Tag: government

The need for speed

What do we need fast Internet for anyway?

I’m at the Kickstart Forum for IT journalists on the Gold Coast this weekend talking to various companies and technology thought leaders on the direction of the industry.

For the forum’s opening keynote, opposition spokesperson and former Optus telecommunications executive Paul Fletcher described his concerns about the Australian government’s National Broadband Network.

Many of Paul’s objections to the project are based on the failure of former attempts to build telecommunications networks – citing Aussat, the NextGen fibre network, OneTel and international disappointments like WorldCom and Global Crossing.

The other main concern is that no-one will use it. He cites a Parliamentary committee that where eHealth providers said their service could be adequately provided by a 512Kbit connection, a tiny fraction of the 100Mbit speed promised by the NBN.

Previous failures aren’t a good indicator of the success or otherwise of the NBN, but what’s more important is what a poor job industry’s doing in explaining how high speed Internet can help their businesses.

The big challenge for NBN advocates who believe this project is the essential infrastructure of the 21st Century, is to articulate the benefits and potential. We’re not doing a very good job at the moment.

What’s your view on how high speed Internet can help your business or community?

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.

Megaupload, cloud computing and trust

Has Megaupload damage cloud computing’s reputation.

The closing down of file sharing site Megaupload has raised the question of trust in the cloud; “It has made cloud services look that much less legitimate” one daily paper quotes futurist Mark Pesce as saying.

For those of us advocating cloud services and advising businesses on using them, this trust issue isn’t anything new. All of us have to be careful about who we trust with our data and Kim Dotcom, the founder of Megaupload, doesn’t come to mind as someone who would stand a great deal of due diligence.

Like investments – another area where trust is essential – we have to spread our risk around. Saving copies of data to your own computer and making sure the information you save on the cloud is in a form easily read by different systems is important, as is not trusting any one service for critical services.

The taking down of Megaupload also raises other questions – as privacy advocate Lauren Weinstein points out;

“But the Megaupload case is more akin to the government seizing every safe deposit box in a bank because the bank owners (and possibly some percentage of the safe deposit box users) were simply accused — not yet convicted — of engaging in a crime.

What of the little old lady with her life savings in her box, or the person who needs to access important documents, all legitimate, all honest, no crimes of any sort involved.

They are — to use the vernacular — screwed.”

It’s this over-reaction by government agencies which is the real concern and the co-operation of large corporations in shutting down services – as we saw with the shutting down of Wikileaks – probably does more to damage trust in all online services, not just cloud computing.

Cloud services are no less trustworthy than our computer systems, all of which can breakdown, catch viruses or be compromised by staff making mistakes. We have to understand that all technologies carry some degree of risk.

For businesses and home users, we need to spread the risks around – don’t just trust one service or technology to deliver your products or services and have a fall back plan if things go wrong.

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.

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.

What businesses should learn from Wikileaks

Cablegate forces us to question computer security and the stability of the Internet

The Wikileaks Cablegate affair has been entertaining us now for two weeks as we see diplomats and politicians around the world squirming with embarrassment as we learn what US diplomats really think about the foreign powers they deal with.

Both the leak of the cables and the treatment of Wikileaks and its founder, Julian Assange, by various Internet companies raises some important questions about the Internet, cloud computing and office security in the digital era.

Security

It’s believed the source of the leaked cables is Private First Class Bradley Manning, who is alleged to be responsible for leaking the Iraq tapes released by Wikileaks earlier this year.

The lesson is don’t give junior staff unrestricted access to your data, access to important information such as bank account details, staff salaries and other matters best kept confidential needs to be protected.

You can stop data leaving the building by locking USB ports, CDs and DVDs through either software or hardware settings on your computers and you should ask your IT support about this, keep in mind that locking down systems may affect some of your staff’s productivity.

Locking the physical means though doesn’t stop the possibility of data being sent across the Internet and access logs may only tell you this has happened after the fact. So it’s important to review your organisation’s acceptable use policy. Check with your lawyers and HR specialists that your staff are aware of the consequences of accessing company data without permission.

Incidentally, the idea that Pfc Manning was just one US Army staffer of thousands who were able to access these cables raises the suspicion that the information Wikileaks is now releasing was long ago delivered to the desks of interested parties in London, Moscow, Tel Aviv, Beijing and cave hideouts in remote mountain ranges.

Don’t rely on one platform

Wikileaks found itself hounded from various web hosting and payment providers. As we’ve discussed previously, relying on other people’s services to deliver your product raises a number of risks. Make sure you have alternatives should one of your service providers fail and never allow an external supplier to become your single point of failure.

Concerns about the cloud

This column has been an unabashed fan of cloud computing, but the Wikileaks saga shows the cloud is not necessarily secure or trustworthy. Not only is there the risk of a PFC Manning working at the data center compromising your passwords or data, but the arbitrary shutdown of Wikileaks’ services is a stark lesson of relying on another company’s Terms of Service.

Within most terms of service are clauses that allow the provider to shut down your service if you are accused of breaking the law or straying outside of the providers’ definition of acceptable use. As we saw with Amazon’s treatment of Wikileaks, you can be cut off at any time and without notice.

Amazon’s shutting down of Wikileaks is a pivotal point in the development of cloud services. Trust is essential to moving your operations to the cloud, and Amazon’s actions shown much of that trust may be misplaced.

Should you be considering moving to the cloud, you’ll need to ensure your data and services are being backed up locally and not held hostage to the arbitrary actions of your business partner.

Don’t put your misgivings in writing

So your business partner is a control freak? Great but don’t put it in writing.

Be careful of gossip and big noting

One interesting aspect of Wikileaks to date is how senior politicians like gossip and showing how worldly they are to US diplomats.

That’s great, but it probably isn’t a good idea to tell your best friend they should consider beating up your most important customer. As mentioned earlier, this little gem was probably on polished desks of the Chinese Politburo long before the cables found their way to Wikileaks.

Resist the temptation to gossip, remember your grandmother’s line about not saying anything if you can’t say something nice.

Ultimately what Wikileaks shows us is all digital communications are capable of being copied and endlessly distributed. In a digital economy, the assumption has to be that everything you do is likely to become public and you should carry out your business conduct as if you will be exposed on Wikileaks or the six o’clock news.

Wikileaks is a lesson on transparency, we are entering an era of accountability and the easiest way to deal with this is to be more honest and open. That’s the big lesson for us in our business and home lives.

Dealing with a telco dispute

ten ways to resolve a phone company or Internet problem

Once again, Australian telcos find themselves being criticised by regulators and consumer groups for their poor performance. This time over poor service, complexity of bills and overcharging on “freecall” numbers.

The frustrating thing with all of these complaint is they are nothing new, as shown by an earlier version of this article in 2007.

So the problems with phone and Internet companies remain and many customers, both consumers and businesses, are forced to go through the time wasting dance of dealing with call centres, complex contracts and often finishing with consumer protection organisations like the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman or other state and Federal authorities.

However there are ways of reducing the problems and improving your chances of resolving issues quickly and on your terms;

Call them

The first step when you realise you have a problem is to call them. This is the quickest and easiest way to resolve things. If you can solve the problem at this point, you will save a lot of time, money and frustration.

When dealing with any call centre, there are a few important things to remember. You must remain polite, you must never make threats and you should note everything. A lot of this can be easier said than done.

Take notes

From the first call, you must take notes. Every time you speak to the call centre you must note the date and time you have made the call, the time they answered, the name of the person you spoke to, what you discussed, what was agreed (if anything) and the time the call ended. Any important discussions should be confirmed in writing.

Be Calm and Polite

At every stage of the process you must stay cool and polite. Do not lose your temper and do not abuse people. If you find the person you are dealing with is rude or provocative, or if find your blood pressure rising, then politely finish the conversation and call back later later.

Don’t Make Threats

Making threats will hurt your argument and draw the process out. Threatening people only makes their attitude harder or locks them into a position where they cannot negotiate with you.

Suing the ISP, complaining to the TIO, going to the media or calling consumer affairs are all options you have available should everything else fail but the aim is to settle the matter quickly and amicably without going to the time and expense of complaining to other authorities.

Do it in writing

It is important to confirm everything in writing. All too often people believe a matter has been settled only to find it is still a problem months or years later. Follow up any important conversations with a letter confirming the details including the time, date and person you discussed the issue with.

This is very important if you have reached an agreement settling a billing dispute. Confirm the details and the agreement in a letter sent by registered post to the organisation, any faxes or emails should be followed up by a letter.

Any emails about the matter should be printed out. Despite the claims of a paperless world, the only thing that really matters in disputes is what is written on paper.

Make sure you keep the full story in writing and this includes printing out emails and web pages.

Follow the ISPs complaint procedure

You may need to start a formal complaint within the organisation’s internal complaints or appeals procedures, the ISP or telco support line should be able to tell you how to do this. For smaller ISPs there may not be any formal procedures. A letter to the senior management may be necessary to get the right person to respond.

Contact the ISPs management

If the ISP doesn’t have a formal dispute procedure, or if it doesn’t respond, forward your complaints with copies of all the supporting documentation to the directors and Managing Director or CEO of the company concerned.

Generally directors and senior managers hate this and will make their displeasure known to the people responsible within their organisation. Again, be polite and respectful, make no threats and express your desire to settle the matter quickly and amicably.

Pay the bill

Some ISPs have a habit of calling in the debt collectors at an early stage. This complicates the matter and can also affect your credit record. Generally, it’s a good idea to pay any disputed amounts and then continue arguing about the facts of the dispute.

If you have direct debits with the ISP it may be necessary to stop these to avoid further disputed debits to your account. Do this in writing to the both the ISP and your bank with a cover letter informing them the direct debit has stopped. If you do this, make sure you are within your contract and you have a backup Internet service as the ISP will almost certainly stop your service immediately.

Complain to the TIO

If you are still unhappy, complain to the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman. They like you fill in their web complaint form but they will accept phone calls and written complaints.

Keep in mind they will not help you unless you’ve already tried to resolve the problem with the provider, they also won’t assist if you’ve complained to other organisations which is another reason not to make threats earlier in the process.

Further complaints

Despite all of the above, it’s still possible not to have resolved the problem with an ISP. The next step is to complain to your state consumer affairs department or the ACCC. You can also seek advice from your solicitor or local community legal centre.

The aim with any dispute is to settle it quickly and amicably. The important thing is to contact your provider quickly if you have a problem. Internet providers can be difficult to deal with but with a combination of patience, persistence, good record keeping and a cool temper, you can resolve most problems on your terms.

Why Internet filtering is bad for business

The proposals for an internet filter risk hurting innocent businesses by blocking websites.

This article orginally appeared in SmartCompany on the 14th November 2008

As reported in SmartCompany last week the Federal Government is proceeding with trials of internet filters that will restrict Australian access to the world wide web.

The aim of internet filtering is to block child abuse sites from Australian web surfers. While the idea is well meaning, the proposal will be an additional burden on business and won’t fix the problem.

There certainly is a problem – a study by the University of California, Berkeley, found around 1% of websites contain pornographic material. With over a billion websites indexed by Google, this translates to around 10 million sites containing things you’d rather not be seen in your workplace or by your kids.

To deal with this problem, most computer operating systems, browsers and search engines have built-in adult filters, and the Federal Government provides free software for home computer users on its NetAlert website.

The new filter will go a number of steps further, with it being compulsory for internet providers to deny access to around 10,000 sites, a number that falls dramatically short of the 10 million estimated pornographic sites and who knows how many terrorist, gambling and euthanasia sites that will probably be added to the list.

The task of deciding which of the billion websites to be blacked out will fall upon the Classification Board. In 2005-6, their 65 staff considered 9425 movies, video games and websites. To say the board will require a massive injection of resources is an understatement.

Under the current proposals, the banned list would be secret, and it’s uncertain if your business inadvertently found itself on the list how an appeal mechanism would work.

One serious risk for business is that many of the people who post illegal and inappropriate material do so on others’ computers to avoid detection. Hacked personal computers and corporate servers are frequently used by criminal gangs for exactly this purpose.

There is also the risk of sites being blocked for political reasons. Canberra has form on this, with the Federal Police using spurious copyright reasons to close down Richard Neville’s spoof John Howard site in 2006.

Recently, a staffer of the present Federal Government indirectly pressured a prominent critic of the filtering proposal through his industry association.

So there are real risks to your website if someone in your company does something illegal, messes up a security setting, or simply upsets the wrong person in a minister’s office.

However it’s not the censorship aspects of filtering that should be the main concern for businesses. The indirect consequences will be deep and far reaching for Australian commerce.

The immediate effect is filtering will increase internet costs. Given 98% of businesses use the internet, the increased ISP charges will be a tax on almost every Australian enterprise.

Business relies upon fast, reliable communications. Trials to date of the filtering systems show a decrease of speed between 2% and 84%. The filters will also add another level of complexity to the system, which in turn reduces reliability.

Those additional costs will become another barrier to entry. At the very time the Federal Government is struggling with competition in the communications industry, this proposal will eliminate many smaller operators and favour the larger incumbent providers.

Overall, this proposal will add costs and reduce the reliability of one of the modern economy’s critical business tools. The real tragedy is the filters simply won’t work.