating demand only, rather than a simultaneous version that estimates demand and supply. I do not propose to enter that debate at all, except to note that this debate reflects an ongoing problem with almost all econometric studies. That is, the degrees of fredom available to researchers.
It also highlights another factor which is the relationship between published results and data sets. The Berkman report acknowledges John for making the data set available. I am surprised that in the age of the Internet it is not manadatory (or at least the expected norm) for datasets (unless confidential and the confidential detail cannot be "masked") to be published online.
The question for me is whether Panel data can ever be meaningfully used in either form to assess factors that determine an adoption rate. My reasoning is simple, that all adoption cycles follow some kind of S-curve and it is the shape of the curve that needs to be "explained" and that the points on the curve (the observed data) need to be first fitted to the curve and then the parameters of the curve estimated through a second exercise. Put another way, what needs to be explained is not the adoption level, but the rate of adoption.
Using Panel data (i.e. cross section data) in either of the methods used above carries an implicit assumption about what effects the shape of the curve.
First let's consider why adoption follows an S-shaped curve. I can identify three simple factors that would individually result in S-shaped adoption curves. The first is a simple demand effect, and the relationship of demand to income. Assuming price remains unchanged there will be an adoption process as progressively more people for whom the product is of interest can afford to buy it - that is as relative incme increases compared to supply costs.
The second is a supply effect, that the well known concept of the "experience curve" in production means that the cost of supply declines with increases in cumulative production. That is mathematically a similar effect to the above, but is driven by decline in cost rather than increae in income.
The third, and perhaps most important, is a variety of network effect. In the study of economic dynamics a simple exercise is to develop an adoption model that assumes that an individual's propensity to acquire a service is proportional to how many other people have already acquired it. This generates the simplest of all adoption curves, the logistic curve. This model also provides an interesting interpretation of the often claimed great Australian propensity to adopt. In practice Australian adoption curves start out very slowly, and then increase rapidly. An interpretation of this is that Australians are more influenced by what others do than other countries. In popular culture it looks like fast adoption because it progresses rapidly once it starts, but this ignores the slow start.
Fitting adoption to S-shaped curves suffers from a lack of clarity about what is the appropriate form of the curve, the fact that as a non-linear estimate it requires the study to choose some initial values and the fact that the "fit" may not be unique. The flip side is that the cumulative OECD data provides some very good data for the analysis - that shows all countries with some kind of S-curve with vastly varying slopes.
Finally, one has to wonder whether trying to use econometric analysis to determine the effectiveness of different policy settings on broadband adoption isn't just an overall inappropriate application of a tool. The data set cannot be adjusted forv the varying quality of the product, nor the complicated pricing structures.
Full credit to John for trying the initial study, I thought it was dodgy then and I still do. But equally I think the Ford conclusions are equally dodgy.
Note: Many thanks to Grahame Lynch of Communications Day for bringin the controversy to my attention through the pages of his newsletter.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Data retention and telco providers
Mark Newton has made a bit of a name for himself as a campaigner against the ALP's internet filter policy. He has now written to New Matilda on the subject of privacy.
What has caught Newton's attention is a proposed law in the UK requiring data retention by telco providers of all data that they have about customers. The bad news is that store and forward type communications like e-mail do spend their time on servers, whereas phone calls don't. But for communications that don't spend time there there will still be a requirement to "log" them.
This is not realy the dramatic erosion of freedoms described because this has always been the case for phone calls that were charged on an "event" basis. t is new for other forms of communication. It is notionally as well protected as access to the existing phone call log.
For a person who works in Australian Comms Newton might like to know that similar data retention proposals have been hanging around in the Australian space since the Blunn Review. Personally, I don't have a concern about this level of "monitoring". It actually already happens on our physical movements hrough CCTV.
What will be important will be both how well it is protected, both physically and lgally. The latter needs to include serious penalties for disclosure - such disclosure may be far from a victimless crime.
What has caught Newton's attention is a proposed law in the UK requiring data retention by telco providers of all data that they have about customers. The bad news is that store and forward type communications like e-mail do spend their time on servers, whereas phone calls don't. But for communications that don't spend time there there will still be a requirement to "log" them.
This is not realy the dramatic erosion of freedoms described because this has always been the case for phone calls that were charged on an "event" basis. t is new for other forms of communication. It is notionally as well protected as access to the existing phone call log.
For a person who works in Australian Comms Newton might like to know that similar data retention proposals have been hanging around in the Australian space since the Blunn Review. Personally, I don't have a concern about this level of "monitoring". It actually already happens on our physical movements hrough CCTV.
What will be important will be both how well it is protected, both physically and lgally. The latter needs to include serious penalties for disclosure - such disclosure may be far from a victimless crime.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Telcos, customer service and regulation
Thanks for asking, the paper I mentioned I was giving at the CPRF went well. While the paper will appear in a volume of papers there, it is already available under speeches on my website.
The paper didn't really reach very dramatic conclusions as my survey data wasn't large or random, resulting in limited ability to make conclusions about the significance of the findings. It does appear that service provider employees and consumers share the same views of what good customer service looks like, and that telcos don't provide it.
The new hypothesis I have is that there is a fundamental flaw in the model of a modern telco, both in the factory approach to customer service (or call) centres and the idea that telco products are too complicated for even the staff tpo understand them.
The latter was a theme in the paper following mine by Elaine Lally and David Rowe titled "Impossible choices: complexity and dissatisfaction" that builds on an earlier paper they titled "Preparing for a Broadband World". The paper was very good and concluded that confusion is an issue and the solution might be found in "choice architecture". This includes the stuff in the book Nudge that I was first alerted to by Lindsay Tanner.
The idea might be appropriate, but I return to the issue in my paper which is how do we get the appropriate behavioural change in providers to implement choice architectures. Legislation is a very blunt instrument for this.
It was strange to note therefore an article in this weekend's Australian Financial Review by Tony Boyd titled The Most Hated Companies: Meet the confusolpoly. In it Boyd recounts his own recent customer service experience and writes;
Optus says technology products are complex to administer and sometimes this results in confusion in matters such as billing or movement from one service to another. It admits it needs to lifet its game.
It is unclear whether this is a telco admitting that complexity is impeding its customer service agents or merely its customers.
The article continues to compare and contrast the responsess of the three biggest providers, and the "tough talk" of the ACMA Chair Chris Chapman at ACCAN CEO Allan Asher. It is Asher that uses the "confusoply" term invented by Scott Adams, but first applied to telcos in Australia by Joshua Gans (at an ACCC conference).
The ACCAN itself recently conducted a half-day seminar on Responsive Regulation. After a few set pieces by regulatory types, most of which focused on the general idea that their mission was to make markets work for consumers (the ACCAN plan) there were four commentators at the end. These provide the four "alternative" views to the thrust for competition in telecommunications.
The first is the group that simply believes regulation is a necessity and that, despite evidence to the contrary, it works.
The second is the simple rejection of "economic" goals instead of social goals.
The third is to focus on the 5% of vulnerable customers and argue that competition will ignore them.
The final one is that competition depends on marketers, and that their approach is actually anti-consumer as they prefer a confused customer.
The beauty is that there is a grain of truth in all of these, but that the real challenge does lie in the learnings of behavioural economics as noted by Lally. But it is not just a better underrstanding that consumers aren't the model of rational decision makers assumed in theory, but understanding that providers aren't either.
The one thing I know is that you can't regulate for improved customer service.
The paper didn't really reach very dramatic conclusions as my survey data wasn't large or random, resulting in limited ability to make conclusions about the significance of the findings. It does appear that service provider employees and consumers share the same views of what good customer service looks like, and that telcos don't provide it.
The new hypothesis I have is that there is a fundamental flaw in the model of a modern telco, both in the factory approach to customer service (or call) centres and the idea that telco products are too complicated for even the staff tpo understand them.
The latter was a theme in the paper following mine by Elaine Lally and David Rowe titled "Impossible choices: complexity and dissatisfaction" that builds on an earlier paper they titled "Preparing for a Broadband World". The paper was very good and concluded that confusion is an issue and the solution might be found in "choice architecture". This includes the stuff in the book Nudge that I was first alerted to by Lindsay Tanner.
The idea might be appropriate, but I return to the issue in my paper which is how do we get the appropriate behavioural change in providers to implement choice architectures. Legislation is a very blunt instrument for this.
It was strange to note therefore an article in this weekend's Australian Financial Review by Tony Boyd titled The Most Hated Companies: Meet the confusolpoly. In it Boyd recounts his own recent customer service experience and writes;
Optus says technology products are complex to administer and sometimes this results in confusion in matters such as billing or movement from one service to another. It admits it needs to lifet its game.
It is unclear whether this is a telco admitting that complexity is impeding its customer service agents or merely its customers.
The article continues to compare and contrast the responsess of the three biggest providers, and the "tough talk" of the ACMA Chair Chris Chapman at ACCAN CEO Allan Asher. It is Asher that uses the "confusoply" term invented by Scott Adams, but first applied to telcos in Australia by Joshua Gans (at an ACCC conference).
The ACCAN itself recently conducted a half-day seminar on Responsive Regulation. After a few set pieces by regulatory types, most of which focused on the general idea that their mission was to make markets work for consumers (the ACCAN plan) there were four commentators at the end. These provide the four "alternative" views to the thrust for competition in telecommunications.
The first is the group that simply believes regulation is a necessity and that, despite evidence to the contrary, it works.
The second is the simple rejection of "economic" goals instead of social goals.
The third is to focus on the 5% of vulnerable customers and argue that competition will ignore them.
The final one is that competition depends on marketers, and that their approach is actually anti-consumer as they prefer a confused customer.
The beauty is that there is a grain of truth in all of these, but that the real challenge does lie in the learnings of behavioural economics as noted by Lally. But it is not just a better underrstanding that consumers aren't the model of rational decision makers assumed in theory, but understanding that providers aren't either.
The one thing I know is that you can't regulate for improved customer service.
Monday, November 16, 2009
There is no jihad on neoliberalism
I recently had cause to find agreement with Henry Ergas. Thankfully after his latest column a more normal situation has returned.
He asserts that "this government has elevated its attacks on neo-liberalism into a jihad". Apart from the fact that that is potentially highly offensive - to muslims at least for mis-using the term jihad, and to government for suggesting that anyone needs to be actually killed - it is his defence of neo-liberalism that is disturbing.
Firstly he continues with his ongoing thought that the GFC just showed that markets are rational because irrationality eorrection. He continues to be dismissive of the stimulus plans globally, partly because the GFC has bottomed before the money as spent. In both of these assertions he ompletely underestimates the role of the human factor of confidence. Allowing the global economy to fully bottom out created the risk of a complete lack of confidence in all the institutions of the capitalist state. The last time that happened we saw great movement to fascist and communist states. At the same time the (credible) promise of stimulus konomic activity up because people as a whole were less fearful.
If I go back to my comment about Hooke there is much to be said in a complex dynamic system for dampening all the forces. Unrestrained markets do lurch i unpredictable ways. We are probably better to accept slightly lower rates of overall long run progress if the cost is avoiding savage short-term downturns that have an uneven distribution of effect.
There is no government campaign against capitalism or markets. There is a desire to adopt a more measured stance to how we understand the operation of markets and how we can better manage their own excesses. There is certainly no jihad.
He asserts that "this government has elevated its attacks on neo-liberalism into a jihad". Apart from the fact that that is potentially highly offensive - to muslims at least for mis-using the term jihad, and to government for suggesting that anyone needs to be actually killed - it is his defence of neo-liberalism that is disturbing.
Firstly he continues with his ongoing thought that the GFC just showed that markets are rational because irrationality eorrection. He continues to be dismissive of the stimulus plans globally, partly because the GFC has bottomed before the money as spent. In both of these assertions he ompletely underestimates the role of the human factor of confidence. Allowing the global economy to fully bottom out created the risk of a complete lack of confidence in all the institutions of the capitalist state. The last time that happened we saw great movement to fascist and communist states. At the same time the (credible) promise of stimulus konomic activity up because people as a whole were less fearful.
If I go back to my comment about Hooke there is much to be said in a complex dynamic system for dampening all the forces. Unrestrained markets do lurch i unpredictable ways. We are probably better to accept slightly lower rates of overall long run progress if the cost is avoiding savage short-term downturns that have an uneven distribution of effect.
There is no government campaign against capitalism or markets. There is a desire to adopt a more measured stance to how we understand the operation of markets and how we can better manage their own excesses. There is certainly no jihad.
The States and all that
I find the discussion of the Australian Federation a fascinating topic. There is almost no one you will find that will tell you they think the Australian system of Government is optimal.
Most will agree that the current division of responsibility between the States and the Federal parliament are anachronistic at best, and totally dysfunctional at worst. You just look at the mis-fit between planning aged care and hospitals.
Most will agree that were you to have States there is no logic about the current boundaries of them, especially the fact that the vast inland is entirely run by coastal capital cities. Equally populations rely upon service delivery from capitals that aren't their closest.
A few, like Tony Abbott will suggest constructive moves to rectify this. His proposal for an extra part of section 51 of the Constitution to allow unilateral Federal takeove of powers looks both practical and achievable.
As Craig Emerson hhas recently noted plans to abolish the states are doomed to fail. Importantly the kind of referendum mentioned in the article wouldn't of itself aboloish the states, a federal referendum could expunge all reference to the States, it could provide the Federal parliament the power to make laws about anything, but it can't actually abolish a state.
Meanwhile the head of the department of PM&C Terry Moran has been flagging Federal Government frustration with the ongoing process of reform through COAG. In her article Michelle Grattan notes that;
In a September round table involving several former premiers, Bracks made some pointed criticisms of the COAG process - namely an overcrowded program and the problem presented by the ministerial councils. ''There is probably too much all at once in terms of the COAG reform agenda … it needs to be prioritised and scheduled,'' Bracks said. The ministerial councils were ''blocks to reform'' because ''the vested interests come out there''; he urged scrapping most of them.
John Wanna, politics professor at the Australian National University and an expert on federalism, says the system is at ''a crossroads. It's not clear yet that we've embraced a new federalism. There's a lot of discussion about a new agenda for federalism - which is collaborative, co-operative and with governments deciding where each level can add value. We've heard the talk, but we're not yet seeing a lot of evidence of outcomes in benefits for the community.'' But, he adds, it may take 10 to 20-years - a timetable that doesn't quite fit the Rudd temperament.
The issue confronting COAG is also that it struggles to maintain one agenda, because everything changes quite regularly. It only takes one government to change to shift the whole agenda. The comment by Bracks about Ministerial Councils is perhaps the most important. These need to be simplified from the current list. There is also probably a case for institutionalising the secretariat of COAG and Ministerial Councils under COAG, rather than under PM&C and the variouis Federal Departments. The COAG Reform Council has its own Secretariat, but it is also hard to see the relationship any more between the reform council and COAG itself.
But the last word on Federalism is that we need to remember the concept of adding states - there are still some who will remind us of the space reserved for New Zealand and why there is a Canverra suburb named after a New Zealand plant. Federalism is a really good way of bringing disparate sovereign states together to form a new state. It worked in the USA, it worked here. In many ways it is a process underway in Europe. It seems self-evident that it is a process that all the Pacific Island states need to undertake together, and then with Australia and New Zealand create a Federation of the South Pacific.
But things that seem logical do not alwats come about.
Most will agree that the current division of responsibility between the States and the Federal parliament are anachronistic at best, and totally dysfunctional at worst. You just look at the mis-fit between planning aged care and hospitals.
Most will agree that were you to have States there is no logic about the current boundaries of them, especially the fact that the vast inland is entirely run by coastal capital cities. Equally populations rely upon service delivery from capitals that aren't their closest.
A few, like Tony Abbott will suggest constructive moves to rectify this. His proposal for an extra part of section 51 of the Constitution to allow unilateral Federal takeove of powers looks both practical and achievable.
As Craig Emerson hhas recently noted plans to abolish the states are doomed to fail. Importantly the kind of referendum mentioned in the article wouldn't of itself aboloish the states, a federal referendum could expunge all reference to the States, it could provide the Federal parliament the power to make laws about anything, but it can't actually abolish a state.
Meanwhile the head of the department of PM&C Terry Moran has been flagging Federal Government frustration with the ongoing process of reform through COAG. In her article Michelle Grattan notes that;
In a September round table involving several former premiers, Bracks made some pointed criticisms of the COAG process - namely an overcrowded program and the problem presented by the ministerial councils. ''There is probably too much all at once in terms of the COAG reform agenda … it needs to be prioritised and scheduled,'' Bracks said. The ministerial councils were ''blocks to reform'' because ''the vested interests come out there''; he urged scrapping most of them.
John Wanna, politics professor at the Australian National University and an expert on federalism, says the system is at ''a crossroads. It's not clear yet that we've embraced a new federalism. There's a lot of discussion about a new agenda for federalism - which is collaborative, co-operative and with governments deciding where each level can add value. We've heard the talk, but we're not yet seeing a lot of evidence of outcomes in benefits for the community.'' But, he adds, it may take 10 to 20-years - a timetable that doesn't quite fit the Rudd temperament.
The issue confronting COAG is also that it struggles to maintain one agenda, because everything changes quite regularly. It only takes one government to change to shift the whole agenda. The comment by Bracks about Ministerial Councils is perhaps the most important. These need to be simplified from the current list. There is also probably a case for institutionalising the secretariat of COAG and Ministerial Councils under COAG, rather than under PM&C and the variouis Federal Departments. The COAG Reform Council has its own Secretariat, but it is also hard to see the relationship any more between the reform council and COAG itself.
But the last word on Federalism is that we need to remember the concept of adding states - there are still some who will remind us of the space reserved for New Zealand and why there is a Canverra suburb named after a New Zealand plant. Federalism is a really good way of bringing disparate sovereign states together to form a new state. It worked in the USA, it worked here. In many ways it is a process underway in Europe. It seems self-evident that it is a process that all the Pacific Island states need to undertake together, and then with Australia and New Zealand create a Federation of the South Pacific.
But things that seem logical do not alwats come about.
Customer Service
Just as I put the finishing touches to my paper for the Communications Policy and Research Forum I found that Shirli Kirshner has made a guest blog post entitledThe gift of complaints – how to turn misery into brand equity.
It is interesting that Shirli, who knows a thing or two about disputes and telcos, has a view of turning complaint management to an advantage. The analysis of telcos is that no one is doing this at all well. In part that might reflect the fact, even included by example in Shirli's post, that bad news stories are carried more than good.
But ultimately the good example Shirli uses of good service - a Virgin customer service rep - didn't need to be "empowered" by management, the circumstance could still be a tightly scripted case where the decision is still controlled by the process, just the process is better able to predict what circumstances might affect the agent.
Telcos need to undertake fundamental redesign of their customer service functions that needs to be focussed on the language of the transaction, not just the metrics of call handling performance. A good step would be to go back to calling the institutions "customer service centres" rather than "call centres" - focus on what they do not how they do it. And there is nothing about "sales" that means it can't live in a customer service centre - after all, one of the most important parts of customer service is making sure I get the right product for my needs.
It is interesting that Shirli, who knows a thing or two about disputes and telcos, has a view of turning complaint management to an advantage. The analysis of telcos is that no one is doing this at all well. In part that might reflect the fact, even included by example in Shirli's post, that bad news stories are carried more than good.
But ultimately the good example Shirli uses of good service - a Virgin customer service rep - didn't need to be "empowered" by management, the circumstance could still be a tightly scripted case where the decision is still controlled by the process, just the process is better able to predict what circumstances might affect the agent.
Telcos need to undertake fundamental redesign of their customer service functions that needs to be focussed on the language of the transaction, not just the metrics of call handling performance. A good step would be to go back to calling the institutions "customer service centres" rather than "call centres" - focus on what they do not how they do it. And there is nothing about "sales" that means it can't live in a customer service centre - after all, one of the most important parts of customer service is making sure I get the right product for my needs.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
High Court and drunks
An interesting article about a High Court case. To understand thios post you'll need to read the article (the post is an expanded version of my online comment).
I think the matter here is that only one of three potential legal issues was covered, duty of care. Short answer is the High Court probably got it right in that the publican did exercise his duty of care - he did try to stop the patron driving.
We could perhaps go further in defining the responsibilities of someone legally serving drugs that will result in diminished responsibility. Would the same decision be made if an anaethetist had administered drugs that made a patient drowsy and of impaired judgement and had handed back to the patient the keys knowing the patient planned to drive?
The alternative case may have been a breach of contract, the patron had agreed with the publican to be served alcohol on the condition that the publican retained the keys. I just don't know if enough of the elements of contract exsted in that agreement.
But the really interesting question is that the Court really only ruled that the publican did not have an obligation to not hand over the keys. It did not, contrary to the implication in the article, rule that the publican had to hand over the keys (see note below). That is, the publican may have been safe from the charge of false imprisonment by not handing over the keys, he just didn't have to not hand them over. To take the fire analogy further, while the legal defence of necessity means you can break into a burning house to save a life, it does not oblige you to do so. The pity will be if the judgement results in RSA training being perverted to misrepresent the judgement.
The judgement itself contains a really beautiful summary of the basis for the decision;
The Proprietor and the Licensee must succeed for each of three independent reasons. First, even if there was a duty of care, and even if it was breached, it has not been shown that the breach caused the death. Secondly, even if there was a duty of care, it was not breached. Thirdly, there was no duty of care.
On the more intricate matter of the doctrine of necessity, the judgement said;
The second and third alleged breaches involve the difficulty that deflecting, delaying or stalling Mr Scott, apart from the deception which it would probably require and which itself might have irritated Mr Scott, could not have lasted very long. If it lasted for any length of time, it would have involved non-compliance with Mr Scott's desire to exercise his legal rights to possession of the motorcycle. It would be unlikely, given Mr Scott's mood, that the Licensee could maintain a posture of open non-compliance for long, for a point would soon have been reached at which any manifestation of resistance by the Licensee to returning the motorcycle would involve the actual commission of a tort in refusing possession and would provoke Mr Scott into an attempt to vindicate his rights by self-help. The Licensee could not lawfully detain Mr Scott, or his wife's motorcycle, or the keys to it. Deflecting, delaying or stalling would have been as ineffective as offering counselling to Mrs Cole in Cole v South Tweed Heads Rugby League Football Club Ltd, or persuading her to regain her sobriety in a quiet place before departing from the Club.
I maintain as a non-lawyer that these words don't actually go to the defence of necessity, for the simple reason that it is a defence. That is, breaking into the burning house still includes an unlawful act, trespass. The defence is not that a law was not broken, merely that the breaking of the law was justified. But the fact that it would require a law to be broken does obviate the duty of care, I cannot have an obligation under law to break the law.
As I note it will be a great pity if this part of the judgement is used to prohibit people from refusing to "hand over the keys."
I think the matter here is that only one of three potential legal issues was covered, duty of care. Short answer is the High Court probably got it right in that the publican did exercise his duty of care - he did try to stop the patron driving.
We could perhaps go further in defining the responsibilities of someone legally serving drugs that will result in diminished responsibility. Would the same decision be made if an anaethetist had administered drugs that made a patient drowsy and of impaired judgement and had handed back to the patient the keys knowing the patient planned to drive?
The alternative case may have been a breach of contract, the patron had agreed with the publican to be served alcohol on the condition that the publican retained the keys. I just don't know if enough of the elements of contract exsted in that agreement.
But the really interesting question is that the Court really only ruled that the publican did not have an obligation to not hand over the keys. It did not, contrary to the implication in the article, rule that the publican had to hand over the keys (see note below). That is, the publican may have been safe from the charge of false imprisonment by not handing over the keys, he just didn't have to not hand them over. To take the fire analogy further, while the legal defence of necessity means you can break into a burning house to save a life, it does not oblige you to do so. The pity will be if the judgement results in RSA training being perverted to misrepresent the judgement.
The judgement itself contains a really beautiful summary of the basis for the decision;
The Proprietor and the Licensee must succeed for each of three independent reasons. First, even if there was a duty of care, and even if it was breached, it has not been shown that the breach caused the death. Secondly, even if there was a duty of care, it was not breached. Thirdly, there was no duty of care.
On the more intricate matter of the doctrine of necessity, the judgement said;
The second and third alleged breaches involve the difficulty that deflecting, delaying or stalling Mr Scott, apart from the deception which it would probably require and which itself might have irritated Mr Scott, could not have lasted very long. If it lasted for any length of time, it would have involved non-compliance with Mr Scott's desire to exercise his legal rights to possession of the motorcycle. It would be unlikely, given Mr Scott's mood, that the Licensee could maintain a posture of open non-compliance for long, for a point would soon have been reached at which any manifestation of resistance by the Licensee to returning the motorcycle would involve the actual commission of a tort in refusing possession and would provoke Mr Scott into an attempt to vindicate his rights by self-help. The Licensee could not lawfully detain Mr Scott, or his wife's motorcycle, or the keys to it. Deflecting, delaying or stalling would have been as ineffective as offering counselling to Mrs Cole in Cole v South Tweed Heads Rugby League Football Club Ltd, or persuading her to regain her sobriety in a quiet place before departing from the Club.
I maintain as a non-lawyer that these words don't actually go to the defence of necessity, for the simple reason that it is a defence. That is, breaking into the burning house still includes an unlawful act, trespass. The defence is not that a law was not broken, merely that the breaking of the law was justified. But the fact that it would require a law to be broken does obviate the duty of care, I cannot have an obligation under law to break the law.
As I note it will be a great pity if this part of the judgement is used to prohibit people from refusing to "hand over the keys."
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
The Immigration Conundrum
There is nothing quite so absurd as seeing the Liberal Party, supposedly the party of free markets and economic rationalism, waging a new campaign against refugees, and indeed migrants in any form.
When you sign up to these economic theories one of the first things you learn to do is to treat labour as simply an input in production processes, not as a derivative of human body, mind and spirit. Pretty soon you learn that efficiency is maximised by high labour mobility so that labour can find a market for its consumption, and producers can find labour for their activities. So the economic rationalist favours migration.
A complaint about migration is all the more bizarre coming from Kevin Andrews, the man who bought you WorkChoices. Remember that, a legislative program designed to make sure real workers were treated exactly the way the theory says they should be.
The fascinating thing is, of course, that really the Liberals ran a real scam of maintaining high levels of immigration to access mobile worjkers. However they hid it behind education programs, but the secret kept from Australians but known to everyone else was that once here on a student visa it was virtually guaranteed that it would be converted to permanent residency. (As one commentator said, "These courses are sold by agents operating throughout Asia, openly selling permanent residency, not education. The standard commission paid to them is 15 per cent, but lately some of the newer Chinese and Indian-owned colleges have been paying up to 40 per cent commission.")
Now the Government is tightening up on things the education providers are getting squeezed. While we should probably not care, this has its own flow on effects. Poorly run colleges that suddenly close drain overseas confidence in the whole sector.
But all those taxi drivers that can't talk English that the Australian Transport Council (Ministers from the States, Territories and Commonwealth) just pontificaed about - probably students.
But if you want to talk about queue jumping - especially for the so-called "economic refugee" surely it was the education scam that was the easiest way to do it.
Which just might mean that there is an increased flow of boat borne refugess arriving, but not because the rules on what happens to boat arrivals were weakened but because the rules on education visas and skills lists were tightened.
When you sign up to these economic theories one of the first things you learn to do is to treat labour as simply an input in production processes, not as a derivative of human body, mind and spirit. Pretty soon you learn that efficiency is maximised by high labour mobility so that labour can find a market for its consumption, and producers can find labour for their activities. So the economic rationalist favours migration.
A complaint about migration is all the more bizarre coming from Kevin Andrews, the man who bought you WorkChoices. Remember that, a legislative program designed to make sure real workers were treated exactly the way the theory says they should be.
The fascinating thing is, of course, that really the Liberals ran a real scam of maintaining high levels of immigration to access mobile worjkers. However they hid it behind education programs, but the secret kept from Australians but known to everyone else was that once here on a student visa it was virtually guaranteed that it would be converted to permanent residency. (As one commentator said, "These courses are sold by agents operating throughout Asia, openly selling permanent residency, not education. The standard commission paid to them is 15 per cent, but lately some of the newer Chinese and Indian-owned colleges have been paying up to 40 per cent commission.")
Now the Government is tightening up on things the education providers are getting squeezed. While we should probably not care, this has its own flow on effects. Poorly run colleges that suddenly close drain overseas confidence in the whole sector.
But all those taxi drivers that can't talk English that the Australian Transport Council (Ministers from the States, Territories and Commonwealth) just pontificaed about - probably students.
But if you want to talk about queue jumping - especially for the so-called "economic refugee" surely it was the education scam that was the easiest way to do it.
Which just might mean that there is an increased flow of boat borne refugess arriving, but not because the rules on what happens to boat arrivals were weakened but because the rules on education visas and skills lists were tightened.
Intelligence squared debate on the catholic church
I've just watched the five parts of the Intelligence Squared debate on the motion that "The catholic church is a force for good in the world." Really interesting format from the BBC where they do an entry poll and then a poll after the debate - very dramatic outcome (I won't spoil it for you).
The link above is the whole show - below is it in five YouTube sections.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
You do have to love Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry.
The link above is the whole show - below is it in five YouTube sections.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
You do have to love Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry.
The extraordinary events at residential colleges
There has been much in the news over the last few days about the culture at the colleges at the University of Sydney, in particular, St Pauls. As an Old Pauline I must admit to not at all being surprised by this.
In my own experience (1975, 1976) there was much about the college culture that was abhorant, strarting with the idea of initiation of Freshers through to an attitude to women that verged on the primitive. In my era a large proportion of the college came from single sex boarding schools and from regional areas, and brought with them the culture of the B&S Ball.
I was no wowser in College. I knew how to let myself into the Womens' College rather than be signed in at the front, I held some of the best late night parties in my college room, and I could be relied on to get horribly drunk at Rawson Cup and other special dinners. I did not however participate in any of the events that involved intimidation of fellow residents nor the deneigration of women.
The current matter in part revolves around a Facebook group that apparently positioned itself as "pro rape" or at least verged on doing so going under a title of "Define Consent". The Warden in his defence of this has rightly pointed out that this site was not condoned by the college, that the college does not censor the students social networks and that the college is not in loco parentis.
However, in his defence the Warden seems to express no understanding that the culture that lies at the heart of the site is indeed something over which the college has control. There is a degree to which the colleges as businesses are confronted with a marketing problem. The community at large might be horrified by this culture, but the target market - both students and to a degree their parents - actually revels in it. As such a single college taking action faces the risk of financial disadvantage versus the colleges that don't.
In the late 1970s and early 1980s the bulk of the outrage was directed at St Andrews College, which seemed to resolve some of the issues by ceasing to be a male only college. There is some suggestion that move was made for financial rather than cultural reasons, but it did have the effect of slightly civilizing that college. However the stories over recent days have noted similar concerns at other colleges.
That this is cultural is the point made by one former female college student. The simple and accurate point she makes is;
The focus now needs to shift to how we change a dangerous misogynistic culture. There are a raft of positive changes that can take place, the first being an acknowledgement, by everyone involved in college life, that there is, indeed, a problem with the college system.
As we've seen the warden of the college hasn't reached that point yet, and no doubt his lawyers have told him that he can't admit there might be a problem for fear of the liability that would cause.
I suppose the only point left to note is that we should not be surprised about a mysogonistic culture at an institution named after the great mysoginist St Paul!
In my own experience (1975, 1976) there was much about the college culture that was abhorant, strarting with the idea of initiation of Freshers through to an attitude to women that verged on the primitive. In my era a large proportion of the college came from single sex boarding schools and from regional areas, and brought with them the culture of the B&S Ball.
I was no wowser in College. I knew how to let myself into the Womens' College rather than be signed in at the front, I held some of the best late night parties in my college room, and I could be relied on to get horribly drunk at Rawson Cup and other special dinners. I did not however participate in any of the events that involved intimidation of fellow residents nor the deneigration of women.
The current matter in part revolves around a Facebook group that apparently positioned itself as "pro rape" or at least verged on doing so going under a title of "Define Consent". The Warden in his defence of this has rightly pointed out that this site was not condoned by the college, that the college does not censor the students social networks and that the college is not in loco parentis.
However, in his defence the Warden seems to express no understanding that the culture that lies at the heart of the site is indeed something over which the college has control. There is a degree to which the colleges as businesses are confronted with a marketing problem. The community at large might be horrified by this culture, but the target market - both students and to a degree their parents - actually revels in it. As such a single college taking action faces the risk of financial disadvantage versus the colleges that don't.
In the late 1970s and early 1980s the bulk of the outrage was directed at St Andrews College, which seemed to resolve some of the issues by ceasing to be a male only college. There is some suggestion that move was made for financial rather than cultural reasons, but it did have the effect of slightly civilizing that college. However the stories over recent days have noted similar concerns at other colleges.
That this is cultural is the point made by one former female college student. The simple and accurate point she makes is;
The focus now needs to shift to how we change a dangerous misogynistic culture. There are a raft of positive changes that can take place, the first being an acknowledgement, by everyone involved in college life, that there is, indeed, a problem with the college system.
As we've seen the warden of the college hasn't reached that point yet, and no doubt his lawyers have told him that he can't admit there might be a problem for fear of the liability that would cause.
I suppose the only point left to note is that we should not be surprised about a mysogonistic culture at an institution named after the great mysoginist St Paul!
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
The price of evidence based policy
An interesting item in today's SMH that the Realising Our Broadband Future conference will cost $528,498. Interesting that the sum is so precise so far out from the event - but I haven't looked at the "tender document" referred to in the article to comment more.
I did venture earlier that one could take a cynical view of this conference, but if we don't is this a reasonable figure? I guess the interesting comparison is how much money other participants in the sector can command.
The recently formed ACCAN is everyone's envy in consumer land because they have an annual budget of $2M. By recollection the industry body Communications Alliance has a budget of not much more than that (maybe 50% more). There was one broadband conference organised by CommsAlliance and Telstra that was rumoured to have cost that much, but funded by Telstra.
If we are living in a world in which "money talks", the question is how do we really engage in meaningful conversation if the only way to achieve it is at conferences that are financially unviable for anything but Government or large firms?
Just a question....
I did venture earlier that one could take a cynical view of this conference, but if we don't is this a reasonable figure? I guess the interesting comparison is how much money other participants in the sector can command.
The recently formed ACCAN is everyone's envy in consumer land because they have an annual budget of $2M. By recollection the industry body Communications Alliance has a budget of not much more than that (maybe 50% more). There was one broadband conference organised by CommsAlliance and Telstra that was rumoured to have cost that much, but funded by Telstra.
If we are living in a world in which "money talks", the question is how do we really engage in meaningful conversation if the only way to achieve it is at conferences that are financially unviable for anything but Government or large firms?
Just a question....
Finding the Left
There has been much recent discussion about trying to identify what it means to be "on the left" these days. The OZ ran a series of forgettable articles under the title "What's Left?", which is incidentally also the title of a great book on the topic by Nick Cohen.
Cohen's thesis is that he can't identify with a "left" that has redefined itself to be "anti-American" and hence aligns itself with various fascist states merely because they too are "anti-American". He correctly punctures the theory that "my enemy's enemy is my friend", and questions how defence of Iraq from the US could be a "left" agenda.
It doesn't help the left cause that it can be so easily characterised as being, well, flakey. Gerard Henderson writing in the SMH has justly criticised the Sydney Peace Prize winner John Pilger. Quite frankly I find Pilger an embarrassment of the first order. I've never really been able to find an essential philosophy inherent in his writing just a desire to criticise the ruling classes - the neo-Trotskyite strategy that the revolutionary needs to align himself with every cause that opposes the state.
This strategem is what Nick Minchin seems to believe lies at the heart of climate change activism. He said on Four Corners "For the extreme left it provides the opportunity to do what they've always wanted to do - to sort of de-industrialise the Western world. The collapse of communism was a disaster for the left and really they embraced environmentalism as their new religion. For years the left internationally have been very successful in exploiting people's innate fears about global warming and climate change."
Nick might be interested to learn that the theory of climate change was actually first publicly sprouted by one part of the industrial complex - the nuclear power industry - against another - the fossil fuel industry.
But perhaps he needs to also learn the lesson of the left with respect to fascism, just because a theory is being supported by the left doesn't make it wrong. On climate change it remains the fact that the underlying theory is incredibly convincing, and that waiting for sufficient evidence before acting is too late. But there are also benefits in acting. There is the ongoing need to diversify energy sources because the energy crisis that will ensue if we have demand continuing to grow when known reserves cease increasing will make the oil shocks of the 1970s look inconsequential. There is also the additional benefit of being able to change geoploitics but not being dependent on the "oil-rich" Middle Eastern states.
The left stands for concepts of political and economic equality that should transcend national boundaries. It believes in the ongoing role of the state in pursuit of this goal, domestically and internationally. The "socialisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange" does not require that these activities are controlled by the state, but that their pursuit serves social goals. (Your typical market theorist actually justifies their theories by trying to demonstrate that a free market results in the "socially optimal" outcome).
I do not recognise the left in the writings of John Pilger or in a conspiracy on climate change.
Cohen's thesis is that he can't identify with a "left" that has redefined itself to be "anti-American" and hence aligns itself with various fascist states merely because they too are "anti-American". He correctly punctures the theory that "my enemy's enemy is my friend", and questions how defence of Iraq from the US could be a "left" agenda.
It doesn't help the left cause that it can be so easily characterised as being, well, flakey. Gerard Henderson writing in the SMH has justly criticised the Sydney Peace Prize winner John Pilger. Quite frankly I find Pilger an embarrassment of the first order. I've never really been able to find an essential philosophy inherent in his writing just a desire to criticise the ruling classes - the neo-Trotskyite strategy that the revolutionary needs to align himself with every cause that opposes the state.
This strategem is what Nick Minchin seems to believe lies at the heart of climate change activism. He said on Four Corners "For the extreme left it provides the opportunity to do what they've always wanted to do - to sort of de-industrialise the Western world. The collapse of communism was a disaster for the left and really they embraced environmentalism as their new religion. For years the left internationally have been very successful in exploiting people's innate fears about global warming and climate change."
Nick might be interested to learn that the theory of climate change was actually first publicly sprouted by one part of the industrial complex - the nuclear power industry - against another - the fossil fuel industry.
But perhaps he needs to also learn the lesson of the left with respect to fascism, just because a theory is being supported by the left doesn't make it wrong. On climate change it remains the fact that the underlying theory is incredibly convincing, and that waiting for sufficient evidence before acting is too late. But there are also benefits in acting. There is the ongoing need to diversify energy sources because the energy crisis that will ensue if we have demand continuing to grow when known reserves cease increasing will make the oil shocks of the 1970s look inconsequential. There is also the additional benefit of being able to change geoploitics but not being dependent on the "oil-rich" Middle Eastern states.
The left stands for concepts of political and economic equality that should transcend national boundaries. It believes in the ongoing role of the state in pursuit of this goal, domestically and internationally. The "socialisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange" does not require that these activities are controlled by the state, but that their pursuit serves social goals. (Your typical market theorist actually justifies their theories by trying to demonstrate that a free market results in the "socially optimal" outcome).
I do not recognise the left in the writings of John Pilger or in a conspiracy on climate change.
Friday, November 06, 2009
Branding political parties and the Nationals
There has been a great deal of recent public speculation about the state of the Liberal/National coalition in Federal politics, much of it seemingly fed by Liberals who are trying to pressure the Nationals to (in management speak) "get on the bus or get off the journey". Today Michelle Grattan joins the fray with a piece that concludes that the winner from a separation of the two parties would be the ALP.
I am not so sure I agree. It is certainly one thing the Liberals keep reminding the Nationals of, that in the history of "three cornered contests" the Liberal candidate usually wins what was a previously National seat. However, on the flip side the Nationals have been increasingly challenged by strong regional "independents" who have pushed an old fashioned regions vs cities agenda. (I used the quotes because both Federally and in NSW there has been a degree of loose co-operation between these independents).
One consequence of the declining position of the Nationals has been the reduction i the portfolios they can claim, including communications which was long a cherished portfolio amongst the Country Party. That then means that they effectively lose their voice on issues of significant regional importance.
When confronted by a "three cornered contest" the regional voter is ultimately offered two candidates constrained to the same policy, one of whom belongs to the party of the leader of the Opposition or (more recently) PM. It is not the fact the Nationals lose that is astonishing, it is th fact that they remain competitive. In the seats where the voters choice is the ALP, a coalition candidate or a strong candidate campaigning on regional values it is the third candidate who wins.
The challenge as Grattan points out is how the merged Queensland party, the LNP, will brand itself for the election.
Here they might look to NSW Labor. NSW Labor has long realised that Government is won or lost in NSW on the basis of regional seats. They have created an entity called Country Labor for campaigning in the regions, an entity that has its own logo and conference.
The LNP in particular, and the coalition as a whole need to get the idea that there is a natural separation between the "non-socialist" parties of the city and the bush. "Coalition" in opposition is a nonsense. The two parties either need to fully merge but create the "Nationals" brand as the exclusive brand under which they campaign in the regions, including separate policy; or they need to fully separate and have three cornered contests against sitting members of both sides. My money is on the Nationals knocking off all the country Liberals, and possibly some independents too.
All that having been said, you could say "what does he know?" After all I did join the Democrats just before their sad demise. That demise had many causes, but in the list were the failure of the Democrats to stay clear on their position instead becoming participants in "governing" against principle, and an inability to share in a common interest rather than self-interest (most, if not all,of them did research that showed they had a better chance as themselves than as Democrats - but rather than take the message to build the Democrat brand they hid it).
The people of regional Australia do need representatives other than those who believe in a quiet system of patronage and sheltered workshops (the modern ALP) or those who believe the purpose of the State is to enhance the well-being of corporations (the modern Liberals). If not the Nationals, then who?
Note: The last two descriptions were for dramatic effect, both parties are deeper than that and include many fine well-intentioned individual members.
I am not so sure I agree. It is certainly one thing the Liberals keep reminding the Nationals of, that in the history of "three cornered contests" the Liberal candidate usually wins what was a previously National seat. However, on the flip side the Nationals have been increasingly challenged by strong regional "independents" who have pushed an old fashioned regions vs cities agenda. (I used the quotes because both Federally and in NSW there has been a degree of loose co-operation between these independents).
One consequence of the declining position of the Nationals has been the reduction i the portfolios they can claim, including communications which was long a cherished portfolio amongst the Country Party. That then means that they effectively lose their voice on issues of significant regional importance.
When confronted by a "three cornered contest" the regional voter is ultimately offered two candidates constrained to the same policy, one of whom belongs to the party of the leader of the Opposition or (more recently) PM. It is not the fact the Nationals lose that is astonishing, it is th fact that they remain competitive. In the seats where the voters choice is the ALP, a coalition candidate or a strong candidate campaigning on regional values it is the third candidate who wins.
The challenge as Grattan points out is how the merged Queensland party, the LNP, will brand itself for the election.
Here they might look to NSW Labor. NSW Labor has long realised that Government is won or lost in NSW on the basis of regional seats. They have created an entity called Country Labor for campaigning in the regions, an entity that has its own logo and conference.
The LNP in particular, and the coalition as a whole need to get the idea that there is a natural separation between the "non-socialist" parties of the city and the bush. "Coalition" in opposition is a nonsense. The two parties either need to fully merge but create the "Nationals" brand as the exclusive brand under which they campaign in the regions, including separate policy; or they need to fully separate and have three cornered contests against sitting members of both sides. My money is on the Nationals knocking off all the country Liberals, and possibly some independents too.
All that having been said, you could say "what does he know?" After all I did join the Democrats just before their sad demise. That demise had many causes, but in the list were the failure of the Democrats to stay clear on their position instead becoming participants in "governing" against principle, and an inability to share in a common interest rather than self-interest (most, if not all,of them did research that showed they had a better chance as themselves than as Democrats - but rather than take the message to build the Democrat brand they hid it).
The people of regional Australia do need representatives other than those who believe in a quiet system of patronage and sheltered workshops (the modern ALP) or those who believe the purpose of the State is to enhance the well-being of corporations (the modern Liberals). If not the Nationals, then who?
Note: The last two descriptions were for dramatic effect, both parties are deeper than that and include many fine well-intentioned individual members.
Thursday, November 05, 2009
Two short notes and a Government conference
I'm doing one of those periodic tidy ups around my desk. I am a great note taker at conferences and meetings but often they don't go anywhere. ut there are two notes I made at a broadband conference this year - the sources of which I have not retained.
The first says "The Internet is 'a-national' not 'international'". There are some who would dispute that in that the Internet is by physical architecture still US-centric and by information architecture still anglophonic central. However, the distinction being made is important. The governance issues of the Internet are not merely beyond the boundaries of nations but also beyond the boundaries of the standard relations between nations. This is the same distinction as is sometimes sought when trying to describe really big corporations - we moved from international corportations (based in one country but trading in many), to multinational (having many homes in different nations) and finally transnational (transcending nations). But maybe a-national is better (beyond the concept of nation). I suspect this is one of the issues I'm going to discover Bobbitt discusses.
The second reads "Infrastructure - you dig holes and put it down - it is also how you kill a dog". Which I think is a little statement about the attitude we have to infrastructure - that we can think of the infrastructure as an end in itself rather than an enablement of something else.
On which I will note the Government's new conference Realising our Broadband Future. The purpose of the conference, with increasing degrees of cynicism, could be stated as;
1. An appropriate move by the Government as we progress to build the NBN to ensure we have a national agenda to realize the opportunities it produces,
2. An attempt by the Government to refocus discussion on the NBN away from the cost and onto the benefits, in part as a substitute for a full cost/benefit analsis, or
3. Just “bread and circuses”, a diversion from the debate over NBN costs, refugees, the economy to reinforce the Government’s positioning as being concerned with realizing the promise of the future as well as managing the demands of today.
Being the eternal optimist that I am I choose to believe that it is option 1 (though Paul Budde will no doubt insist that it is actually only the Government's response to his call for trans-sectoral thinking).
Readers views would be most welcome!
The first says "The Internet is 'a-national' not 'international'". There are some who would dispute that in that the Internet is by physical architecture still US-centric and by information architecture still anglophonic central. However, the distinction being made is important. The governance issues of the Internet are not merely beyond the boundaries of nations but also beyond the boundaries of the standard relations between nations. This is the same distinction as is sometimes sought when trying to describe really big corporations - we moved from international corportations (based in one country but trading in many), to multinational (having many homes in different nations) and finally transnational (transcending nations). But maybe a-national is better (beyond the concept of nation). I suspect this is one of the issues I'm going to discover Bobbitt discusses.
The second reads "Infrastructure - you dig holes and put it down - it is also how you kill a dog". Which I think is a little statement about the attitude we have to infrastructure - that we can think of the infrastructure as an end in itself rather than an enablement of something else.
On which I will note the Government's new conference Realising our Broadband Future. The purpose of the conference, with increasing degrees of cynicism, could be stated as;
1. An appropriate move by the Government as we progress to build the NBN to ensure we have a national agenda to realize the opportunities it produces,
2. An attempt by the Government to refocus discussion on the NBN away from the cost and onto the benefits, in part as a substitute for a full cost/benefit analsis, or
3. Just “bread and circuses”, a diversion from the debate over NBN costs, refugees, the economy to reinforce the Government’s positioning as being concerned with realizing the promise of the future as well as managing the demands of today.
Being the eternal optimist that I am I choose to believe that it is option 1 (though Paul Budde will no doubt insist that it is actually only the Government's response to his call for trans-sectoral thinking).
Readers views would be most welcome!
Books, Hooke and economics
In an otherwise very entertaining article on historic books Miranda Devine makes the following statement;
Hooke accused Newton of commandeering his work, and as a result Newton wrote him out of Principia. Their rivalry probably drove both men to greater things but history only remembers one. Hooke was brilliant. He was also reportedly very short, covered in smallpox scars and crippled with scoliosis. No picture of him exists, and it is said the only portrait, housed at the Royal Society, disappeared when Newton became president.
It was in his last barbed letter to Hooke that Newton's most famous quote appears: "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants." Newton's malicious point, biographers say, is that Hooke, being short, is not one of the giants to which Newton refers.
This is a witty portrayal of the relationship between Hooke and Newton, but errs in claiming that "history only remembers one". In fact, history remembers Hooke well, especially through Hooke's Law. This law is best known as stating that the force on a spring is proportional to the extent it is stretched. This has its most common application in a simple spring scales wherein a spring is stretched by a weight placed upon it and thus the force exerted can be assesed by how much the spring stretches (and relying on gravitational force being the same across the planet the mass can be derived).
The point at which the spring sits is an equilibrium of the force of gravity and the force of the spring. The law can then be used to calculate the oscillations that will be followed by a spring that is temporarily stretched beyond its equilibrium then released - it will oscillate around its equilibrium point though losses from various factors (heat loss in the spring, atmospheric resistance) will eventually bring the spring to rest at its equlibrium.
In fact Hooke's Law is probably one of the best examples for showing how the attempts by economists to create a science by mimicking physics has thus far failed. Economics abounds with analyses that will demonstrate the direction of a force. An economy or market subject to a "shock" can be shown to head in a cetain direction (price movements, quantity traded etc) to return to equilibrium. But nowhere does it explain in theory the magnitude of these forces.
To the extent that the economic forecasting "biz" does so, it does it on the basis of complex models that have been calibrated by understanding the path of correction in the past.
There are some further interesting consequences. For example, if you create a system of thre or more springs attached to one object on a plane surface so that no two springs are directly opposed, and displace the object so that it is no longer in equilibrium, the behaviour of the object can (I think) become chaotic within the mathematical meaning of the term.
Robert Hooke has only been forgotten by those who don't really want to understand science.
Hooke accused Newton of commandeering his work, and as a result Newton wrote him out of Principia. Their rivalry probably drove both men to greater things but history only remembers one. Hooke was brilliant. He was also reportedly very short, covered in smallpox scars and crippled with scoliosis. No picture of him exists, and it is said the only portrait, housed at the Royal Society, disappeared when Newton became president.
It was in his last barbed letter to Hooke that Newton's most famous quote appears: "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants." Newton's malicious point, biographers say, is that Hooke, being short, is not one of the giants to which Newton refers.
This is a witty portrayal of the relationship between Hooke and Newton, but errs in claiming that "history only remembers one". In fact, history remembers Hooke well, especially through Hooke's Law. This law is best known as stating that the force on a spring is proportional to the extent it is stretched. This has its most common application in a simple spring scales wherein a spring is stretched by a weight placed upon it and thus the force exerted can be assesed by how much the spring stretches (and relying on gravitational force being the same across the planet the mass can be derived).
The point at which the spring sits is an equilibrium of the force of gravity and the force of the spring. The law can then be used to calculate the oscillations that will be followed by a spring that is temporarily stretched beyond its equilibrium then released - it will oscillate around its equilibrium point though losses from various factors (heat loss in the spring, atmospheric resistance) will eventually bring the spring to rest at its equlibrium.
In fact Hooke's Law is probably one of the best examples for showing how the attempts by economists to create a science by mimicking physics has thus far failed. Economics abounds with analyses that will demonstrate the direction of a force. An economy or market subject to a "shock" can be shown to head in a cetain direction (price movements, quantity traded etc) to return to equilibrium. But nowhere does it explain in theory the magnitude of these forces.
To the extent that the economic forecasting "biz" does so, it does it on the basis of complex models that have been calibrated by understanding the path of correction in the past.
There are some further interesting consequences. For example, if you create a system of thre or more springs attached to one object on a plane surface so that no two springs are directly opposed, and displace the object so that it is no longer in equilibrium, the behaviour of the object can (I think) become chaotic within the mathematical meaning of the term.
Robert Hooke has only been forgotten by those who don't really want to understand science.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
