Category: government

Knowledge and power

Can we use the data revolution effectively and well?

In the 16th Century English courtier Sir Francis Bacon declared “Knowledge is Power”, something certainly true during the conspiracy prone reign of Elizabeth I.

Today the data available about ourselves and our communities is exploding along with the computer power to process that information to turn it into knowledge.

We see that knowledge being used in interesting ways – US shopping chain Target recently described how they used data mining to determine, with 87% accuracy, to figure out if a shopper is pregnant.

That 87% is important, it says the algorithm isn’t perfect and bombarding a false positive with baby wear advertising could prove embarrassing, or in some families and societies even fatal.

A good example of data misuse are the two unfortunate Brummies (alright, one’s from Coventry) who were deported from the US for tweeting they were “going to destroy America and dig up Marilyn Monroe”

For the US immigration and homeland security agents, they ready the jokey tweets by the Birmingham bar manager through their own filter and came to the wrong conclusion, although it’s likely their performance indicators rewarded them for doing this.
This is the Achilles heel in big data – used selectively, information can be used to confirm our own prejudices, ideologies and biases.
In 2003 we saw this in the run up to the US invasion of Iraq with cherry picking of information used to build the false case that the ruling regime had weapons of mass destruction that could attack Europe in 45 minutes.
For businesses, we can be sure data showing the CEO is wrong or the big advisory firm has made the wrong recommendations will be overlooked in most cases.

Despite the Pollyanna view of a world of transparency and openness driven by social media and online publishing tools, the information is asymmetric; governments and big business know more about individuals or those without power than the other way round.

In a world where politicians, business people and journalists trade on their insider knowledge rather than competing in the open, free market we have to understand that filtering this data is essential to retaining  powers and privileges.

Usually when the data threatens the existing power structures it is repressed in the same way a dissenting taxpayer, citizen, employee or shareholder is discredited and isolated.

At present there’s lots of data threatening existing commercial duopolies, political parties and cosy ways of doing business.

The fact many of those in power don’t want to see what their own systems are telling them is where the real opportunities lie.

Entrepreneurs, community groups and activists have access to much of this data being ignored by incumbents, it will be interesting to see how it’s used.

Finance by the masses

Can crowdfunding work for business?

“Crowd” is one of the hot terms of the moment – the idea that groups of connected, motivated people with the right incentives can deliver great value when their skills and talents are bought together.

One of application of this idea is crowdfunding where businesses, artists, writer and movie producers can call  on the community to donate or invest small sums into a project in return for a benefit like a copy of the book or being an extra in the movie.

The biggest success in this space is the New York based Kickstarter which was founded in 2008. Pozible, an Australian equivalent, that provides local creatives with the opportunity to raise funds without dealing with the hassles of US bank accounts or social security numbers.

Both of these services make money from taking a commission on the money raised, for Pozible users this fee ranges from 5 to 7.5%.

While the focus of Pozible and Kickstarter is on creative projects like books, music and movies, it’s interesting to consider how this model can work for other businesses.

Perhaps an IT business can offer a free year of support or food delivery service free shipping in return for a donation. The possibilities are endless.

It’s not without risks – there’s no doubt the regulators will at best be suspicious of fund raising through these services and anyone participating has to accept the risk of not getting any sort of return.

Since the 2008 banking crisis, funding for small business has dried up around the world. Many viable enterprises found their lines of credit being withdrawn and some even went under as a result.

With banks rationing small business credit, there’s a need – we could even argue an economic necessity – for alternative sources of capital. Crowdsourcing could be an option.

Now the days of easy credit are over; businesses, banks, investors and governments have to adapt. Believing models and regulations that were designed when capital was cheap and abundant won’t work in a very changed economy.

Crowdsourcing will be one of the issues confronting regulators, it’s going to be interesting to see how they deal with it.

ABC Nightlife: Explaining the National Broadband Network

What does the NBN mean for Australian households and businesses?

For the February 2012 Nightlife technology spot Tony and Paul looked at Australia’s National Broadband Network, exploring the pros and cons of the project designed to connect all Australians to high speed broadband.

So what is the NBN and what does it do? Here’s some of the points we discussed along with some of the answers to listeners’ questions.

What is the NBN?

The National Broadband Network is intended replace the existing copper wire telephone network that was rolled out across the nation over the Twentieth century.

Eventually the network will provide fast data access across the country replacing the older network that was designed for telephone calls rather than computer communications.

Most of the country will be connected to fibre optic cables and areas where this is too expensive then wireless or satellite services will be used.

Why do we need a government run national network?

The NBN is the culmination of three decades of bad policy out of Canberra. We should remember that the Howard government struggled with how to provide high speed broadband access to the bush.

For coalition things became particularly bad once they privatised Telstra and no longer had any power over the company’s policies.

We’ve had a mix of ideological beliefs and rubbery figures from both sides of politics which have left Australia in the situation where the core telecoms network has had to be re-nationalised.

What are these different ways of connecting up?

The biggest part of the network will be fibre optic cable where the connection will run along the street like the existing telephone wires and will connect to a box outside your home or office.

This box – know as an NTD (Network Terminating Device) is then connected into either the existing household telephone system or into a computer network.

In areas receiving wireless and satellite subscribers will get dishes or receivers that plug into their existing home telephone or computer network.

There are different types of wireless

The different types of wireless networks cause confusion. The NBN is going to use 4G or LTE telephone wireless, which is what Telstra have started to roll out and Optus will be starting in the Hunter Valley around Easter 2012.

Most of us are using 3G networks on our phones which is what the bulk of the mobile phone networks are.

Another type of wireless is the Wireless Local Area Network. These are what we connect our home or office computers to. These plug into the existing services like the existing ADSL internet connections or the NBN’s fibre network.

We shouldn’t confuse Wireless LANs with the mobile phone technologies being used by the NBN or phone companies.

Who is running the NBN?

The organisation set up to build the NBN is NBNCo. They are setting the standards, negotiating access to existing infrastructure and building the network. Their head office is in North Sydney but major operations are also based in Melbourne.

In turn they are hiring contractors around the country to build the network, run the cables and connect buildings to the new services. Most of us will deal with those contractors and the companies selling NBNCo’s services.

How is National Broadband Network going to work?

We won’t talk to NBNCo directly, instead companies like Telstra, Optus, Vodafone and iiNet will buy services from them and then onsell them to us.

Telstra are playing an interesting game on competing. They are already offering 4G services in regional areas where NBNCo hasn’t announced rollouts and they are planning to upgrade their cable TV network to the DOCSIS 3.0 standard that can sometimes deliver speeds similar to the NBNs proposed service.

What happens if you don’t let them connect you

If you don’t let NBNCo’s contractors connect you to the new network then you’ll have a problem a year or so later.

The copper telephone network is going to be turned off in areas where fibre optic cables are installed so if you aren’t connected to the new system, you won’t have access.

Anyone who’s done some building or landscaping work knows it isn’t cheap and that’s what building owners who don’t allow access will have to pay for access later.

In Tasmania a few property owners who were just outside the NBN area asked about getting connected up and apparently the costs were prohibitive.

One of the things to watch out for is uncooperative building managers preventing NBN contractors from accessing their premises leaving all the residents disconnected when the phone network is turned off.

Will it really cost $14,000 to wire up your house?

No but there will be a cost to connect the building’s existing phone lines and power supply to the NBN’s Network Terminal Device (NTD) that will be bolted to the outside of the building.

The NTDs are designed to plug into existing phone systems and data networks so it shouldn’t be necessary to spend a fortune on connections or upgrades.

One area where there might be problems is in buildings that have substandard wiring. Licensed electricians and cablers will refuse to work on systems that don’t comply with standards so building owners may find they are faced with big bills to bring their systems up to standard.

Does the system work if the power goes out?

Yes, the basic cabling doesn’t need power, although the repeaters and local exchanges will – just like the phone network. Where the system does need power is at the NTDs which will come with a battery providing two to three hours power.

If the NBN gets hit by lightning, does it stop working?

Lightning is an incredibly powerful force. It doesn’t matter whether we’re talking about telephones, power or fibre optic networks – anything that is hit by lightning is going to be damaged.

We should keep in mind that the wireless alternative to fibre is more prone to lightening strikes as base stations are at high points.

Electrical storms, and other natural forces, are a fact of life that we have to work around. The existing systems are just as prone to interruptions.

Is it running behind schedule?

Yes, as of the beginning of 2012 the project seems to be about six months behind. With only 4,000 connections at the end of last year instead of the 30,000 expected by the middle of last year.

NBNCo are putting this down to delays in finalising negotiations with Telstra and other existing fibre providers.

How much is it really going to cost?

There’s still the $43 billion dollar number on the table, which comes from a KPMG study in 2010 although the government claims their investment is going to $27 billion.

Of that 27 billion, the government expects to recoup it by 2034 based on a 7% return.

In contrast the opposition are claiming the real cost is $50 billion as they are including the cost of buying Telstra’s infrastructure back.

The real number is anyone’s guess. The track record of both political parties and Canberra’s bureaucrats on estimating costs on projects like this is less than impressive.

Is it really worth the money?

We should keep in mind a lot of this money was going to be spent by Telstra or the other providers anyway over the next two decades as the copper telephone reached the end of its life.

The risk was we would see something like the cable TV rollout where the big players fought over the most lucrative parts of the country and ignored the rest. The NBN avoids that.

There are real concerns though as the NBN is running behind schedule, the procurement processes – particularly the construction contracts – appear to have been poorly handled and there has been little discussion about the technology options.

Overall though, this is an opportunity to get the 21st Century infrastructure right. Where Australia failed with the roads in the 20th Century and the trains in the 19th, we can get this one right.

The battle between the old and the new

What side of history do we want to be on?

“We will build an America where ‘hope’ is a new job with a paycheck, not a faded word on an old bumper sticker” – Mitt Romney, US Republican Presidential candidate

“What immediate measures can be taken to protect jobs?” – French President Nicolas Sarkozy

“We want to be countries that made cars” – Kim Carr, Australian Minister for Manufacturing

Around the world the forces of protectionism are stirring to shield fading industries, businesses and fortunes from economic reality.

The most immediate target in this battle are the new industries that threaten the old.

It’s no coincidence US lawmakers want to introduce laws that will cripple the Internet in order to favour music distributors, that the US and New Zealand governments work together to shut down a cloud sharing service or that failing Australian retailers call on their government to change tax rules in order to prop up their fading sales.

The old industries appear to have the advantage; they are rich, they have political power and – most importantly for politicians – they employ lots of voters.

We shouldn’t under estimate just how far the managers and owners of the challenged industries will go to protect their failing business models, unwanted product lines and outdated work methods, which isn’t surprising as their wealth and status is built upon them.

Eventually they will lose, just as the luddites fighting the loom mills and the lords fighting the railway lines did.

The question for society and individuals is do we want to be part of yesterday’s fading industries or part of tomorrow’s economy.

We need to let our political leaders know where we’d our societies to go before they make the wrong choices.

Is Twitter’s censorship a good thing?

National laws are a reality for web based businesses

Since Twitter announced they were going to start blocking messages on a country by country basis if required by the laws of that land they have received a lot of criticism.

Most of this criticism of Twitter revolves around the belief that every message should only edited or deleted by the person who posted the tweet.

Anything else a breach of free speech and a threat to the underlying principles of the internet.

That utopian view of the Internet doesn’t translate into real life; the online world is as subject to laws as any other part of life and social media companies have to comply with the same laws as newspaper organisations or fast food chains.

Regardless of what you think of those laws – and in many countries they certainly are unreasonable and oppressive – they do matter.

Were Twitter not to comply then the entire service would be at least blocked in those countries and, should an action be enforced in a US court, then the tweet removed anyway for every user around the world.

By introducing country specific blocking, the service can let the rest of the world see a tweet that would otherwise be lost and in countries with restrictive or authoritarian laws, local people can still use the service.

A particularly clever way of dealing with removal requests is to note that the specific message has been blocked in a country. This adds a level of transparency and accountability to the actions of courts and governments that want to close the service.

We can see that being particularly effective in jurisdictions like the UK where British judges have been quick to apply “superinjunctions” preventing the merest mention of something by anybody.

Should Britain’s overeager judges start demanding Twitter block tweets, those in the UK will quickly realise something is amiss. The effect will probably be to increase the interest in the blocked tweets that can be seen anywhere around the world.

Despite the utopian view that transparency and openess will solve the world’s problems, we don’t live in that world right now and people can – rightly or wrongly – ask that false, defamatory and damaging posts on the Internet can be removed.

Interestingly Google this morning announced they will be introducing a similar system to deal with country specific problems on their blogger platform.

Twitter’s handled this in the best way possible, in many ways this could be a step forward for social media and the Internet in general.

Book review: The Information Diet

Clay A. Johnson describes how to manage information overload

We all know a diet of fast food can cause obesity, but can consuming junk information damage our mental fitness and critical faculties?

In The Information Diet, Clay A. Johnson builds the case for being more selective in what we read, watch and listen to. In it, Clay describes how we have reached the stage of intellectual obesity, what constitutes a poor diet and suggests strategies to improve the quality of the information we consume.

The Information Diet is based upon a simple premise, that just as balanced food diet is important for physical health so too is a diverse intake of news and information necessary for a healthy understanding of the world.

Clay A. Johnson came to this view after seeing a protestor holding up a placard reading “Keep your government hands off my Medicare.” Could an unbalanced information diet cause a kind of intellectual obesity that warps otherwise intelligent peoples’ perspectives?

The analogy is well explored by Clay as he looks at how we can go about creating a form of “infoveganism” that favours selecting information that comes as close from the source as possible

Just as fast food replaces fibre and nutrients with fat, sugars and salt to appeal to our tastes, media organisations process information to appeal to our own perceived biases and beliefs.

Clay doesn’t just accuse the right wing of politics in this – he is as scathing of those who consider the DailyKos, Huffington Post or Keith Olbermann as their primary sources as those who do likewise with Fox News or Bill O’Reilly.

The rise of opinion driven media – something that pre-dates the web – has been because the industrial production of processed information is quicker and more profitable that the higher cost, slower alternatives; which is the same reason for the rise of the fast food industry.

For society, this has meant our political discourse has become flabbier as voters base decisions and opinions upon information that has had the facts and reality processed out of it in an attempt to attract eyeballs and paying advertisers.

In many ways, Clay has identified the fundamental problem facing mass media today; as the advertising driven model requires viewers’ and readers’ attention, producers and editors are forced to become more sensationalist and selective. This in turn is damaging the credibility of these outlets.

Unspoken in Clay’s book is the challenge for traditional media –their processing of information has long since stopped adding value and now strips out the useful data, at best dumbing down the news into a “he said, she said” argument and at worse deliberately distorting events to attract an audience.

While traditional media is suffering from its own “filter failure”, the new media information empires of Google, Facebook, Apple and Amazon are developing even stronger feedback loops as our own friends on social media filter the news rather than a newsroom editor or producer.

As our primary sources of information have become more filtered and processed, societal and political structures have themselves become flabby and obese. Clay describes how the skills required to be elected in such a system almost certainly exclude those best suited to lead a diverse democracy and economy.

Clay’s strategies for improving the quality of the information we consume are basic, obvious and clever. The book is a valuable look at how we can equip ourselves to deal with the flood of data we call have to deal with every day.

Probably the most important message from The Information Diet is that we need to identify our biases, challenge our beliefs and look outside the boxes we’ve chosen for ourselves. Doing that will help us deal with the opportunities of the 21st Century.

Clay A. Johnson’s The Information Diet is published by O’Reilly. A complimentary copy was provided as part of the publisher’s blogger review program.

Why governments fail in building Silicon Valleys

Can governments build entrepreneurial hubs?

Don’t Give the Arnon Kohavis Your Money warns Sarah Lacy in her cautionary tale of what happens when an economic messiah comes to town promising to create the next Silicon Valley.

“Hopefully this story finds a way to circulate out to the wider audience of government officials and old money elites who have good intentions of wanting to make their city a beacon for entrepreneurship.” Writes Sarah. “Hopefully it reaches them before they get bamboozled into giving the wrong people money to make it happen.”

Bamboozled Bureaucrats

For 19 months I was one of those government officials and saw those good intentions up close while developing what became the Digital Sydney project, that bamboozlement is real and a lot of money does go to the wrong people.

Sarah’s points are well made, Silicon Valley wasn’t built quickly with its roots based in the 1930s electronic industry and the 1960s developments in semiconductors – all underpinned by massive US defence spending from World War II onwards.

In many ways Silicon Valley was a happy and prosperous accident where various economic, political and technological forces came together without any planning. Neither the Californian or US Governments decreed they would make the region an entrepreneurial hotbed and sent out legions of public servants armed with subsidies and incentives to build a global business centre.

This is the mistake governments – and a lot of entrepreneurs or business leaders – make when they talk about “building the next Silicon Valley”; they assume that tax free zones, incentive schemes and subsidies are going to attract the investors and inventors necessary to build the next entrepreneurial hotspot.

For governments, the results are discouraging; usually ending in failed incubators and accelerator programs all conceived by public servants who, with the best will in the world, don’t have the skills, incentives or decades long timelines to make these schemes work.

New England’s failure

At worst, we end up with the corporate welfare model that sees governments and communities exploited like the tragic story of New London, Connecticut, where the local government spent $160 million and cleared an entire suburb for drug company Pfizer to establish their research headquarters, which they closed a few years later and left a waste dump behind.

While the New London story is one of the worst examples, this sort of corporate welfare is the standard role for most government economic agencies. The department I worked for gave subsidies to supermarket chains to open distribution centres and stores that they were going to build anyway.

One of the notable things with development agencies and the provincial politicians who oversee them is how they are easy victims for the economic messiah – it could be a pharmaceutical giant like in New London, a property developer promising Sydney will become a financial hub or a US venture capital guru flying in and promising Santiago will be the next San Francisco.

The truth is there are no short cuts; building a technology centre like Silicon Valley, a financial hub like London or a manufacturing cluster like Italy’s Leather Triangle take decades, some luck and little intervention by government agencies or outside messiahs.

Silicon Valley and most other successful industry centres are the result of a happy intersection of economics and history. The best governments can do is create the stable financial, tax and legal frameworks that let inventors, innovators and entrepreneurs build new industries.

All government support isn’t bad as well thought out, long term programs that help new businesses and technologies grow being the very effective – we should keep in mind though taht Silicon Valley couldn’t have happened without massive US military and space program spending.

Like a parent with a baby, the best governments can do is create the right environment and hope for the best. Interfering rarely works well.

Who the hell do you think you are?

The romantic delusions of managers and entrepreneurs

“We have a startup ethos,” proclaimed the manager of a huge organisation funded by the government.

It was the third time this month I’d heard about a “start up ethos” from managers of ventures backed by government or corporate money and it’s interesting that this thinking like a cash hungry startup has become a badge of honour among those who have never really lived or worked that way.

At a time when we’re glorifying twenty something entrepreneurs it’s understandable a middle aged manager of a large, conservative and bureaucratic business might want to grab some of that glamour.

Where does this idea of being a start up take an organisation that is anything but entrepreneurial?

The entrepreneur myth

Right now we’re obsessed with the cult of the entrepreneur; many people are getting rich on selling the idea if liberate yourself from the corporate cubicle and buy your doughnut franchise then in a few years time you’ll be sipping daiquiris with Richard Branson on his private island.

For most of us, the tough reality of a building a new business is we are going to work very hard and the odds are stacked against us succeeding; that’s the risk-reward equation that underpins the free market economy – you take the risks and if you’re successful you reap the rewards.

Many people though don’t have the appetite for taking those risks; they are happy working for a wage, paying off a mortgage and getting a nice safe pension at the end of their career. There’s nothing wrong with that.

Similarly, the majority of business people have no desire to be the next Richard Branson – most are quite happy for their doughtnut franchise, computer repair company or dog walking service to create a decent living and saving for their family. If the business is worth a few bob when they retire that’s a bonus.

Bureaucrats matter

The success or otherwise of a society depends upon the mix of established institutions and the ability of entrepreneurs to realise new ideas, take the balance too far either way and you have either an inflexible or unstable economy.

Bureaucratic managers, their processes and their established procedures have their role in a modern society, as do the risk takers, the business buccaneers and even the snake oil merchants selling dodgy ideas to frustrated corporate employees.

The danger of business delusions

Misunderstanding who, or what, you and your organisation fits into this spectrum is a risk in itself; the manager of a big corporation or government agency who thinks they can pivot a business the way a start up can, is probably risking their own career and by falling for the romance peddled by snake oil merchants they are risking their savings.

Similarly the small business or real entrepreneur that acts like a government department is probably squandering their market advantages by being slow and unresponsive.

In many ways, seeing a manager in a big corporate environment indulging in Walter Mitty like fantasies of running a start up is somewhat touching – the real danger for those bigger organisations is when their leaders start believing they are something they aren’t.

Romantic delusions are never a good asset when managing a business.

The case for faster internet

Is the argument for a national broadband network being lost?

The National Broadband Network (NBN) is a project designed to deliver faster and more reliable broadband to Australia’s regions. While a good idea, it’s not without its critics and a fair degree of controversy.

One of the problems the project has is the inability of NBNCo, the company established to build and run the network, to articulate the benefits and scope of the project.

Last Friday night “John from Condobolin” grilled the Gadget Guy, Peter Blasina, about the project. John’s questions, and Pete’s answers, which can be found at 35 minutes into his program, illustrates the confusion the surrounds NBN and the failure of the project’s supporters to explain the benefits.

So how should proponents of the National Broadband Network – people like me who believe that high speed broadband are the freeways and railways of the 21st Century – respond to questions. Let’s answer John’s questions from last Friday.

Lightning might affect fibre networks

John’s first question was about lightning affecting the NBN, commenting when Pete confirmed electrical storms would affect the network that “it’s no better than the existing service.”

Sadly all infrastructure is affected by weather – a freeway is just as affected by fog as a dirt road, perhaps even more so, but it doesn’t mean you don’t build a highway because of that. The same applies for the NBN.

Interestingly the wireless and satellite alternatives proposed to fibre optic cable are even more susceptible to electrical storms, which perversely makes a better argument for running a fibre optic network.

I don’t need any NBN

“I have got quite good reception in Condobolin and I don’t need any NBN, I can assure you” was John’s next big statement.

That’s nice for John that he’s happy with what he has – the rest of us should be so lucky.

For many of his neighbours and those in the surrounding district, particularly those dealing with remote suppliers and overseas markets, reliable and fast communications are essential.

Now is good enough

A farmer doesn’t need broadband for selling into America, he’s able to do that today, was the crux of John’s next comment after he and Pete had an exchange about rolling broadband out to remote locations.

It’s true that farmers can do a lot with today’s satellite and ADSL connections, then again they were able to ship exports in the days of bullock carts and sailing ships. We could extend that argument against railway lines, roads, containers and bulk carriers.

Once upon a time some guy argued against the wheel. Today’s technology has been good enough has always been the argument of those who don’t see the benefits of new tools; we’re talking about tomorrow’s markets and society, not today’s.

Broadband is all about fibre

“You’re talking about satellite dishes and things like that, not NBN.”

The National Broadband Network isn’t just about fibre; fibre optic cables makes up the network’s core and bulk of connections, but wireless and satellite are essential in order to make sure the entire nation has access to the network.

Unfortunately the nonsense argument that technology improvements in wireless will render fibre optics redundant has been allowed to take hold by self-interested politicians and sections of the media pushing a narrow agenda.

Wireless, satellite, fibre optic and other cable technologies are all part of the mix, the real argument is on the proportions of that combination and the consequences to the government’s budget.

Spotting the clueless

As an aside, the cable versus wireless argument is a good yardstick for measuring the knowledge of anyone joining the NBN debate.

Someone clueless arguing against the project says investment in fibre optic cable is unnecessary as it’s speed and data capacities will be one day superseded by those of Wireless networks.

This betrays a failure to grasp the inherent advantage of having a dedicated cable connection to your property as opposed to sharing a wireless base station with hundreds, if not thousands, of others.

Equally anyone pro-NBN who says that fibre is faster because it travels at the speed of light is equally clueless as wireless, copper wire and even smoke signals also travel at – or close to – the speed of light.

Games and videos

“Is this only to watch videos and DVDs?” was John’s last question.

Well, does Condobolin have a video store? A quick Google search shows it does, along with local and satellite TV stations. So the residents of Condobolin are just keen as the rest of us to watch the tube.

Increasingly our viewing habits are moving online and fast broadband is necessary to deliver that. John may be happy to exclude his town from being able to do that, but my guess is plenty of his neighbours would like to have that option.

What’s more, many of those farmers, processors, trucking companies and other service providers in the Condobolin region will need those video facilities for tele-conferencing with suppliers, customers and training companies.

Building for the future

Video conferencing isn’t the only application for what we consider today to be high speed networks, these are going to change society and business in the same way the motor car changed us in the 20th Century and railways and telegraph in the 19th.

Australia made a mess of the railways and the roads, in both areas we’re still playing catch up. The National Broadband Network is an opportunity to avoid the mistakes of the last hundred years and get the 21st Century right.

Unfortunately, the objectives of building a better nation are being lost in a fog of disinformation, political opportunism and corporate incompetence. We can do better than this.

So you want a business grant?

The promise of free government money is seductive, but is it real?

“Funding Available from $1000 to $500,000! Get an advantage over your competitors or give your business the Government Funding boost it needs to be more successful!” Is the promise of a website offering to find grants for your business.

Free money from the government sounds good and, as we’ve seen in the various Quantative Erasings and bank bail outs around the world, it sometimes is free.

Rarely though is cash really “free”, usually there’s strings attached and government money is no different.

Why do governments give business grants?

First we should understand why governments make grants, subsidies and loans available to businesses.

Governments have various objectives with their programs; they could be to get unemployed workers back in the workforce, to improve skill levels or to encourage exports. Whatever the motives are, they have clear criteria for giving money away.

One area they don’t give funds for is to “Get an advantage over your competitors” as that website. That’s clearly not the role for governments and they’d be rightly criticised for doing so.

The paperwork storm

Contrary to what some media outlets portray, most public servants take their responsibilities seriously and don’t give out taxpayers’ money unless the application clearly meets their programs’ objectives.

Meeting the objectives is important, because the public servants – and their political masters – are held accountable so they will make sure the business receiving the grant or subsidy has actually done what they have promised to do.

This is where things get tricky for business owners and managers who have received government money. Completing the paperwork to prove you’ve met the objectives will be time consuming.

Drive a cab

Often it would have been more cost effective to drive a cab rather than spend hours filling in government paperwork.

There really is no such thing as free money, there’s always a cost. While sometimes there are good reasons for applying for a government program, free money should never be your objective.

It’s also worth keeping in mind that services offering to find government money for you will usually take a cut of the grant as commission. Also, they won’t help you do the follow up paperwork, that’s your expensive problem.

Do you really want help from the government?

Should a business spend time looking for government money?

Pity the public servant who stands up in front of a room and asks a bunch of business owners, executives or managers what they want from government.

While there will be plenty of comments about improved procurement, less red tape and reduced fees you can be sure there’ll be plenty of demands that the government ought to subsidise something – anything – that business does.

It’s notable how free enterprise, small government and low taxation loving business people will  drop their copies of Atlas Shrugged and barge their way to the feeding trough and the slightest scent of taxpayer money wafting in their direction.

But is government money really good for a business? In many cases it isn’t.

You run a business, not work in a government department

“Who pays the piper, calls the tune.” The whole idea of running a business is that you are the boss, so why do you want to answer to a government department?

If you’re self employed or just opened a startup, one of the main reasons for doing so is because you decided you no longer want to work for the man. A government grant may well open up a whole new world of paperwork that leaves you wondering why you ever left the cubicle.

The dependency culture

One of the dangers of government funding is if you are successful, you’ll find yourself hooked on it. Quickly you become better at filling in funding applications than delivering products your customers want. The Aussie film industry is a good example of this.

Governments are behind the innovation curve

Public servants are not employed to take risks, this is a good thing as it’s our money they are handling.

Because governments are risk adverse they’ll only recognise an industry – or a problem – long after it has become established.

If you find you are on the government’s help list, it might be time to consider an exit from a troubled industry.

Do you really have a business?

Many new business owners expect the government should do something to assist them in their start up phase. This is a common complaint from under capitalised proprietors.

Given the massive subsidises given out to the banks and other big corporations since the start of the great recession, this attitude can almost be excused but we can already see how well that strategy works.

If you really need a subsidy to run your business, then it’s time to consider whether you should be in business at all.

This isn’t to say all government funding is bad; well thought out programs help viable businesses with things like export assistance, skills development and employing young or disabled workers. There are many of these although the process of identifying what a viable business is usually eliminates the newest and smallest enterprises.

What is notable with the successful government programs is they address a specific need, they don’t have onerous paperwork and they are no substitute for a healthy, living cashflow and profit.

Overall though, if you really want government money then take a job with the public service. It’s a lot easier than scrabbling for grants.

Digital art is more than iPod wielding basket weavers

What is the future for the arts in the digital economy?

This is a transcript of the digital arts opening keynote for the Digital Culture Public Sphere conference discussing the Australian government’s cultural strategy.

Thank you Senator Lundy. A little bit more about me, as well as being a writer and broadcaster on change I spent 18 months with the NSW Department of Trade & Investment setting up the Digital Sydney project.

Digital Sydneyis a program designed to raise the profile of Sydney as an international centre of the digital media industry.

One of the problems with Digital Sydney was that it was very inner Sydney centric and this is a perennial question we face as to where does Australian culture, and art, spring from? The first idea I’d like to throw to the room is that ‘digital’ frees us from many narrow geographic boundaries.

When we add the term ‘digital’ we hit another problem, that almost every aspect of our lives – be it in art, business or our personal lives – is being affected in some way by the Internet and digitalisation. In reality all art is becoming ‘digital’ in one way or another.

As broadband becomes more pervasive, particularly as the National Broadband Network is rolled out, we’ll see art and the creative industries become even more digitised.

In many ways we are today at the point in history not too dissimilar to that our great grandparents found themselves a hundred years ago. In 1911, our forebears couldn’t imagine the massive changes the century ahead would bring and we’re in a similar position in the first decades of the digital century.

The first half of the Twentieth Century saw radio start a cultural shift which was accelerated in the second half as television radically changed and redefined our culture. Today the Internet is doing exactly the same in ways none of us quite understand.

Given the massive disruption and technical advances we’re going through we need to be cautious about being too prescriptive as we can’t foresee many of the new technologies that will become normal to us over the next decade.

This provides a challenge for government agencies supporting the arts as the established gatekeepers such as galleries, production studios and regional organisations become less relevant as the means of distribution evolve and become easier to access.

We’re already seeing the traditional model of government support to big producers; be they factories, movie producers or games studios suffering as economic adjustment undermines many of their business model. The old economic development models are becoming irrelevant as history overtakes them.

It may well be that the role of governments over the next decade is to create a framework that allows new mediums, creation tools and distribution channels to develop.

One area we should be careful of when looking at the digital future of the arts is not to follow the UK’s Digital Economy Act where the protection of existing rights holders took precedence over the creative process.

It is important that governments create legislative frameworks that balance the rights of all stakeholders, consumers and new content creators with the objective of encouraging new works and innovations to evolve.

In an Australian context we need to acknowledge and develop our diverse population and the opportunities this presents. Our indigenous and immigrant communities with their artistic and cultural traditions give our national economy advantages that many other countries lack, this is one thing I regret I wasn’t able to push more in my role with the NSW government.

Education is another critical area, this isn’t just in the arts but right across Australian society and industry as new entrants into the workplace are expected to spring forth with the skills making them as productive as experienced workers, this is clearly a flawed idea, particularly when many of the tools business expects students to be skilled in weren’t invented when the students started their studies.

Over the next decade we’ll also have to confront one of the great Twentieth Century conceits; that artists are a separate breed from scientists, Engineers and business people.

Prior to the beginning of the last Century it was accepted a tradesman or inventor could also be an artist and this damaging idea of silos between creative and so called ‘real’ industries, suited only to a brief period of our mass industrial development, will have to forgotten. This will be a challenge to our governments, educators and training providers.

The digital arts are not about iPad wielding basket weavers, they about giving today’s workforce the creative tools and flexible, imaginative thinking to meet the challenges our mature, high cost workforce faces in a world where the economic rules are changing as fast as our technology.

We have a great opportunity at events like today to determine how we as a nation will benefit from the next decade’s new technologies that will change our arts communities and society in general.

The great challenge to policy makers will be dealing with the rapidly changing and evolving world that the digital economy has bought in the arts, in business and in society in general.

Today I’m sure we can bring together ideas on how we, and our governments, can meet these challenges.

Thank you very much Senator Lundy, Minister Crean and Pia Waugh for giving the community an opportunity to contribute to the development of this valuable policy.