Unsurprisingly BSkyB and Carphone Warehouse don’t want to pay to fill BT’s pension hole. The reality is that they only know what BT is going to spend the money on because BT is heavily regulated. Carphone’s customer do not get the luxury of not paying for their purchase of Tiscali or for their development of an on demand TV service. The move to new headquarters or the CEO’s bonus.
I have some sympathy that BT has made some crap decisions on investment, products to support and technologies to ditch.
Investing in technologies and selling them off just on the cusp of them generating revenue and returning the investment. Selling off large revenue low margin business because no one wants to take it by the balls and strip out the costs. Idiots!
It is that mismanagement that the inability to distinguish talent from style to ignore detail and the people that manage because it is boring and not as entertaining as the “high level” PowerPoint slides.
Having worked for BT for 38 years, in April they decided to change the pension scheme. This is a formal contract changed unilaterally by one party. Yet my divorce (last post) was only 30 years but I am not allowed to change (what I perceive) as a far woollier contract of marriage.
BT can’t afford it – they are not really that interested in it – when privatised ever member of the board was in the BT pension scheme – today not one. “I’m all right jack” I’ve negotiated a separate pension package which is far more beneficial than yours.
Life is not fair, and then you die!
Wednesday 2 December 2009
Getting Divorce - claim on future income
I’m starting to go through a divorce after 30-years of marriage. As far as I know there is no one else involved, certainly not from my part?
We have gradually grown apart over the years not least when the kids where young and I worked 7 days a week both overtime and moonlighting. My wife didn’t go to work but provided the family home and stability something we both wanted and thought important.
Eventually we got comfortable for money, when the kids were about 11 and my wife had got a part time job. I dropped to 5 working days and got stuck into the DIY. I then started to go to night school for several management courses eventually obtaining an MBA. During this period I was studying, a largely solo task.
My wife mean time had taken the kids out for days and to swimming lessons, piano lessons etc. We didn’t have much of a social life often both falling asleep in front of the telly at night.
My MBA got me several rounds of promotion and my working world was different changing me and my outlook. The time with the kids had changed my wife. Later she discovered that her dead mother had been married before and had three boys and a girl that had been in orphanages. This shattered her view of her mother and there was no one to rebuild it. She grew closer to them. I suspect as a result of a bit of guilt that she had a fairly privileged life while her half brothers and sister had been split among several orphanages with varying experiences.
In the nearly five years since she found her other family we have grown remote from each other even though we live in the same house. She has grown extravagant and as I earn most of the money working full time while she was only working part time I decided to separate our finances. At which point she asked for a divorce and I jumped at it.
I discover from my solicitor that everything that we have accumulated – including my salary and pension forms part of the “marriage assets” and that it all has to be split 50:50. I have no problem with splitting the assets like house, car and savings 50:50 but on my future income I find it too much to accept.
My logic is I’m 54 and have been married for 30 and unmarried for 24. The sum of who and what I am, is not just the past 30 years. Some might argue that the first 24 years where more formative.
Looking at it this way my wife has contributed to who and what I am for 56% of my life and splitting that 50:50 would give 18% call on my income, assuming she earned nothing.
We have gradually grown apart over the years not least when the kids where young and I worked 7 days a week both overtime and moonlighting. My wife didn’t go to work but provided the family home and stability something we both wanted and thought important.
Eventually we got comfortable for money, when the kids were about 11 and my wife had got a part time job. I dropped to 5 working days and got stuck into the DIY. I then started to go to night school for several management courses eventually obtaining an MBA. During this period I was studying, a largely solo task.
My wife mean time had taken the kids out for days and to swimming lessons, piano lessons etc. We didn’t have much of a social life often both falling asleep in front of the telly at night.
My MBA got me several rounds of promotion and my working world was different changing me and my outlook. The time with the kids had changed my wife. Later she discovered that her dead mother had been married before and had three boys and a girl that had been in orphanages. This shattered her view of her mother and there was no one to rebuild it. She grew closer to them. I suspect as a result of a bit of guilt that she had a fairly privileged life while her half brothers and sister had been split among several orphanages with varying experiences.
In the nearly five years since she found her other family we have grown remote from each other even though we live in the same house. She has grown extravagant and as I earn most of the money working full time while she was only working part time I decided to separate our finances. At which point she asked for a divorce and I jumped at it.
I discover from my solicitor that everything that we have accumulated – including my salary and pension forms part of the “marriage assets” and that it all has to be split 50:50. I have no problem with splitting the assets like house, car and savings 50:50 but on my future income I find it too much to accept.
My logic is I’m 54 and have been married for 30 and unmarried for 24. The sum of who and what I am, is not just the past 30 years. Some might argue that the first 24 years where more formative.
Looking at it this way my wife has contributed to who and what I am for 56% of my life and splitting that 50:50 would give 18% call on my income, assuming she earned nothing.
Friday 6 November 2009
Professor David Nutt
Independent scientific advice – but if it doesn’t fit with what we like we ignore it
I do not have a problem with that, but if this changes the law, where people go to jail and get criminal records, surly as an accountable, democratic government, you MUST explain why?
If the “independent” scientific advisor talks about their advice in public and gets sacked: -
a) In what way are they independent?
b) Discourages open honest debate.
c) Discredits the government’s decision making process.
d) Discredits other “independent” advice as simply rubber stamping the political decision.
Grow up and move away from being the playground bully. If the advice is wrong or it needs to be ignored for some ideology, state the case. Stand or fall by the decision but don’t shoot the messenger.
I do not have a problem with that, but if this changes the law, where people go to jail and get criminal records, surly as an accountable, democratic government, you MUST explain why?
If the “independent” scientific advisor talks about their advice in public and gets sacked: -
a) In what way are they independent?
b) Discourages open honest debate.
c) Discredits the government’s decision making process.
d) Discredits other “independent” advice as simply rubber stamping the political decision.
Grow up and move away from being the playground bully. If the advice is wrong or it needs to be ignored for some ideology, state the case. Stand or fall by the decision but don’t shoot the messenger.
Saturday 31 October 2009
Pilot that car!
Driving has become such an everyday occurrence that we (drivers and passengers) have all become complacent. But some are more complacent then others. Some think they are sitting in front of their telly at home. They do all the same things; eat, drink, smoke, answer the phone, change channels, change the CD, turn and talk to passenger, shout at the kids, and day dream. If we found the pilot of an aircraft doing any of these we would want them sacked. Yet the aircraft has many features that prevent the pilot making mistakes, there is a strict pre-flight check list to run through and there is a co-pilot.
So complacent have some people got that they think their car is an arm chair, they never check the tyres or tyre pressure, they never look under the bonnet and check the oil, they treat it at best the same as their washing machine, switch it on and it works until it doesn’t. At worst they treat it like their arm chair, where they can fall asleep without any danger.
I believe that to drive should be a natural progression from pedal cycle, to motorcycle, to car and I some experience of HGV or PSV.
Why can cyclists drive without any proven knowledge of road craft? Why do they not need to have passed a test, obtained insurance? They can easily attain speeds above urban limits and cause extensive both physical and property damage, even death. These “green” people with their responsibility to the “earth” lack any responsibility to their fellow road users.
Motorcycling, a way to travel moderate distances cost effectively. Often the first vehicle of the young, as it’s cheaper than a car. New to driving they ride beyond the capabilities of themselves, their machines and the road conditions. At least if they had to have a cycle licence for a year they would have some experience. As well as an appreciation for the lot that is the cyclist.
Sitting in your car, even if you have done come cycling and motorcycling, it’s easy to forget how cold it is in the winter, how unstable the road or weather conditions can make travelling on these vehicles, but you at least have some memory over those that have never done it.
Van, coach and bus drivers that stop to let cars turn right across them, think they are doing a good turn, being knights of the road. But seem unable to open their window and hand signal a passing cyclist or motorcyclist of the impending roadblock that is about to appear in front of them.
Driving an HGV and or a PSV is surely the only way to appreciate what rear and side visibility restrictions. Even if this was an off road “experience” type training it has to be a plus in road safety.
Testing at various stages and compulsory stages will make it more expensive for the driver. But will increase sales of pushbikes motorbikes, create employment not only in manufacture but in training and testing, reduce road accidents.
More people die on the roads every day, on average, than die in air accidents in a year. So why are politicians afraid of doing something about it?
So complacent have some people got that they think their car is an arm chair, they never check the tyres or tyre pressure, they never look under the bonnet and check the oil, they treat it at best the same as their washing machine, switch it on and it works until it doesn’t. At worst they treat it like their arm chair, where they can fall asleep without any danger.
I believe that to drive should be a natural progression from pedal cycle, to motorcycle, to car and I some experience of HGV or PSV.
Why can cyclists drive without any proven knowledge of road craft? Why do they not need to have passed a test, obtained insurance? They can easily attain speeds above urban limits and cause extensive both physical and property damage, even death. These “green” people with their responsibility to the “earth” lack any responsibility to their fellow road users.
Motorcycling, a way to travel moderate distances cost effectively. Often the first vehicle of the young, as it’s cheaper than a car. New to driving they ride beyond the capabilities of themselves, their machines and the road conditions. At least if they had to have a cycle licence for a year they would have some experience. As well as an appreciation for the lot that is the cyclist.
Sitting in your car, even if you have done come cycling and motorcycling, it’s easy to forget how cold it is in the winter, how unstable the road or weather conditions can make travelling on these vehicles, but you at least have some memory over those that have never done it.
Van, coach and bus drivers that stop to let cars turn right across them, think they are doing a good turn, being knights of the road. But seem unable to open their window and hand signal a passing cyclist or motorcyclist of the impending roadblock that is about to appear in front of them.
Driving an HGV and or a PSV is surely the only way to appreciate what rear and side visibility restrictions. Even if this was an off road “experience” type training it has to be a plus in road safety.
Testing at various stages and compulsory stages will make it more expensive for the driver. But will increase sales of pushbikes motorbikes, create employment not only in manufacture but in training and testing, reduce road accidents.
More people die on the roads every day, on average, than die in air accidents in a year. So why are politicians afraid of doing something about it?
Friday 30 October 2009
Is internet piracy is problem that cannot be ignored?
The music industry claims they have lost £200m in the UK. The UK Government’s proposal to make the ISP police their users will cost £365m. OK so not all piracy is music. How do they calculate the £200m? Well they assume that every download is a lost sale. Not true as much is down loaded just to try and deleted. If it is all downloaded and kept – how often is it played? People that accumulated vast libraries would need to burn hundreds of DVD or purchase massive hard drives. Down loading files takes time and file away catalogue etc. Now with Spotify and other services you can try most music for free. You can play it any time and as often as you like and managing the library is someone else’s problem. Where music has gone maybe TV and films will follow.
Making ISP’s responsible is like asking them to become a form of censor on your activities. Why not making the council responsible for preventing muggers using the streets? Or make public transport responsible for shoplifters getting to the shops?
Making ISP’s responsible is like asking them to become a form of censor on your activities. Why not making the council responsible for preventing muggers using the streets? Or make public transport responsible for shoplifters getting to the shops?
Wednesday 28 October 2009
Murdoch doesn’t dominate the media
I wonder what it’s like to live in a country where Murdoch doesn’t dominate the media. On the downside you have a questionable Prime Minister in control – I use the term “control” loosely.
Oct 26, 2009 Mediaset (BIT:MS), the commercial broadcaster controlled by Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, said Monday a Milan court had rejected claims by Rupert Murdoch's satellite unit Sky Italia accusing Mediaset of not letting it buy advertising time on its free-to-air channels. A request to order Mediaset to immediately resume providing advertisement time to Sky Italia has been dismissed, Berlusconi's company said in a statement. The request to ban Mediaset from broadcasting spots for its pay-TV offer Mediaset Premium on its channels has also been rejected, Mediaset said.
In 2009 alone, 3,107 Sky spots were hosted on Mediaset's channels, the Berlusconi company added.
Sky Italia, part of News Corp (NASDAQ:NWS), had filed a lawsuit against Mediaset units RTI and Publitalia.
Oct 26, 2009 Mediaset (BIT:MS), the commercial broadcaster controlled by Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, said Monday a Milan court had rejected claims by Rupert Murdoch's satellite unit Sky Italia accusing Mediaset of not letting it buy advertising time on its free-to-air channels. A request to order Mediaset to immediately resume providing advertisement time to Sky Italia has been dismissed, Berlusconi's company said in a statement. The request to ban Mediaset from broadcasting spots for its pay-TV offer Mediaset Premium on its channels has also been rejected, Mediaset said.
In 2009 alone, 3,107 Sky spots were hosted on Mediaset's channels, the Berlusconi company added.
Sky Italia, part of News Corp (NASDAQ:NWS), had filed a lawsuit against Mediaset units RTI and Publitalia.
Working from home good idea or bad?
I have mixed feelings about working from home. While without distraction I can get 10 hours work done in five I also not that a spend more time perfecting my work if no other priority is pressing. I usually also start and finish my day an hour earlier and later than I would if I travelled to work. However if I need to get my hair cut rather than wasting 90 minutes on a Saturday sitting in a barbers I can popup at lunch time and 20 minutes be back home. Take away all the stress, lost time travelling, cost of travelling etc and overall it looks like (and feels like) I’m doing OK.
From the companies perspective they (according the this article in the FT) have saved £220m over 10 years. £22m a year is not to be sniffed at but at what cost?
One of the things missing in this sterile working from home environment is the loss of that social interaction. The tea break and water cooler chats with people you would not have any work related reason to talk to. The innocent “so what are you up to these days” is that butterfly/chaos moment when worlds collide, ideas are shared and innovative sparks are made.
Without a doubt many of the changes have been good. Almost every telephone exchange had a bar in it, each would have a kids Christmas party, you could get a reasonable quality and priced meal at the staff canteen. Now no booze – probably a good thing, no kids Christmas party – probably a bad thing, no staff canteen – probably a bad thing. I say no staff canteen, but there are cafés where you can pay more for food than you can in M&S, but there is no reason to sit down and chat with anyone anymore.
The £220m not just less buildings it’s less innovation, evolutionary products rather than revolutionary. The company that has become defensive and reactive rather than the technological leader it was. They will probably end up paying a consultant more to tell them how to put it right.
From the companies perspective they (according the this article in the FT) have saved £220m over 10 years. £22m a year is not to be sniffed at but at what cost?
One of the things missing in this sterile working from home environment is the loss of that social interaction. The tea break and water cooler chats with people you would not have any work related reason to talk to. The innocent “so what are you up to these days” is that butterfly/chaos moment when worlds collide, ideas are shared and innovative sparks are made.
Without a doubt many of the changes have been good. Almost every telephone exchange had a bar in it, each would have a kids Christmas party, you could get a reasonable quality and priced meal at the staff canteen. Now no booze – probably a good thing, no kids Christmas party – probably a bad thing, no staff canteen – probably a bad thing. I say no staff canteen, but there are cafés where you can pay more for food than you can in M&S, but there is no reason to sit down and chat with anyone anymore.
The £220m not just less buildings it’s less innovation, evolutionary products rather than revolutionary. The company that has become defensive and reactive rather than the technological leader it was. They will probably end up paying a consultant more to tell them how to put it right.
Monday 26 October 2009
How much is a good merchant banker worth?
Immigration enables farmers (and other industries) to employ cheap labour. That is cheaper than they would have to pay a local. The local lose their job and the immigrant get it.
The farmer gets his crops picked cheaper and is able to make a bigger profit, or pass the saving on to the supermarket and maybe the consumer (that has lost his job) see some saving. The logic goes that if you won’t work for the pay then we’ll give the job to someone that will.
OK move up the skill scale to a plumber. Think about it… Yep the logic holds and so the creation plumber is good. What about a nurse or a doctor – yep seems to be OK but suddenly the medical council is there (a trade union by a different name) and they insiste on standards, and pay, well at least for the “consultants”
Move back down the skill level (how many years do you spend in merchant banker school) to the humble banker. One of those who if they weren’t in charge in 2008 they were pretty close to the top. They should have been able to see what was going on (especially as they are so highly skilled) but chose to do nothing about it.
Cut their pay and low and behold they would leave the country to get a job. Where are all these vacancies for bankers? I seem to remember being told that this is a Global recession. I don’t think Germany, France the USA or anyone else is crying out for banking skill. Like the millennium bug and the kings new suit IT’S A CON’. Call their bluff let them take ther kids and sell their mansion (ooh wait a minute not a good time to sell..) and bugger off. The displaced doctor, nurse or farm worker could take it on or at very least the Estonian banker would do the job for less and a lot more graciously…
The farmer gets his crops picked cheaper and is able to make a bigger profit, or pass the saving on to the supermarket and maybe the consumer (that has lost his job) see some saving. The logic goes that if you won’t work for the pay then we’ll give the job to someone that will.
OK move up the skill scale to a plumber. Think about it… Yep the logic holds and so the creation plumber is good. What about a nurse or a doctor – yep seems to be OK but suddenly the medical council is there (a trade union by a different name) and they insiste on standards, and pay, well at least for the “consultants”
Move back down the skill level (how many years do you spend in merchant banker school) to the humble banker. One of those who if they weren’t in charge in 2008 they were pretty close to the top. They should have been able to see what was going on (especially as they are so highly skilled) but chose to do nothing about it.
Cut their pay and low and behold they would leave the country to get a job. Where are all these vacancies for bankers? I seem to remember being told that this is a Global recession. I don’t think Germany, France the USA or anyone else is crying out for banking skill. Like the millennium bug and the kings new suit IT’S A CON’. Call their bluff let them take ther kids and sell their mansion (ooh wait a minute not a good time to sell..) and bugger off. The displaced doctor, nurse or farm worker could take it on or at very least the Estonian banker would do the job for less and a lot more graciously…
Good on the BBC
The BBC seems to have upset most people but for different reasons. Murdoch and Sky because their iPlayer is such a success and the BBC’s success is one less place News Corp can milk the population of out money. Just look at how they are managing this year to extract another £39 per subscriber during an economic down turn. Still back to the BBC.
The Labour Government isn’t happy promising a series of actions, but I suspect they will start with reviews (on which their cronies can sit and get paid taxpayers money for pontificating) on the future of the BBC.
The Conservative party is promising to equally curb the excesses of the BBC. And now the BNP are threatening to sue them too (not likely to get into power I suppose). But if everyone hates then, they must be being even-handed, doling out praise and criticism in to all. Probably a little too much criticism for many. But if BBC is not to stand up against these organisation then who?
Apparently I’m competent to vote, but may be corrupted by the wicked BNP. For my own protection I must not listen to them, in case… Now the BNP in their innocence or their ignorance have policies on things like immigration. That the other parties in their knowledge or secrecy chose not to discus. Someone comes on the telly and says “immigration is not a problem” “immigration is good for the country”. Yet any working class person (not many of them left as the immigrants have taken over) and even second generation immigrants will tell you that isn’t what it feels like on the front line. Just like the Tommy in the first word war just because the idiots in charge think they are winning doesn’t make the cost easier to bear.
As it turns out the BNP look in decidedly unfit to govern the country. However, I suspect that the fastest runner will look out of shape if he has to outrun a pack or rapid dogs.
I would really like to see a well mannered and civilised debate with the BNP and more importantly for the main political parties to take the overcrowding, lack of housing and lack of jobs seriously.
The Labour Government isn’t happy promising a series of actions, but I suspect they will start with reviews (on which their cronies can sit and get paid taxpayers money for pontificating) on the future of the BBC.
The Conservative party is promising to equally curb the excesses of the BBC. And now the BNP are threatening to sue them too (not likely to get into power I suppose). But if everyone hates then, they must be being even-handed, doling out praise and criticism in to all. Probably a little too much criticism for many. But if BBC is not to stand up against these organisation then who?
Apparently I’m competent to vote, but may be corrupted by the wicked BNP. For my own protection I must not listen to them, in case… Now the BNP in their innocence or their ignorance have policies on things like immigration. That the other parties in their knowledge or secrecy chose not to discus. Someone comes on the telly and says “immigration is not a problem” “immigration is good for the country”. Yet any working class person (not many of them left as the immigrants have taken over) and even second generation immigrants will tell you that isn’t what it feels like on the front line. Just like the Tommy in the first word war just because the idiots in charge think they are winning doesn’t make the cost easier to bear.
As it turns out the BNP look in decidedly unfit to govern the country. However, I suspect that the fastest runner will look out of shape if he has to outrun a pack or rapid dogs.
I would really like to see a well mannered and civilised debate with the BNP and more importantly for the main political parties to take the overcrowding, lack of housing and lack of jobs seriously.
Thursday 8 October 2009
Just how good are these high flyers?
Just how good are these high flyers?
Logically I can’t believe in God. There is so little tangible evidence to support his/her existence. That doesn’t mean that in times of need I don’t say a prayer. This is most likely to be along the lines of “Don’t let it be true…” than “Thank you!” Although when I have asked for something not to be true, or to turn out OK, when the outcome is in the balance and outcome has been what I desired I have said thank you.
In this same way that I don’t believe in god yet seem to acknowledge the existence I have this same twin belief in senior managers.
From observation the best that truly make a difference (not 100% guaranteed) seem to be those that: -
1) Have been in and worked their way up the industry in a largely non-financial role.
2) They understand both the micro and macro needs of their customers
3) They have a clear simple (not simplistic) vision that all their employees can get behind.
4) They drive the business for the benefit of the customers and as a by-product the employees and shareholders
5) They are not remote from the front line, often value front line opinion above middle management.
Also from observation MOST senior managers swan in as CEO or Chairman sit back and let the momentum of the company carry them forward for 3-5 years before moving on. Often they move on just before some really bad news emerges. They are already in their new role when some really bad news emerges about the last job. By the time they are ready to move on again everyone seems to have forgotten.
There is so much empirical evidence about that I wonder why “we” still believe in them. Ignoring successes is someone really worth multiple - millions of dollars or pounds. When the lowest of their employees can barely afford to live. Who is creating the value when the management chain is so long that decisions at the top never reach the bottom unless it involves cutting jobs.
They play games with financial figures moving cost on and off balance sheet to hide what is really going on. They buy back shares so that the share price goes up, they get their bonus and their share options are more valuable.
And when there is a real challenge like ITV no one wants either the CEO or Chairman’s job. Are they not offering enough money? £4m p.a. seems good to me. Trouble is you will have to do something and no one knows what that is. At least no one in the circle of the “in” crowd. If there was a magic wand solution others would be waving it already. ITV needs not only to reinvent itself but to blaze a trail. Without a doubt if ITV can do something different enough to turn its fortunes around sustainable everyone else will be following.
They’ve tried all the “city” and accounts tricks, cutting cost, cutting jobs, outsourcing, selling of divisions and still it doesn’t work. Did you notice anything in the last sentence that remotely put the customer first?
Therein lays the problem. ITV is for the shareholders. Do shareholders care about customers? And who are ITV’s customers? ITV customer services department talks to advertisers, not consumers.
In the UK, in 2009, if someone is earning more than £1m year they are being paid too much by people that believe something that is only true as long as they believe it. Tulip bulbs, dotcom companies, house prices and stock market. Sure most people couldn’t do these jobs, some wouldn’t want to and others will never get the chance. The top 1% of the population earn more than the bottom 50%.
Logically I can’t believe in God. There is so little tangible evidence to support his/her existence. That doesn’t mean that in times of need I don’t say a prayer. This is most likely to be along the lines of “Don’t let it be true…” than “Thank you!” Although when I have asked for something not to be true, or to turn out OK, when the outcome is in the balance and outcome has been what I desired I have said thank you.
In this same way that I don’t believe in god yet seem to acknowledge the existence I have this same twin belief in senior managers.
From observation the best that truly make a difference (not 100% guaranteed) seem to be those that: -
1) Have been in and worked their way up the industry in a largely non-financial role.
2) They understand both the micro and macro needs of their customers
3) They have a clear simple (not simplistic) vision that all their employees can get behind.
4) They drive the business for the benefit of the customers and as a by-product the employees and shareholders
5) They are not remote from the front line, often value front line opinion above middle management.
Also from observation MOST senior managers swan in as CEO or Chairman sit back and let the momentum of the company carry them forward for 3-5 years before moving on. Often they move on just before some really bad news emerges. They are already in their new role when some really bad news emerges about the last job. By the time they are ready to move on again everyone seems to have forgotten.
There is so much empirical evidence about that I wonder why “we” still believe in them. Ignoring successes is someone really worth multiple - millions of dollars or pounds. When the lowest of their employees can barely afford to live. Who is creating the value when the management chain is so long that decisions at the top never reach the bottom unless it involves cutting jobs.
They play games with financial figures moving cost on and off balance sheet to hide what is really going on. They buy back shares so that the share price goes up, they get their bonus and their share options are more valuable.
And when there is a real challenge like ITV no one wants either the CEO or Chairman’s job. Are they not offering enough money? £4m p.a. seems good to me. Trouble is you will have to do something and no one knows what that is. At least no one in the circle of the “in” crowd. If there was a magic wand solution others would be waving it already. ITV needs not only to reinvent itself but to blaze a trail. Without a doubt if ITV can do something different enough to turn its fortunes around sustainable everyone else will be following.
They’ve tried all the “city” and accounts tricks, cutting cost, cutting jobs, outsourcing, selling of divisions and still it doesn’t work. Did you notice anything in the last sentence that remotely put the customer first?
Therein lays the problem. ITV is for the shareholders. Do shareholders care about customers? And who are ITV’s customers? ITV customer services department talks to advertisers, not consumers.
In the UK, in 2009, if someone is earning more than £1m year they are being paid too much by people that believe something that is only true as long as they believe it. Tulip bulbs, dotcom companies, house prices and stock market. Sure most people couldn’t do these jobs, some wouldn’t want to and others will never get the chance. The top 1% of the population earn more than the bottom 50%.
Sunday 20 September 2009
BBC just needs a short sharp shock - not hanging
Ben Bradshaw has got it wrong. The BBC does not need “Stronger regulation” it simple need to be held to its charter. Like most organisation of this size, it can become complacent over time mission creep sees it incrementally change direction and expand. A short sharp slap is all that is needed. This complacency and bench marking against other commercial broadcasters for “the going rate” means it does need to look at how much it pays its stars and executives. The alternative maybe that BBC needs to groom new and emerging talent. This is likely to be risky as some failure can be expected. Risk = cost, so all the savings will not translate to the same overall cost reduction. However in a “knowledge economy” this talent pool could generate multiple benefits for the entertainment world and the exchequer.
Without the BBC the use of the internet for video would not be as advanced commercially as it is. The iPlayer has shown that good software and good content lead to high audiences. The consultants that jump on the band wagon and show the growth of video don’t understand the current phenomenon. Catch up TV (which is what iPlayer is all about) has two things to note – not all programming is viewed. The most popular broadcast TV also equates to the most viewed on the internet (content is king). It also relies on consumer memory. Most viewed catch up content is a few hours or days old. Viewing drops off sharply over time as the marketing, promotion, trailers news etc effects around the programme fade.
Long tail stuff? No one truly belivies this yet. Digitising old films and tape is only part (and expensive) of the costs. You then need to market it to make people aware and that isn’t cheap and as yet the success is unproven, therefore risky and back to risk = cost.
Are commercial organisations going to digitise their archives and push them to the market, to find a model that the consumers want? What is stopping them now? BBC on the other hand with the charter remit of “availability” will eventually do this and if it’s successful and they get sufficient market share, watch Murdoch and all the others bleating on about how unfair it all is.
The BBC works, it works very well, it needs a pat on the back occasionally and occasionally a crack of the whip but it does not benefit from a dam good thrashing.
Without the BBC the use of the internet for video would not be as advanced commercially as it is. The iPlayer has shown that good software and good content lead to high audiences. The consultants that jump on the band wagon and show the growth of video don’t understand the current phenomenon. Catch up TV (which is what iPlayer is all about) has two things to note – not all programming is viewed. The most popular broadcast TV also equates to the most viewed on the internet (content is king). It also relies on consumer memory. Most viewed catch up content is a few hours or days old. Viewing drops off sharply over time as the marketing, promotion, trailers news etc effects around the programme fade.
Long tail stuff? No one truly belivies this yet. Digitising old films and tape is only part (and expensive) of the costs. You then need to market it to make people aware and that isn’t cheap and as yet the success is unproven, therefore risky and back to risk = cost.
Are commercial organisations going to digitise their archives and push them to the market, to find a model that the consumers want? What is stopping them now? BBC on the other hand with the charter remit of “availability” will eventually do this and if it’s successful and they get sufficient market share, watch Murdoch and all the others bleating on about how unfair it all is.
The BBC works, it works very well, it needs a pat on the back occasionally and occasionally a crack of the whip but it does not benefit from a dam good thrashing.
Groombridge Place Gardens
I have a grandson (almost 2) and finding things to do is difficult. There is a tension between wanting to take him somewhere interesting and going to places that are aimed at older kids. With the recent spate of E.Coli infections resulting from petting farm visits the problem of finding somewhere was slightly worse this weekend.
I had taken him to Godstone Park Farm earlier this year which was an “OK” day out. With a mix of age range activities. Horton Park Farm, a month earlier, had been much better for the 18 month + age. I thought at the time I was being OTT as I had washed hands between every animal petting/feeding. Many parents just seemed to be doing it as they left the farm, and even them not all of them. The signes had simple said something like “Please Wash Your Hands After Touching The Animals” and not given any reason why. I can understand why such farms may have been reluctant to put up signs saying “DANGER E.COLI” but a more informative. “Children Are Susceptible To Infection From Animals – Hand Hygiene is Important – Please Wash Hands Frequently”. May have encourage the right response without instilling panic.
Back to this weekend and we found a somewhere to go called “Groombridge Place Gardens & Enchanted Forest”. Enchanted forest sounded interesting especially as the web site (www.groombridge.co.uk) said “designed to intrigue, amuse and entertain”. Set on a hillside (so expect to be walking up hill most of the time) along paths that are often less than pushchair friendly there is a long route around a wood with the odd place of inertest to discover. Except that places on the mab described as “Blue Pool” was in fact a muddy looking pond. The “Teepee” was just that, a Teepee. Similarly the “Standing Stone”, Double Spiral” where just that. I felt we were traveling around a forest to see an exhibition. I failed to see the intrigue to be amused or entertained. The “Giants Vineyard” was in reality a vineyard. The “Romany Camp” three, locked up, gypsy caravans parked side by side rather than in a portrayal of an active camp.
Even the formal gardens were less than immaculate. Simple things annoy me. I struggle at home (unsuccessfully) to keep my lawn free of weeds, clover etc but these where no better than what I would expect in a municipal park.
On the plus side, the Raptor Centre and its birds of prey demonstration was very impressive and the ice cream was excellent quality (why don’t they do a toddler size). But the Raptor Centre is funded by donations – not the entrance fee – and the ice cream is obviously extra. Overall the £9 per head was not worth it. A walk and a picnic in one of the many heaths and woods that litter the south east of England would have been just as good.
I had taken him to Godstone Park Farm earlier this year which was an “OK” day out. With a mix of age range activities. Horton Park Farm, a month earlier, had been much better for the 18 month + age. I thought at the time I was being OTT as I had washed hands between every animal petting/feeding. Many parents just seemed to be doing it as they left the farm, and even them not all of them. The signes had simple said something like “Please Wash Your Hands After Touching The Animals” and not given any reason why. I can understand why such farms may have been reluctant to put up signs saying “DANGER E.COLI” but a more informative. “Children Are Susceptible To Infection From Animals – Hand Hygiene is Important – Please Wash Hands Frequently”. May have encourage the right response without instilling panic.
Back to this weekend and we found a somewhere to go called “Groombridge Place Gardens & Enchanted Forest”. Enchanted forest sounded interesting especially as the web site (www.groombridge.co.uk) said “designed to intrigue, amuse and entertain”. Set on a hillside (so expect to be walking up hill most of the time) along paths that are often less than pushchair friendly there is a long route around a wood with the odd place of inertest to discover. Except that places on the mab described as “Blue Pool” was in fact a muddy looking pond. The “Teepee” was just that, a Teepee. Similarly the “Standing Stone”, Double Spiral” where just that. I felt we were traveling around a forest to see an exhibition. I failed to see the intrigue to be amused or entertained. The “Giants Vineyard” was in reality a vineyard. The “Romany Camp” three, locked up, gypsy caravans parked side by side rather than in a portrayal of an active camp.
Even the formal gardens were less than immaculate. Simple things annoy me. I struggle at home (unsuccessfully) to keep my lawn free of weeds, clover etc but these where no better than what I would expect in a municipal park.
On the plus side, the Raptor Centre and its birds of prey demonstration was very impressive and the ice cream was excellent quality (why don’t they do a toddler size). But the Raptor Centre is funded by donations – not the entrance fee – and the ice cream is obviously extra. Overall the £9 per head was not worth it. A walk and a picnic in one of the many heaths and woods that litter the south east of England would have been just as good.
Saturday 12 September 2009
BBC is about to open its iPlayer
The BBC is about to open its iPlayer technology to other broadcasters. The iPlayers success in the UK with consumers is unquestionable. It’s a good technology delivering quality content. On the other hand it is an ISP’s nightmare come true. Consumers are now down loading or streaming vast amounts of video over the internet. Business cases built on end users looking at web pages, even those rich with graphics images and audio would not have been too much of a problem. Video files and streams demand higher bandwidth.
There has been a bit of a yo-yo going on between where the bottle neck in the internet is for most of the life of the internet. Initially last mile connections into the home where too small, then the internet backbone then content servers, then back to the last mile etc etc. Backbone congestion gave rise around the 1990’s to the CDN, the Content Delivery Network. A way of getting video files to the end user without the content going across the internet for the vast amount of its journey from source to end user. Most of this was around events like music concerts, and sports finals rather than the distribution of regular TV programmes. The source of the content would pay a CDN provider so as to improve the end user experience. They would stay with the video longer (generally not full screen) see more “banner” advertising or buy the CD etc. More money from the end user more than paid for the services of the CDN. There were and still are some PayPerView and subscription video services but none have been a significant success to impact on the ISP.
You notice that the ISP took no part in this simply selling the end user the internet connection. However with the iPlayer in the UK the volume an constant nature of video means that ISP’s are being hit in two ways.
Video not only pushes up the bandwidth but also the total amount of traffic shipped. So ISPs are paying more for the likes of the BBC and ITV to deliver content to the end users. ITV gets increased advertising revenue (interestingly they make more money out of X factor online than they do from broadcasting it) but is costs the ISPs
Some ISP’s have, and are using “traffic shaping” reducing end users ability to access certain sites at peak times. No surprise that access the BBC site between 18:00 and 21:00 usually results in a slower connection with far more “buffering” messages than at off peak times.
ISP’s have a bit of a dilemma. The price for broadband is very competitive. ISP bundled in TV and mobile services to try and differentiate their offering but the broadband services are similar. So the ISP can’t charge the end user more for fear of losing customers to a competitor. If they do to much “traffic shaping” there customers may also walk to a competitor. One solution is that they charge the content owner. Content owners response is predictably hard ball and uses an instruction to take a sexual journey. So what is the ISP going to do – cut off the BBC web site or other who doesn’t pay.
All this is understandable and potentially manageable if you are just looking at the UK. What about content coming in from the US or Australia, India etc etc. It is too complicated for the ISPs to manage. From the content providers perspective it is equally too complicated they potentially have to deal with multiple ISPs.
A broker could sit in-between the two groups to aggregate content and ISP’s, but that has just added more cost. However if the CDN is also the broker and is able to remove cost elsewhere in the Mbit connection or the Gbyts shipped charges the exercise could be self funding. Another possibility is to insert targeted advertising. Targeting could use information about the way an end user is using the internet (specific profiling) or could be simple based on the time of day being used (statistical profiling). Advertisers could bid for the slot on the fly similar to the Google model.
Time will tell whether this or another solution is used but whatever, the rise of video on the internet needs to be paid for. The tension between the end user, the ISP and the content provider is set to rise and the opening of iPlayer is more fuel to that fire.
There has been a bit of a yo-yo going on between where the bottle neck in the internet is for most of the life of the internet. Initially last mile connections into the home where too small, then the internet backbone then content servers, then back to the last mile etc etc. Backbone congestion gave rise around the 1990’s to the CDN, the Content Delivery Network. A way of getting video files to the end user without the content going across the internet for the vast amount of its journey from source to end user. Most of this was around events like music concerts, and sports finals rather than the distribution of regular TV programmes. The source of the content would pay a CDN provider so as to improve the end user experience. They would stay with the video longer (generally not full screen) see more “banner” advertising or buy the CD etc. More money from the end user more than paid for the services of the CDN. There were and still are some PayPerView and subscription video services but none have been a significant success to impact on the ISP.
You notice that the ISP took no part in this simply selling the end user the internet connection. However with the iPlayer in the UK the volume an constant nature of video means that ISP’s are being hit in two ways.
- One they are struggling to balance users demands across what is ultimately a shared bandwidth. ISP had gambolled that not all end users would be using the internet at the same time. That is they charged 10 users for a 2Mbit connection (potentially 20Mbit peak demand) but only provided 8Mbit from the local exchange into the internet. If the total demand exceeded the 8Mbit then customers’ maximum speed was reduced to cope. In the same way your telephone provider couldn’t cope if everyone connected to the exchange picked up the phone at the same time. Luckily not everyone wants to make a transatlantic call at the same time as very few would make it. It is this telco mentality (not necessarily wrong in the beginning) that drove this business model. (to make the telephone analogy complete this is the connection charge or the potential to make a call)
- The second thing that ISP’s gambled on was that most people sleep, go to work or otherwise have a life outside the internet. How wrong can you be? Based on this assumption, they pay for Gbyts shipped (to continue the analogy with telephones this is the usage/call charges).
Video not only pushes up the bandwidth but also the total amount of traffic shipped. So ISPs are paying more for the likes of the BBC and ITV to deliver content to the end users. ITV gets increased advertising revenue (interestingly they make more money out of X factor online than they do from broadcasting it) but is costs the ISPs
Some ISP’s have, and are using “traffic shaping” reducing end users ability to access certain sites at peak times. No surprise that access the BBC site between 18:00 and 21:00 usually results in a slower connection with far more “buffering” messages than at off peak times.
ISP’s have a bit of a dilemma. The price for broadband is very competitive. ISP bundled in TV and mobile services to try and differentiate their offering but the broadband services are similar. So the ISP can’t charge the end user more for fear of losing customers to a competitor. If they do to much “traffic shaping” there customers may also walk to a competitor. One solution is that they charge the content owner. Content owners response is predictably hard ball and uses an instruction to take a sexual journey. So what is the ISP going to do – cut off the BBC web site or other who doesn’t pay.
All this is understandable and potentially manageable if you are just looking at the UK. What about content coming in from the US or Australia, India etc etc. It is too complicated for the ISPs to manage. From the content providers perspective it is equally too complicated they potentially have to deal with multiple ISPs.
A broker could sit in-between the two groups to aggregate content and ISP’s, but that has just added more cost. However if the CDN is also the broker and is able to remove cost elsewhere in the Mbit connection or the Gbyts shipped charges the exercise could be self funding. Another possibility is to insert targeted advertising. Targeting could use information about the way an end user is using the internet (specific profiling) or could be simple based on the time of day being used (statistical profiling). Advertisers could bid for the slot on the fly similar to the Google model.
Time will tell whether this or another solution is used but whatever, the rise of video on the internet needs to be paid for. The tension between the end user, the ISP and the content provider is set to rise and the opening of iPlayer is more fuel to that fire.
Sunday 6 September 2009
Over population
The world is over populated. To save resources, to save the planet, reduce the birth rate. I’d rather have one kid that could have a really good life than six that were going to struggle.
Why is no one saying this? I think it is money and the economy. More people = more houses, cars, TV sets, loans etc. Older people don’t buy the latest fashion, gadget etc. So much of what is being produced and consumed has a worth that evaporates in times of crisis.
Unlimited growth in the human population is not sustainable. Something has to be done sooner or later.
Why is no one saying this? I think it is money and the economy. More people = more houses, cars, TV sets, loans etc. Older people don’t buy the latest fashion, gadget etc. So much of what is being produced and consumed has a worth that evaporates in times of crisis.
Unlimited growth in the human population is not sustainable. Something has to be done sooner or later.
Education
Education is a fundamental activity that enables humans in particular to “advance”. By learning from what has gone before we do not have to rediscover. The alternative would be for each generation to start from the same point as the previous.
Apart from the élite that could read and right most of the world until very recently learnt in two ways. The main way was from their parents, often following in the same trade. The additions stories, travelling minstrels and players would bring news and new ideas from the outside world that would expand the horizon.
Formal education for the masses was gradually rolled out form 1700’s gathering pace during the industrial revolution. However, it was only with the invention of the printing press (1436) and the increased availability of books that changed things. Books, and the ability to read democratised education.
To access this medium required the ability to read. If your parents couldn’t read, you needed to be taught by someone else. That required formal education. So the western world has had large scale formal education for something around 300 years (probably less). In the early days the amount of formal educations was relatively low a few hours a week, maybe just a Sunday school and even then only for a few hours. Children still got most of their education from the adults in their family including their social and moral education.
As more and more time and years are spent in formal education the social moral education has increasingly come from other children of the same age. You may say the teachers give this but in reality they are only trying to control a class so they can teach a specific subject, maths, geography, physics etc. Most interaction is with other children. As I watch my grandchild (nearly two) I notice that when he is in nursery his development of speech and hand eye coordination is increases. That sounds like a good thing but is it? He is developing because he is in a competitive environment where he is vying for with the other children for attention. He is “learning to interact with other children”. Great for preparing him for school, but is that the right foundation?
The art of parenting and parental responsibility is something politicians say is missing, but the parents only see their kids for a few hours most days. Even at weekends they want to spend their time in the relatively familiar company of other kids, not their parents or grandparents. And there are other social pressures on people; work, mortgages etc, that make the time parents spend with their kids less and less.
Humans do adapt the change in increasing formal education is having the biggest effect on our society. I understand that giving everyone the best education and start in life is a noble endeavour. I also believe that children should spend more time with their elder family members to build up adult social skills. Unfortunately not all families are the same and some may suffer while others gain.However, I thing fixing families is going to deliver more benefits than fixing education in the long term
Apart from the élite that could read and right most of the world until very recently learnt in two ways. The main way was from their parents, often following in the same trade. The additions stories, travelling minstrels and players would bring news and new ideas from the outside world that would expand the horizon.
Formal education for the masses was gradually rolled out form 1700’s gathering pace during the industrial revolution. However, it was only with the invention of the printing press (1436) and the increased availability of books that changed things. Books, and the ability to read democratised education.
To access this medium required the ability to read. If your parents couldn’t read, you needed to be taught by someone else. That required formal education. So the western world has had large scale formal education for something around 300 years (probably less). In the early days the amount of formal educations was relatively low a few hours a week, maybe just a Sunday school and even then only for a few hours. Children still got most of their education from the adults in their family including their social and moral education.
As more and more time and years are spent in formal education the social moral education has increasingly come from other children of the same age. You may say the teachers give this but in reality they are only trying to control a class so they can teach a specific subject, maths, geography, physics etc. Most interaction is with other children. As I watch my grandchild (nearly two) I notice that when he is in nursery his development of speech and hand eye coordination is increases. That sounds like a good thing but is it? He is developing because he is in a competitive environment where he is vying for with the other children for attention. He is “learning to interact with other children”. Great for preparing him for school, but is that the right foundation?
The art of parenting and parental responsibility is something politicians say is missing, but the parents only see their kids for a few hours most days. Even at weekends they want to spend their time in the relatively familiar company of other kids, not their parents or grandparents. And there are other social pressures on people; work, mortgages etc, that make the time parents spend with their kids less and less.
Humans do adapt the change in increasing formal education is having the biggest effect on our society. I understand that giving everyone the best education and start in life is a noble endeavour. I also believe that children should spend more time with their elder family members to build up adult social skills. Unfortunately not all families are the same and some may suffer while others gain.However, I thing fixing families is going to deliver more benefits than fixing education in the long term
Sod the USA and sod the Libyans
Where was the Lockerbie bomb crime committed? When the bomb was planted or the bomb exploded? Would it have been less of a crime if the bomb had not gone off? The powers that be decided that the crime was when the bomb went off! They were more than happy for the trial to take place under Scottish law. This prevented the US or the UK from having to lock any criminals up. Locking terrorists up could make that country a target of any follow-up terrorist activity to release Mr Megrahi.
Regardless of any ulterior motive of the UK, US or Libyan government have for being upset or pleased about the decision the Scottish applied “their” law. Some countries may chose to judge other countries’ laws and say that the hanging, or stoning, of adulterous women is barbaric, or that chopping the hands of thieves off, or killing a murderer by lethal injection, or electrocution etc, is uncivilised. However, I don’t see the US taking much notice of external condemnation of their questionable laws.
The Scots have in their law the notion of compassion. No one seems to be saying that this is a bad thing, just that in this case they shouldn’t have applied it.
Wrong!
The law is the law and nobody should be above it, or beneath it. The decision was the right decision, made for the right reasons.
I honestly wish that US and UK had the moral fibre to stick to the principles. Maybe some need to change, but pretending to have one set and applying another, destroys the trust of the world’s citizens. Something Scotland didn’t do.
Regardless of any ulterior motive of the UK, US or Libyan government have for being upset or pleased about the decision the Scottish applied “their” law. Some countries may chose to judge other countries’ laws and say that the hanging, or stoning, of adulterous women is barbaric, or that chopping the hands of thieves off, or killing a murderer by lethal injection, or electrocution etc, is uncivilised. However, I don’t see the US taking much notice of external condemnation of their questionable laws.
The Scots have in their law the notion of compassion. No one seems to be saying that this is a bad thing, just that in this case they shouldn’t have applied it.
Wrong!
The law is the law and nobody should be above it, or beneath it. The decision was the right decision, made for the right reasons.
I honestly wish that US and UK had the moral fibre to stick to the principles. Maybe some need to change, but pretending to have one set and applying another, destroys the trust of the world’s citizens. Something Scotland didn’t do.
Tuesday 1 September 2009
TV executives are frogs
So James Murdock has a go at the BBC and Ofcom at 2009 Edinburgh TV Festival (the James MacTaggart Lecture). One thing you have to admit about Sky and the Murdocks is their consistency. At any conference where I have seen any exec from Sky speak that have not deviated from blaming regulation and the BBC for the problems of the industry.
The pace is heating up as newspapers (a Murdock interest) are starting to diminish in circulations and revenue. Ask yourself how many people you see under 30 buying a news paper compared to those that don’t. Now think back just 10 years and the trend is obvious. Suddenly the BBC is the reason that the newspapers can’t charge for new online. I say suddenly but that really means that the Murdocks now see online revenues as the way forward but realise that if they charge the customers will just go to a free service provider.
The BBC and Ofcom are part of the market and BSkyB needs to get used to it.
One of the things he says is wrong is central planning and limited choice. This from a media empire that is “controlled” by the head of News Corp!
On the other hand (as with most propaganda) there is an element of truth. The BBC does dominate online news and not just in the UK. It’s a respected non-sensational source of news. With breaking news it will not present speculation as fact and is consequentially slower the CNN and Sky News. But the real problem is news is a commodity with a very short shelf life. Murdock may say that TV regulation is based on spectrum scarcity and that there is no choice, but news scarcity and limited access is how the newspaper got so big and powerful.
Like magicians the aim is to misdirect you so you are not looking at what they are really doing.
Murdock says that we have a analogue thinking in a digital age but he then wants to limit and control and to commercialise the digital age when the digital age is about freedom and choice. Trying to put the gene back in the bottle is difficult if not impossible. While his analogy of TV executives as frogs in water gradually being heated is one of the most accurate I‘ve heard for some time.
The pace is heating up as newspapers (a Murdock interest) are starting to diminish in circulations and revenue. Ask yourself how many people you see under 30 buying a news paper compared to those that don’t. Now think back just 10 years and the trend is obvious. Suddenly the BBC is the reason that the newspapers can’t charge for new online. I say suddenly but that really means that the Murdocks now see online revenues as the way forward but realise that if they charge the customers will just go to a free service provider.
The BBC and Ofcom are part of the market and BSkyB needs to get used to it.
One of the things he says is wrong is central planning and limited choice. This from a media empire that is “controlled” by the head of News Corp!
On the other hand (as with most propaganda) there is an element of truth. The BBC does dominate online news and not just in the UK. It’s a respected non-sensational source of news. With breaking news it will not present speculation as fact and is consequentially slower the CNN and Sky News. But the real problem is news is a commodity with a very short shelf life. Murdock may say that TV regulation is based on spectrum scarcity and that there is no choice, but news scarcity and limited access is how the newspaper got so big and powerful.
Like magicians the aim is to misdirect you so you are not looking at what they are really doing.
Murdock says that we have a analogue thinking in a digital age but he then wants to limit and control and to commercialise the digital age when the digital age is about freedom and choice. Trying to put the gene back in the bottle is difficult if not impossible. While his analogy of TV executives as frogs in water gradually being heated is one of the most accurate I‘ve heard for some time.
Thursday 20 August 2009
Internet Television Broadcasting - One CDN Winner
Internet Television Broadcasting
Radio stations have been “broadcasting” on the internet for some time and Hulu and a few others have been “broadcasting” TV over the internet for a while too. But to avoid any doubt the internet is not a broadcasting environment. The TV you get via you Ariel (antenna) or satellite dish (TVRO) is broadcast – that is, it is being sent once to a wide geographical area (footprint) and you simply need to turn on to receive it. Often referred to as “point to multipoint”. There is no return path and the broadcaster has only statistical surveys to confirm and calculate who, if anyone, is watching.
Move to the internet and (ignoring CDN’s for the time being) each computer watching the video has a separate and direct connection back to the source server. They may be watching the same content at the same time but each is watching a unique stream. This is “point-to-point”, even if there are lots of destinations.
So a broadcast digital channel (via an antenna or dish) transmitted at 1.5mbit/s it is using no more than 1.5mbit/s to reach 1 or 10million viewers (assuming a single footprint). 10million viewers over the internet and the bandwidth required 1.5mbit/s x 10million = 7,500 gbit/s. (7.5Tbit/s). The bandwidth used would be no different if each of the 10million viewers were each watching a different programme (content).
Your internet service provider (ISP) built their business model on the assumption of much lower bandwidth utilisation (hence those fair usage policies to limit your maximum use) from their view of the world around 2005 (give or take a few years).
Your ISP connects to the internet via a big “pipe”. They spread the cost of that connection amongst all their customers. They also have a deal with their service provider where they pay for bandwidth used. As more customers start to watch video, such as the BBC iPlayer the bandwidth used goes up, pushing up their costs. The BBC doesn’t pay your ISP and I’m sure, like me, you don’t want to pay any more too.
My view is I’ve paid for up to 8mbit/s 24/365 a year and unless I exceed that why should I pay more?
There is another problem too in that the internet backbone gets clogged up as all these video streams compete with each other to get across the internet. The result is the internet slows down, video IP packets get lost, the video stutters or freezes, or drops out completely.
What is the solution? CDN, or content distribution networks, have been around from 2000 or so. The solution then and now has changed very little. The content source (say Disney) would want the end user to get a reasonable experience and for Disney not to be blamed for bad, interrupted, jerky or lost steam. The CDN would take the video stream over a separate network, bypassing the internet, and store the video at the edge of the Internet. This involved putting lots of edge servers in. The result was that instead of getting the video from the Disney site (invisible to the consumer) the request was redirected to the CDN edge server avoiding internet congestion and giving Disney (or whoever) a quality of service that customers expected.
Since then consumer bandwidths, choice of video, choice of supplier, and customer expectations have all increased. It isn’t the odd event but an everyday demand for video that is swamping ISP’s. Customers expect a relatively TV type experience, and increasingly HD. ISP’s could ignore the odd event as over a month or so it would even out. The constant demand of consumers for video is growing.
Some even believe that customers will get all their video over the internet and antennas and dishes, will be a thing of the past. I have my doubts, but the opportunity to insert different adverts to each stream specifically based on your profile. It could use your browser history where you have been looking at new TV’s to insert adverts about new TV’s or local retailers. All clever stuff, but would I want it hummm! As long as it didn’t start using information from the “adult sites” I visited!
Whatever the future holds the problem is that the content provider is getting paid for their content (advertising, subscription, pay-per-view or licence fee/tax) they are (currently) paying the CDN to get it to the edge of the network and the “poor” ISP is then having to pay for it to get onto their network and to their consumers. As it has grown it is now too much for them to ignore so most have employed “traffic shaping”. Traffic shaping means that content coming from a particular source is restricted, effectively artificially re-introducing the problems that the CDN was bypassing.
This is interesting as there is no longer a technical problem with delivery video but almost purely about money and business. Here are some things to consider;
Your ISP is Sky and you have a fantastic video service of Sky content. Your friend it with TalkTalk and their video service is crap. Sky maybe £2/month more but if it’s worth it your friend changes ISP. What option does TalkTalk have if customers migrate away?
Sky content on the Sky ISP platform is great (as they own the content and want to push their content and their adverts that sit around it). Knowing sky there will be some value added up sale to try and extract a little more money out of you and increase the ARPU (average revenue per user). However, BBC and ITV content is not so good. BT ISP has good BBC, ITV and BT Vision content, but not Sky. Suddenly the ISP market is more differentiated (not just price) but also more confusing for the consumer.
One option the ISP’s can do is to look at how they can deliver the service the customer wants at a reduced cost. One option doing the rounds is by extending the CDN concept into the ISP’s networks e.g the CDN server sits in the local exchange. This reduces the cost of bandwidth connection into the Internet.
Who pays? The CDN’s can stump up some as they have reduced their costs. The broadcaster/content owners as they don’t need to the original CDN service.
How would this work? The each ISP pays for a CDN service and then charges each broadcaster for using it. Where is the competition in all this? Won’t the CDN providers and the ISP all have to charge the same? There is a lot more detail but that’s potentially solved the problem.
What if a broadcast/content owner doesn’t want to pay the ISP? They stop paying their CDN provider as the “traffic shaping” negates most of the benefits.
What happens if CBS decides to sell/deliver programmes direct to the UK consumer rather than a broadcaster? Who contracts with whom, and for what, revenue share?
The broadcaster is really a content aggregator, it could be argued that Google and other search engines, YouTube, Facebook or some new entrant, could take over that aggregation role. To be effective the CDN will need to collect the content from all the sources (certainly the big boys) too. The technical issues are minor compared to the commercial and rights issues and complicated web of relationships that could emerge. Then bung in fads and transient events, start-ups and the short attention span of internet users and this will be a dynamic market.
My point? There is a lot of jockeying going on behind the scenes and little new revenue is generated. Like the DTH satellite platforms in Europe there is probably only room for one CDN provider (for Video at least) in each territory, so expect a fierce battle to kick off soon.
Radio stations have been “broadcasting” on the internet for some time and Hulu and a few others have been “broadcasting” TV over the internet for a while too. But to avoid any doubt the internet is not a broadcasting environment. The TV you get via you Ariel (antenna) or satellite dish (TVRO) is broadcast – that is, it is being sent once to a wide geographical area (footprint) and you simply need to turn on to receive it. Often referred to as “point to multipoint”. There is no return path and the broadcaster has only statistical surveys to confirm and calculate who, if anyone, is watching.
Move to the internet and (ignoring CDN’s for the time being) each computer watching the video has a separate and direct connection back to the source server. They may be watching the same content at the same time but each is watching a unique stream. This is “point-to-point”, even if there are lots of destinations.
So a broadcast digital channel (via an antenna or dish) transmitted at 1.5mbit/s it is using no more than 1.5mbit/s to reach 1 or 10million viewers (assuming a single footprint). 10million viewers over the internet and the bandwidth required 1.5mbit/s x 10million = 7,500 gbit/s. (7.5Tbit/s). The bandwidth used would be no different if each of the 10million viewers were each watching a different programme (content).
Your internet service provider (ISP) built their business model on the assumption of much lower bandwidth utilisation (hence those fair usage policies to limit your maximum use) from their view of the world around 2005 (give or take a few years).
Your ISP connects to the internet via a big “pipe”. They spread the cost of that connection amongst all their customers. They also have a deal with their service provider where they pay for bandwidth used. As more customers start to watch video, such as the BBC iPlayer the bandwidth used goes up, pushing up their costs. The BBC doesn’t pay your ISP and I’m sure, like me, you don’t want to pay any more too.
My view is I’ve paid for up to 8mbit/s 24/365 a year and unless I exceed that why should I pay more?
There is another problem too in that the internet backbone gets clogged up as all these video streams compete with each other to get across the internet. The result is the internet slows down, video IP packets get lost, the video stutters or freezes, or drops out completely.
What is the solution? CDN, or content distribution networks, have been around from 2000 or so. The solution then and now has changed very little. The content source (say Disney) would want the end user to get a reasonable experience and for Disney not to be blamed for bad, interrupted, jerky or lost steam. The CDN would take the video stream over a separate network, bypassing the internet, and store the video at the edge of the Internet. This involved putting lots of edge servers in. The result was that instead of getting the video from the Disney site (invisible to the consumer) the request was redirected to the CDN edge server avoiding internet congestion and giving Disney (or whoever) a quality of service that customers expected.
Since then consumer bandwidths, choice of video, choice of supplier, and customer expectations have all increased. It isn’t the odd event but an everyday demand for video that is swamping ISP’s. Customers expect a relatively TV type experience, and increasingly HD. ISP’s could ignore the odd event as over a month or so it would even out. The constant demand of consumers for video is growing.
Some even believe that customers will get all their video over the internet and antennas and dishes, will be a thing of the past. I have my doubts, but the opportunity to insert different adverts to each stream specifically based on your profile. It could use your browser history where you have been looking at new TV’s to insert adverts about new TV’s or local retailers. All clever stuff, but would I want it hummm! As long as it didn’t start using information from the “adult sites” I visited!
Whatever the future holds the problem is that the content provider is getting paid for their content (advertising, subscription, pay-per-view or licence fee/tax) they are (currently) paying the CDN to get it to the edge of the network and the “poor” ISP is then having to pay for it to get onto their network and to their consumers. As it has grown it is now too much for them to ignore so most have employed “traffic shaping”. Traffic shaping means that content coming from a particular source is restricted, effectively artificially re-introducing the problems that the CDN was bypassing.
This is interesting as there is no longer a technical problem with delivery video but almost purely about money and business. Here are some things to consider;
Your ISP is Sky and you have a fantastic video service of Sky content. Your friend it with TalkTalk and their video service is crap. Sky maybe £2/month more but if it’s worth it your friend changes ISP. What option does TalkTalk have if customers migrate away?
Sky content on the Sky ISP platform is great (as they own the content and want to push their content and their adverts that sit around it). Knowing sky there will be some value added up sale to try and extract a little more money out of you and increase the ARPU (average revenue per user). However, BBC and ITV content is not so good. BT ISP has good BBC, ITV and BT Vision content, but not Sky. Suddenly the ISP market is more differentiated (not just price) but also more confusing for the consumer.
One option the ISP’s can do is to look at how they can deliver the service the customer wants at a reduced cost. One option doing the rounds is by extending the CDN concept into the ISP’s networks e.g the CDN server sits in the local exchange. This reduces the cost of bandwidth connection into the Internet.
Who pays? The CDN’s can stump up some as they have reduced their costs. The broadcaster/content owners as they don’t need to the original CDN service.
How would this work? The each ISP pays for a CDN service and then charges each broadcaster for using it. Where is the competition in all this? Won’t the CDN providers and the ISP all have to charge the same? There is a lot more detail but that’s potentially solved the problem.
What if a broadcast/content owner doesn’t want to pay the ISP? They stop paying their CDN provider as the “traffic shaping” negates most of the benefits.
What happens if CBS decides to sell/deliver programmes direct to the UK consumer rather than a broadcaster? Who contracts with whom, and for what, revenue share?
The broadcaster is really a content aggregator, it could be argued that Google and other search engines, YouTube, Facebook or some new entrant, could take over that aggregation role. To be effective the CDN will need to collect the content from all the sources (certainly the big boys) too. The technical issues are minor compared to the commercial and rights issues and complicated web of relationships that could emerge. Then bung in fads and transient events, start-ups and the short attention span of internet users and this will be a dynamic market.
My point? There is a lot of jockeying going on behind the scenes and little new revenue is generated. Like the DTH satellite platforms in Europe there is probably only room for one CDN provider (for Video at least) in each territory, so expect a fierce battle to kick off soon.
Monday 6 July 2009
Samsung Fridge Freezer Faults
I need to put this out just in case there is any other poor sod out there suffering like I have been for the past two days. Here are two problems with this model and how to fix them.
Bit of a heat wave in dear old blighty at the moment so not the pest time to have a problem with your fridge freezer.
This is an “American (or US) style” fridge freezer. I have to say apart from these two problems I this has been one of the most practical fridge freezers I have ever had.
1st problem was a rapid ticking noise that gradually got louder over two days and stopped. When it stopped so did all the cooling in the fridge (freezer was unaffected). This turned out to be a fan that had gradually become encased in ice generated by the anti frost system. An engineer came and I watch what he did (nonchalantly). This was 11 months after I got it so was done under warranty. A search of the internet showed this to be a common problem (a design fault!). When a further 14 months past it occurred again I repaired it myself.
Switch the thing off and disconnect the plug – for safety. Take out the coolzone tray and shelves plus the salad trays. A few obvious screws will allow removal of the coolzone controls (unplugging a multiway cable) and it should come out easy – If anything is difficult to remove DON’T FORCE IT you’ve probably missed a screw or connector. At the back is a drain hole in the cover which may be filled with ice. The lower half of the fridge at the back is a separate cover with a few screws to remove it and reveal the iced up fan. Defrost the fan – hair dryer or hot water. You could reassemble it again but before I did I slightly increased the size of the drain hole at the bottom and I used a quality car wax. This way I hoped that water would form into droplets and run away more efficiently. Another 13 months and no repeat except….
2nd problem… While fitting a new light switch I touched the earth and negative together. Although switched off at the fuse box this tripped the residual current circuit breaker (RCCB) RCCB is a device in some fuse boxes to prevent electrocution – same as used on many mains powered electrical garden tools. This switched off the power supply to the whole house. When I reset the RCCB the fridge lights came on and the air circulation fan was funning but the compressors for the fridge and freezer were not. The digital display was blank apart from one flashing segment. – this was Saturday 18:10 nowhere was open. Search of the internet for problems through up nothing. Monday morning straight on to Samsung help desk (If you want to register on line you have to use IE – it doesn’t work with Firefox). They initially said I need their local agent to come out. However 5 hours later and the line was constantly engaged. I tried several local repair services, all too busy to give me a date/time. I went back and this time (using IE) I registered the problem online. – The reply was I might need a reset and to call customer service. Customer service said that all I needed to do to reset system was to hole the top left (Power Freeze) and top right (Power Cool) in for 8 seconds. Low and behold it worked…
The manual doesn’t mention it and by the way the manual has a number DA99-00494V, this number is the part number for the manual not the model number… On mine the model number is on the left hand side. And another “by the way” on the back is the circuit diagram.
Given my problems with Zanussi (see earlier blog) this was barely a problem at all.
Bit of a heat wave in dear old blighty at the moment so not the pest time to have a problem with your fridge freezer.
This is an “American (or US) style” fridge freezer. I have to say apart from these two problems I this has been one of the most practical fridge freezers I have ever had.
1st problem was a rapid ticking noise that gradually got louder over two days and stopped. When it stopped so did all the cooling in the fridge (freezer was unaffected). This turned out to be a fan that had gradually become encased in ice generated by the anti frost system. An engineer came and I watch what he did (nonchalantly). This was 11 months after I got it so was done under warranty. A search of the internet showed this to be a common problem (a design fault!). When a further 14 months past it occurred again I repaired it myself.
Switch the thing off and disconnect the plug – for safety. Take out the coolzone tray and shelves plus the salad trays. A few obvious screws will allow removal of the coolzone controls (unplugging a multiway cable) and it should come out easy – If anything is difficult to remove DON’T FORCE IT you’ve probably missed a screw or connector. At the back is a drain hole in the cover which may be filled with ice. The lower half of the fridge at the back is a separate cover with a few screws to remove it and reveal the iced up fan. Defrost the fan – hair dryer or hot water. You could reassemble it again but before I did I slightly increased the size of the drain hole at the bottom and I used a quality car wax. This way I hoped that water would form into droplets and run away more efficiently. Another 13 months and no repeat except….
2nd problem… While fitting a new light switch I touched the earth and negative together. Although switched off at the fuse box this tripped the residual current circuit breaker (RCCB) RCCB is a device in some fuse boxes to prevent electrocution – same as used on many mains powered electrical garden tools. This switched off the power supply to the whole house. When I reset the RCCB the fridge lights came on and the air circulation fan was funning but the compressors for the fridge and freezer were not. The digital display was blank apart from one flashing segment. – this was Saturday 18:10 nowhere was open. Search of the internet for problems through up nothing. Monday morning straight on to Samsung help desk (If you want to register on line you have to use IE – it doesn’t work with Firefox). They initially said I need their local agent to come out. However 5 hours later and the line was constantly engaged. I tried several local repair services, all too busy to give me a date/time. I went back and this time (using IE) I registered the problem online. – The reply was I might need a reset and to call customer service. Customer service said that all I needed to do to reset system was to hole the top left (Power Freeze) and top right (Power Cool) in for 8 seconds. Low and behold it worked…
The manual doesn’t mention it and by the way the manual has a number DA99-00494V, this number is the part number for the manual not the model number… On mine the model number is on the left hand side. And another “by the way” on the back is the circuit diagram.
Given my problems with Zanussi (see earlier blog) this was barely a problem at all.
Friday 3 July 2009
Merchants
A quick note as preparing for an exam and my daughter gets married in a week, but I just had to push this out there.
As the world’s attention wander’s to Afghanistan, unemployment, the cost of fuel, the falling house prices, empty shops on the high street, MP’s expenses (by the way they should be done for fraud, just like anyone else would have been) and climate warming, we seem to be forgetting what kicked this all off. It was the Bankers and their greed. The bean counters that demand growth because that is what the spreadsheets said.
I should probably explain for those that don’t know cockney rhyming slang that Merchant is short for Merchant Banker which rhymes with Wanker
Merchant: “We must increase our loan business.”
Reason: “But everyone out there has got as much debt as they can handle”
Merchant: “Send them more info to get the to borrow more”
Reason: “But they won’t be able to pay it back”
Merchant: “Interesting! Are there any others that we could lend to that won’t be able to pay back?”
Reason: “Why would you want to do that?”
Merchant: “Because we’ll be able to hit our growth targets, and collect a big fat bonus”
Reason: “That’s madness”
Merchant: “It’s good innovative business strategy”
Well they are at it again paying themselves massive salaries and bonuses, even those that are majority owned by governments, where you would expect some restraint. Why?
They have sold the “fear factor”. They have somehow convinced there masters that this is the going rate. They are good people and if we don’t pay them this much they’ll leave to work somewhere else.
The reaction should be to show them the door, not bow down and give in. Anyone that has managed a team for any length of time will know, if someone thinks they are so important to the team that you cannot afford to lose them and they leverage that to get their own way, if you give in you’ve handed leadership of that team over, because they will be back asking for more and more. Eventually they'll leave anyway. By that time the rest of the team will have lost all respect in you as a leader too!
These people have destroyed other people’s lives and because they did it with a balance sheet and not napalm it seems to be OK. We should take note of the French Revolution and guillotine these latter-day aristocracy that act as if they are above the law.
They really have go off lightly and I can’t figure out why. I probably have the wrong spreadsheet!
I feel better now. Back to the exam revision.
As the world’s attention wander’s to Afghanistan, unemployment, the cost of fuel, the falling house prices, empty shops on the high street, MP’s expenses (by the way they should be done for fraud, just like anyone else would have been) and climate warming, we seem to be forgetting what kicked this all off. It was the Bankers and their greed. The bean counters that demand growth because that is what the spreadsheets said.
I should probably explain for those that don’t know cockney rhyming slang that Merchant is short for Merchant Banker which rhymes with Wanker
Merchant: “We must increase our loan business.”
Reason: “But everyone out there has got as much debt as they can handle”
Merchant: “Send them more info to get the to borrow more”
Reason: “But they won’t be able to pay it back”
Merchant: “Interesting! Are there any others that we could lend to that won’t be able to pay back?”
Reason: “Why would you want to do that?”
Merchant: “Because we’ll be able to hit our growth targets, and collect a big fat bonus”
Reason: “That’s madness”
Merchant: “It’s good innovative business strategy”
Well they are at it again paying themselves massive salaries and bonuses, even those that are majority owned by governments, where you would expect some restraint. Why?
They have sold the “fear factor”. They have somehow convinced there masters that this is the going rate. They are good people and if we don’t pay them this much they’ll leave to work somewhere else.
The reaction should be to show them the door, not bow down and give in. Anyone that has managed a team for any length of time will know, if someone thinks they are so important to the team that you cannot afford to lose them and they leverage that to get their own way, if you give in you’ve handed leadership of that team over, because they will be back asking for more and more. Eventually they'll leave anyway. By that time the rest of the team will have lost all respect in you as a leader too!
These people have destroyed other people’s lives and because they did it with a balance sheet and not napalm it seems to be OK. We should take note of the French Revolution and guillotine these latter-day aristocracy that act as if they are above the law.
They really have go off lightly and I can’t figure out why. I probably have the wrong spreadsheet!
I feel better now. Back to the exam revision.
Wednesday 24 June 2009
Consumer electronics manufacturers oppose Canvas
Why would a consumer electronics manufacture, like Sony, oppose the joint BBC, ITV and BT venture?
Heard of Blu-ray? It’s the DVD standard for high definition videos. It was developed by Sony. There were a few other standards that contended but, eventually they fell by the wayside as consumer caution and confusion held sales of new DVD players back. The manufactures agreed to adopt a single standard. Simpler for everyone.
So you may think everyone is a winner! But as they might have said in “Animal Farm”, some are bigger winners than others
Sony own the technology so every time a Hollywood film studio or anyone else produces a Blu-ray DVD they pay Sony a licence fee. Small it may be but with increasing volumes it ends up being significant. Sony also get a licence fee everytime a manufacturer makes a new DVD player with the Blu-ray technology in it. Again another revenue stream. Sony clearly don’t pay themselves when they make a DVD player so they have a commercial advantage over their competition.
You might say it makes sense and they developed the technology so why should they not reap the rewards. I’d have to agree.
Now think of the Internet or World Wide Web. Who owns that? No one it is an amalgamation of networks (each owned by a seprate company) and computers (each made by a wide variety of manufactures) and a vast aray of information and service provider. It is seen (by some) as the next evolution of humanity, globalising the world and empowering the people.
Who invented it? Well it was a cooperation of non-profit making organisations, The US army and universities principally. It was also help by IBM that didn’t think coordinated the development of the Personal Computer but didn’t think it was a big market so didn’t protect their investment.
ITV is a profit making (or would like to be) company, as is BT, but the BBC is not. What they want to develop in Project Canvas is an open architecture way to deliver high quality video over the internet. Their motives? ITV needs to replace (or at least bolster) its broken ad funded broadcast business model. BT know that video over the internet is coming and a) wants to reduce the cost (or get some more money) of delivering it and the BBC (God bless their cotton socks) have as part of their reson detra , “access”.
The internet improves access from a number of view points. Not only does it extend beyond the traditional limitations of broadcasting, it caters for individual choice, on demand and catch-up services.
If the device in the home can be a PC, Mac or generic set top box then consumers will not have to go out and buy a new box (the end of the world is nigh). Undoubtedly Sony and other manufactures have their own proprietary solution and that is why they are calling foul.
With the exception of the big boys that have done the R&D and have the global presence to impose a standard I think that any other manufacturer should be looking at this as an opportunity. If suddenly I can download stuff (and lots of it) I have two problems; where do a store it (these are not small files) and how do I manage it (what is it, where is it, can I watch it now, how do I get it from my PC to my TV etc etc etc).
The other thing is, no one predicted SMS messaging as a major revenue source for mobile, it was cheap and easy, and look how the consumers took to it. The Internet is the same, no one predicted its commercial and global impact at the start (except me – I wish) and look how people were able to make it (despite its faults) into something so powerful that governments (of all shades) are afraid of it. I’m not suggesting that Project Canvas has the same potential, but who knows if it is cheap and accesable
If Sony come up with something better, even if it is more expensive people will still buy it, if it delivers “value”. I drive a car and it is more expensive than public transport, but it has other values beyond taking me form a-to-b, that makes it worth it to me.
Heard of Blu-ray? It’s the DVD standard for high definition videos. It was developed by Sony. There were a few other standards that contended but, eventually they fell by the wayside as consumer caution and confusion held sales of new DVD players back. The manufactures agreed to adopt a single standard. Simpler for everyone.
So you may think everyone is a winner! But as they might have said in “Animal Farm”, some are bigger winners than others
Sony own the technology so every time a Hollywood film studio or anyone else produces a Blu-ray DVD they pay Sony a licence fee. Small it may be but with increasing volumes it ends up being significant. Sony also get a licence fee everytime a manufacturer makes a new DVD player with the Blu-ray technology in it. Again another revenue stream. Sony clearly don’t pay themselves when they make a DVD player so they have a commercial advantage over their competition.
You might say it makes sense and they developed the technology so why should they not reap the rewards. I’d have to agree.
Now think of the Internet or World Wide Web. Who owns that? No one it is an amalgamation of networks (each owned by a seprate company) and computers (each made by a wide variety of manufactures) and a vast aray of information and service provider. It is seen (by some) as the next evolution of humanity, globalising the world and empowering the people.
Who invented it? Well it was a cooperation of non-profit making organisations, The US army and universities principally. It was also help by IBM that didn’t think coordinated the development of the Personal Computer but didn’t think it was a big market so didn’t protect their investment.
ITV is a profit making (or would like to be) company, as is BT, but the BBC is not. What they want to develop in Project Canvas is an open architecture way to deliver high quality video over the internet. Their motives? ITV needs to replace (or at least bolster) its broken ad funded broadcast business model. BT know that video over the internet is coming and a) wants to reduce the cost (or get some more money) of delivering it and the BBC (God bless their cotton socks) have as part of their reson detra , “access”.
The internet improves access from a number of view points. Not only does it extend beyond the traditional limitations of broadcasting, it caters for individual choice, on demand and catch-up services.
If the device in the home can be a PC, Mac or generic set top box then consumers will not have to go out and buy a new box (the end of the world is nigh). Undoubtedly Sony and other manufactures have their own proprietary solution and that is why they are calling foul.
With the exception of the big boys that have done the R&D and have the global presence to impose a standard I think that any other manufacturer should be looking at this as an opportunity. If suddenly I can download stuff (and lots of it) I have two problems; where do a store it (these are not small files) and how do I manage it (what is it, where is it, can I watch it now, how do I get it from my PC to my TV etc etc etc).
The other thing is, no one predicted SMS messaging as a major revenue source for mobile, it was cheap and easy, and look how the consumers took to it. The Internet is the same, no one predicted its commercial and global impact at the start (except me – I wish) and look how people were able to make it (despite its faults) into something so powerful that governments (of all shades) are afraid of it. I’m not suggesting that Project Canvas has the same potential, but who knows if it is cheap and accesable
If Sony come up with something better, even if it is more expensive people will still buy it, if it delivers “value”. I drive a car and it is more expensive than public transport, but it has other values beyond taking me form a-to-b, that makes it worth it to me.
Tuesday 16 June 2009
General Hospitals
The organisations that we put in place to manage or deliver an objective go through a constant cycle of being swept away for “new” or “modern” way of doing something only for that “new” and modern way to be eventually be swept away too. Eventually (it seems) an old structure will be reinvented as “new” and sweep all that has gone before.
My observations are: -
No matter how good a organisations structure or the processes eventually they fail to some extent. This maybe they stop delivering the objective, they fail to adopt and adapt, they become inefficient. However this is not the main reason they get swept away. The main reason is that new person comes in and changes things. I’ve done this myself when I took over an organisation.
There are a variety of reasons for sweeping away the old.
Two thing got me thinking about this: -
It seem that what is relatively short term benefits are realised instead of sustainable progress.
My observations are: -
No matter how good a organisations structure or the processes eventually they fail to some extent. This maybe they stop delivering the objective, they fail to adopt and adapt, they become inefficient. However this is not the main reason they get swept away. The main reason is that new person comes in and changes things. I’ve done this myself when I took over an organisation.
There are a variety of reasons for sweeping away the old.
- To align to new objectives
- To change a culture
- To drive out inefficiencies, often adopt different (maybe new) technologies or processes.
- To put into place something the instigator understands, make a name, avoid delivering by blaming the change or any other number of completely irrelevant purposes.
Two thing got me thinking about this: -
- One was the suggestion that GP centres and local health centres took on more of the general medical duties of hospitals to allow the Hospitals to become specialist centres of expertise where high cost technology could concentrated. This reminded me of the old “General Hospital” and Cottage Hospital network which was shut down to move nurses and doctors into regional hospitals.
- The second was the suggestion that some of the stations shut down by Dr Beaching in the 1070’s should be reopened to cope with the increasing demand for rail travel
It seem that what is relatively short term benefits are realised instead of sustainable progress.
Prince gets rogered
Prince Charles has voiced his opinion over a building in Chelsea (on the Old Chelsea Barracks site) and now the Architect (Lord Rogers) is asking for a constitutional review.
What is wrong here? That fact that Prince Charles voiced an opinion! Surly he has the right to express an opinion. What is wrong is if the Qatari owners have canned the building just because the opinion came from Prince Charles. Apparently most of the local residence objected to the building as being out of character with the surroundings too.
Rogers said on the BBC Radio 4 that he had a letter from the Royal Hospital (Chelsea Pensioners Hospital) stating that they didn’t object. Clearly Lord Rogers values the Royal Hospitals opinion over local residence. As he seems free to give different weight depending on the source of the opionin why does he object if the Qatari owners do likewise.
If this out of touch architect thinks we need a constitutional review because of this, it really demonstrates how the elite of the UK are full of their own self importance. Why is he not calling for a constitutional review of how the police are able to use anti terrorist laws to curb the justified actions of UK citizens. Why is he not calling for the prosecution of fraudulent MPs.
Get you head out of your arse Rogers and smell the real shit that is wrong with the country.
What is wrong here? That fact that Prince Charles voiced an opinion! Surly he has the right to express an opinion. What is wrong is if the Qatari owners have canned the building just because the opinion came from Prince Charles. Apparently most of the local residence objected to the building as being out of character with the surroundings too.
Rogers said on the BBC Radio 4 that he had a letter from the Royal Hospital (Chelsea Pensioners Hospital) stating that they didn’t object. Clearly Lord Rogers values the Royal Hospitals opinion over local residence. As he seems free to give different weight depending on the source of the opionin why does he object if the Qatari owners do likewise.
If this out of touch architect thinks we need a constitutional review because of this, it really demonstrates how the elite of the UK are full of their own self importance. Why is he not calling for a constitutional review of how the police are able to use anti terrorist laws to curb the justified actions of UK citizens. Why is he not calling for the prosecution of fraudulent MPs.
Get you head out of your arse Rogers and smell the real shit that is wrong with the country.
Sunday 7 June 2009
ChildLine Rock 2
On Monday 2 June I got a last minute invite to ChildLine Rock2 at the IndegO2 arena in London. The line up was :-
Please give even just a couple of quid to support ChildLine by clicking here.
- The Pretty Things
- Jon Lord (Deep Purple)
- Glenn Hughes (Deep Purple)
- Steve Harley
- Thunder
- Uriah Heep
- Sons Of Albion
- Hot Leg
- Steve Balsamo
I wouldn’t normally do this but I can’t see much publicity to sell the album and hopefully this may generate some money for ChildLine…
The event (minus the “Sons Of Albion”) can be downloaded here Disc 1 and Disc 2Please give even just a couple of quid to support ChildLine by clicking here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)