PARLIAMENT | PARTY | GRASSROOTS

Red Alert

Archive for the ‘comms & IT’ Category

Amy Adams scorecard… part 2

Posted by Clare Curran on May 21st, 2012

It’s been almost six months since the election and Amy Adams being appointed Communications and IT Minister following on from Steven Joyce.

Yesterday I posted on Adams’ activities since being made Minister. Opening ultrafast broadband (UFB) cabinets around the country has been a major activity. It hasn’t yet translated into people connecting to broadband. This is likely to become a serious risk for the government next year when the rubber meets the road on just how many people are connected to fibre.

Enthusiastic PR launches are one thing. But when it comes to addressing the serious competition issues which will impact on the uptake of the UFB by consumers, arguably one of the biggest issues in her portfolio, Adams has taken curiously contradictory views.

Back in February, at a Commerce Commission-organised conference , an issues paper on demand for faster broadband, entitled “Content and Willingness to Pay.” said bundled pay TV services had been a key factor in speeding fast broadband uptake overseas.

Much of the conference focussed on the role played by  Sky TV which has made its MySky (and pending TVNZ joint venture) igloo boxes fibre-capable. But, as as has been reported, with its satellite business bringing in fat profits, there’s little motivation for it to provide content-over-fiber – at a price that would get households jumping to upgrade from copper. In the meantime, it was argued by many, Sky’s deals with internet service providers were a barrier to allowing other content providers fair access to the New Zealand consumer.

At that time Adams brushed aside concerns and  poured cold water on the prospect of regulation mimicking her predecessor Steven Joyce and saying:

While I will be closely monitoring issues that might limit uptake or the effective implementation of faster broadband, I expect industry to show leadership in resolving such issues.

Where that does not occur, I’m more than prepared to step in, but I’m also aware that regulation can be a blunt tool. It is my view that in most cases, industry-driven solutions are better for industry and customers, and are more enduring. One such example is content.

… I will signal now that I’m cautious about reaching for regulation as a solution at this stage when it is still too early, in my view, to anticipate how the competitive content market will look in a UFB environment.

There have also been calls for a single regulator for broadcasting and telecommunications to deal with issues of this kind, but I’m equally sceptical about the benefits of shaking up the regulatory structure to deal with an issue that has yet to form into a clear shape and which the markets may yet solve. The Prime Minister has used the expression of it being a solution in search of a problem and I share that view.

Last week the Commerce Commission gave the green light for Sky and TVNZ to progress the Igloo joint venture,  which has been described as Sky Light. But it also interestingly announced a surprise investigation into Sky TV’s content partnerships with internet service providers.

Cuirously Adams had this to say on Twitter:

ComCom inquiring into Sky’s control of content market. Always my view that was within their jurisdiction so good to see will be looked at.

I wasn’t the only one to scratch my head over this statement. Not only did it contradict her earlier statements which were that it was no business of the regulator to look into the content market. But she delivered the view on Twitter with no other accompanying statement. Changed her tune?

Tom Pullar Strecker writes in the DomPost about this today. It could be that the government has finally woken up to the fact it has been on the wrong side of this issue. It could be that Adams doesn’t understand the implications of what she said. Seems a bit confused at best.

It’s more likely she’s under instructions from Steven Joyce to change her tune because he sees the writing on the wall for regulatory change.

Tags: , , ,
Filed under: broadband, broadcasting, comms & IT
2 Comments

Amy Adams scorecard… part 1

Posted by Clare Curran on May 20th, 2012

It’s been almost six months since the election and Amy Adams being appointed Communications and IT Minister following on from Steven Joyce.

One of the first things she did in her portfolio was to refuse to release much of the Briefing to the Incoming Minister from her department, MED. The industry, the public and the opposition were refused access to the whole of her proposed actions and workplan for the first six months of this year. I took a complaint to the Ombudsman which, because of their enormous workload, has taken sometime to process.

I am hopeful we’ll soon get to see some of that workplan. In the meantime, here’s an appraisal.

Since 10 February 2012,  Amy Adams has issued 15 releases announcing the ultrafast broadband is coming to this region or that region; there will be exciting new broadband services in rural NZ, etc etc…

However, when I asked the Ministry before the Commerce Select Committee recently  just how many schools had been actually connected to ultrafast broadband, the answer was” around 34″. Amy Adams doesn’t seem to have been up to much except travelling around the country announcing that ultrafast broadband is coming.

When you look a little closer, it’s going to be quite a while before most places see anything change. Her announcements are merely PR exercises to make it appear that Steven Joyce’s great broadband scheme is on track. The big test will be how many people actually connect because they can a) afford it and b) it’s worth their while to make the change due to interesting new content and services.

Many schools I speak to are deeply sceptical because of the cost involved in making the transition which is largely being foisted onto their operating budgets and the resourcing of teachers and students through ICT training and access to digital devices.

In the last six months, Adams has made just three other announcements. One around spectrum, one on Mediaworks and one on the 111 service. It’s a bit underwhelming. So far, she appears to be the Minister for opening UFB cabinets.

Tags: ,
Filed under: broadband, broadcasting, comms & IT
5 Comments

The internet. The new frontier

Posted by Clare Curran on April 1st, 2012

Vanity Fair on who should/could control the internet and whether it’s even possible to. Affects all of us. Great graphic. Worth a read.

World War 3.0

TWO FUTURES? Privacy, piracy, security, sovereignty—the divisions on these issues reflect an even deeper split between those who want tight control and those who want unfettered freedom.

When the Internet was created, decades ago, one thing was inevitable: the war today over how (or whether) to control it, and who should have that power. Battle lines have been drawn between repressive regimes and Western democracies, corporations and customers, hackers and law enforcement. Looking toward a year-end negotiation in Dubai, where 193 nations will gather to revise a U.N. treaty concerning the Internet, Michael Joseph Gross lays out the stakes in a conflict that could split the virtual world as we know it.

Stephen Doyle
Read the rest here
Tags:
Filed under: #OpenLabourNZ, comms & IT, internet
8 Comments

Huawei. Australia takes action. New Zealand says no issue here. Why?

Posted by Clare Curran on March 30th, 2012

This morning it has been revealed in the Australia/NZ tech publication Comms Day that:

The Australian Government has begun secret talks with carriers on proposals to enhance the security of Australia’s telecom infrastructure which would, in part, mandate a penalty-backed requirement on operators to secure their networks against external threats and require risk assessments of key infrastructure upgrades, modifications and procurement decisions.

CommsDay also understands that the government is highly concerned by the offshore dissemination of Australian citizens’ private data and calling information for use by customer service centres in locations such as India, Sri Lanka and the Philippines. This could lead to a requirement for all data to be housed onshore. The recent discussions likely explain the timing of the revelation last Saturday that Huawei Technologies would be barred from supplying the National Broadband Network.

In recent weeks, representatives of major Australian operators were called to a confidential roundtable meeting with government officials from the Departments of Attorney-General and Broadband, Communications and Digital Economy to discuss the proposed measures. These include a notification process of infrastructure purchase decisions and upgrade or modifications to networks which may have national security implications. Infrastructure builds would potentially be subject to scrutiny or what is termed “risk assessment” under the arrangements with a key focus on details regarding suppliers. Existing infrastructure may also be subject to the reporting process.

The Prime Minister, the ICT Minister Amy Adams and her predecessor Steven Joyce are directly accountable for the actions and inaction of New Zealand to respond to warnings and advice from our security agencies.

The security and integrity of our telecommunications and new broadband infrastructure is a matter of utmost national importance. Cyber security is the new frontier and all countries take it extremely seriously. Despite the lip service paid to it by our government, it appears they have ignored advice and this may have the potential to undermine and compromise our infrastructure.

There are questions to be answered. John Key and Amy Adams must answer whether they received advice comparable to the advice given to Australia, when they received that advice and what actions they have taken since. Steven Joyce is also accountable in his former role as ICT Minister.

I am not party to the advice. But as the Opposition spokesperson for Communications and IT I am raising what I think are valid questions. Why has our approach to this issue been so markedly different to Australia’s? Surely alarm bells must be ringing in the government. What are they doing about it?

Yesterday I would have asked this question in the House to the Acting Prime Minister had Winston Peters not chosen to withdraw his question given John Key was not present.

Does he agree with The Australian newspaper’s Foreign editor Greg Sheridan who said today that if David Irvine, the head of ASIO, Australia’s intelligence service, and who is a former Australian ambassador to China,  had authorised a judgement to be cautious on Huawei, then it was certainly sound. And if so, did he receive the same advice and why hasn’t he acted on it?

It’s worth reading Greg Sheridan’s piece.

Paul Maley’s piece in The Australian is also worth reading . He revealed yesterday that:

BRITAIN’S intelligence services were forced to erect a costly, resource-intensive auditing structure to ensure Huawei did not steal secrets after the Chinese telco was allowed to take part in a British broadband project.

Given that New Zealand defence analyst Paul Buchanan has made some very strong statements in recent days about the importance of these issues the Prime Minister needs to answer this:

When did he become aware of what defence analyst Paul Buchanan has described as the “collective view of the security community”  in the US, Britain and Australia that Huawei is almost certainly a front for Chinese intelligence services, and  what actions has he taken as a result of hearing this view?

Today, Australian PM Julia Gillard is reported as sticking up for Australia’s national interest. I wonder what ours is doing?

“I’ve stood up for Australia’s interest. I know the opposition is standing up for the interests of a Chinese company,” she said while in Sydney for an announcement on the NBN.

“We’ve made the decision in the national interest. Any suggestions this is in breach of our trade obligations is simply untrue.

“We’ve got a strong, robust relationship with China. We are deeply engaged at every level, we have a strong economic relationship, we have increasing ties at every level — diplomatic ties, multilateral ties, and you will continue to see our relationship with China strengthen and grow.”

Tags: , , , ,
Filed under: broadband, comms & IT
10 Comments

Fingers in her ears

Posted by Clare Curran on March 29th, 2012

Is Amy Adams just doing what she’s told or does she have her fingers stuck firmly in her ears?

Perhaps she just genuinely doesn’t want to know the reasons for Australia refusing to allow Huawei to tender for its massive broadband supply contract because that would give her a massive headache and require her to do something about it.

The new ICT Minister  had this to say today:

The Minister responsible for overseeing the roll-out of ultra-fast broadband in New Zealand says it would not be appropriate for her to ask Australian authorities why they banned a Chinese company from working on an Australian project due to security fears, despite that company having won contracts to install broadband infrastructure here.

Read the rest here and watch how she says the same thing over and over again.

Tags: ,
Filed under: broadband, comms & IT
9 Comments

Does the Commerce Commission have what it takes?

Posted by Clare Curran on March 27th, 2012

Twelve days ago the Commerce Commission announced an investigation, under Section 47 of the Commerce Act, as to whether the new pay TV platform Igloo, a deal between TVNZ and Sky, breaches merger rules.

It was, on the face of it, a show of independence from our competition watchdog, which states its core purpose as achieving the best possible outcomes in competitive and regulated markets for the long-term benefit of New Zealanders. Not monopolies, or big business, but New Zealanders.

Labour encouraged the Commerce Commission to extend its investigation beyond section 47, which deals only with acquisitions. We believe it should encompass all relevant parts of the Commerce Act, including section 27, as to contracts and arrangements substantially lessening competition.

Particularly relevant is the market power that Sky already has as it also owns Prime, a free to air channel, something many countries do not allow to happen. And it’s not only the possible stranglehold that Sky has on content delivery via the traditional broadcast distribution networks, but also via the  internet. This isn’t under investigation. Yet. Some might argue it should be.

The Commission’s investigation is not public. But it’s significant. The big question is will it use the opportunity to have a good look at the state of competition in the broadcasting (or video content) sector. In particular, whether the New Zealand consumer is being best served by the dominance of one or two large players in how they can receive video content via their TV screens and how that dominance is likely to flow on when we all start to connect our televisions to the internet via ultrafast broadband.

In many other countries consumers are able to command choice of providers of overseas content. In New Zealand we have Sky.

In Australia there is currently fierce debate over the  rules that keep major sports events on free-to-air TV. Communications Minister Stephen Conroy is introducing a law to ensure the biggest games are accessible to all viewers. This is an extension to the existing anti-siphoning legislation in Australia. There is no such equivalent here and we are nowhere near even having that discussion.

We take what we’re given and if we complain we are told that there’s plenty of content on line. Consequently some consumers download their favourite shows and movies from the internet and watch on their computers, bypassing the bigger screen. Often illegally, as some shows aren’t available here via legitimate means. Most of our internet service providers now have deals with Sky.

There are two important issues at play. One is the issue of competition and encouraging other players in the market because that can only be good for consumers. The other is a cultural issue. That’s what anti-siphoning laws are really about – ensuring people get access to content that is cultural in nature and about who we are as NZers. That’s invariably sport.

There’s been a bit of discussion in the media in recent weeks about the alleged stanglehold that Sky has on our video content market. Chris Barton wrote in the NZ Herald that “suddenly internet providers all over New Zealand are providing unmetered plans for Sky’s video content. You can download unlimited data – as long as it’s Sky”.

Sarah Putt has written extensively in Computerworld on these issues with this piece and last week with this piece which took aim at the detail of the contracts between Sky and the ISPs.

The big question is whether Sky’s exclusive deals have the effect of preventing other contracts to provide online audiovisual content that compete against Sky. The Igloo deal with TVNZ is a means for the pay TV provider to capture another market at a lower entry price which can potentially be upgraded to a fuller service. Given the convergence of the internet and broadcasting environments this positions TVNZ and Sky to potentially dominate the market in coming years and could prevent other existing and new players providing competition.

The Igloo deal could just be the tip of the iceberg if it means that competitors like Netflix or Hulu can’t enter our market and do deals with internet service providers like Telecom, Vodafone, TelstraClear or Orcon because they’ve been locked out of the market by exclusive clauses in the contracts they have with Sky. Sky denies this.

A couple of year’s ago the dominance of Vodafone and Telecom in our telecommunications mobile phone market was challenged by new entrant 2 Degrees which invested millions, yet found itself squeezed out by the Auckland-centric monopoly of Vodafone and the Southern monopoly of Telecom. A broad alliance of consumer groups including students and farmers forced Commerce Commission intervention.

Labour consistently called for more fair competition in that market. Since then, the competition in the mobile phone market is  more robust, the consumers are getting a better deal and all three players are operating in the market.

Not so in the broadcasting space. We are about to lose TVNZ7, our only public broadcaster. TVNZ has become aggressively commercial and since its recent deals with Sky, has made a conscious decision to back away from calls for greater competition. Some might say they’ve been bought off.

Mediaworks (TV3), which is struggling, but still manages to produce quality content on a shoestring budget, is a voice for greater competition. Along with the ISPs and countless industry commentators. Recently some prestigious overseas commentators expressed surprise, even horror, at the skewed and monopolistic nature of our broadcasting, or content sector.

Last month Carleton University professor Dwayne Winseck told the Commerce Commission’s conference on the demand side of the fast fibre networks in Auckland that New Zealand was viewing its telco market through “rose tinted glasses” and needs to get real about data caps, peering issues and the dominance of Sky TV.

I don’t know about rose tinted glasses. I think it’s more that our head is buried firmly in the sand.

The recent articles in Computerworld including interviews with Sky CEO John Fellet pretty much confirm that the contracts between Sky and some telcos restrict net neutrality and arguably stifle competitors, but the Telecommunications Act might be read as excluding content considerations unless it’s video-on-demand. So the concern is to make sure that different parts of the Commerce Commission don’t expediently assume that the hot potato of audiovisual content markets is the other’s problem to deal with.

How the Commerce Commission treats this issue is important. There’s a lot of pressure from the big guns, particularly Sky, to keep our heads stuck in the sand. It seems the government concurs. The new ICT Minister is following Steven Joyce’s lead (instructions?) by insisting there’s no problem and we should continue to allow the skewed market to have its way.

They should be mindful of the metaphor of the boy who stuck his finger in the dyke.

In the meantime, many New Zealanders, frustrated by the lack of quality and up to date content through legal channels are increasingly turning to downloading via the internet.

Tags: , , , ,
Filed under: broadband, broadcasting, comms & IT
No Comments

Whose nightmare ?

Posted by Trevor Mallard on February 26th, 2012

I’ve had a bit to do with the Computer Clubhouse movement. Some seed funding and a building back in the day when I was Minister of Education.

Went to the second birthday of the Naenae Club (thanks Hutt City) and within a couple of minutes I was cloned by the kids.

Filed under: comms & IT, education
3 Comments

A slightly scary #techfact

Posted by Clare Curran on February 15th, 2012

The Number Of Mobile Devices Will Exceed World’s Population By 2012 (& Other Shocking Figures)

multiple-devices-2016

Despite its long and boring name, Cisco’s “Visual Networking Index (VNI) Global Mobile Data Traffic Forecast Update” is one of the more fascinating data-filled reports you’ll read this year. The report examines the dramatic growth we’re seeing in the mobile Internet space, including the massive demands for mobile data, the growth of mobile video, and the rise of the smartphone as new gateway to the web itself.

Globally, mobile data traffic grew 2.3-fold over 2011, more than doubling for the fourth year in a row. The traffic even grew faster than Cisco had earlier predicted: they had pegged growth at 131% year-over-year. In actuality, traffic grew by 133%.

In 2011, mobile data traffic was 8 times the size of the entire global Internet in 2000 (597 petabytes vs. 75 petabytes). That was only a dozen years ago, but it may as well have been eons.

Read the rest of the article here

It will be interesting to find out the actual deal that’s being done between the government and Google, which John Key has described as smart phones replacing the work currently done by our public servants.

These trends are pretty interesting and there’s no doubt that the handheld device will become the gadget of choice for most people as they become more affordable and getting access to data becomes easier.

Makes you wonder about the government’s big ultrafast broadband scheme, where Telecom (I mean Chorus) gets to dominate the roll out and Sky gets to dominate the content provision. Maybe Google will dominate the public sector, replacing Microsoft.

Maybe if the government cared to share their thinking with the public, and if the new communications Minister Amy Adams was willing to share her work programme over the coming months instead of keeping it all a big secret, we’d all be able to to discuss whether what’s being planned is a good idea. Cutting services and replacing people with smartphones seems to be the guts of it at the moment.

Maybe Google might care to share.

Tags:
Filed under: comms & IT
16 Comments

Is Amy Adams’ work programme a state secret?

Posted by Clare Curran on February 2nd, 2012

I’ve been looking forward to taking on Amy Adams, the new Minister of ICT. I’ve been impressed by her no- nonsense approach to things and her obvious intellect.

I was hoping for an opponent on the other side of the House who would grasp that technology had the capacity to transform our economy. I wasn’t holding out a lot of hope that she’d take seriously the importance of the social objectives of providing more access to technology, other than to pay lipservice, which is pretty much what Steven Joyce did.

But I was pretty appalled today to receive the incoming briefing document from the Ministry of Economic Development to the new Minsiter, which sets out all the major policy issues that lie ahead and provides a list of the pending decisions and actions over the next six months.

Great tracts of the former (policy issues) were removed from the document under the Official Information Act.

When it came to the decision and actions required over the next six months, there was a gaping two page  hole in the document.

VOTE COMMUNICATIONS: BRIEFING FOR THE INCOMING MINISTER 2011

MED1245438 Page 22 of 34

MED1284612

PENDING DECISIONS OR ACTIONS REQUIRED IN THE NEXT SIX MONTHS

[Withheld under sections 9(2)(f)(iv) and 9(2)(g)(i) of the Official Information Act 1982]

blank blank blank………

I’ve talked to a few industry people about this today. It’s unprecedented I think. Highly unusual and you’ve got to ask what on earth is so secretive about Minister Adams’ workplan and pending decisions that they all need to be kept secret?

Remember this is taxpayers money that funds Vote Communications. The signs are not good that the taxpayers will get the opportunity to scrutinise how their needs are best being met.

The intro by MED to the briefing reveals that the three big issues are these:

  • The roll-out of the Ultra Fast Broadband and Rural Broadband initiatives
  • The free-up of 4G wireless frequencies
  • Cross sector ICT initiatives in the public service

What can be so sensitive about these issues that the discussion and debate around decision-making can’t be held in public.

The previous Minister Steven Joyce maintained an arrogant and unresponsive approach to the public, and now it appears that Amy Adams may do the same.

When you make something secret you should have a good reason.  The public must be reassured that decisions being made by this Minister are not favouring commercial interests over the public good.

Hopefully an OIA will shine some sunlight on this.

Tags:
Filed under: #OpenLabourNZ, broadband, comms & IT
12 Comments

The sky is rising… at last some decent data emerging

Posted by Clare Curran on January 31st, 2012

Have been sent this link several times in the last few minutes.
Will post again on this issue as there’s quite a bit to discuss.

Has the internet decimated the entertainment industry or are we living in a new renaissance for both content creators and consumers…

Obama recently scuttled SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) in the US, but it’s likely another bill will emerge that gives the entertainment industry mroe control over internet distribution of material.

In NZ, the TPPA talks have highlighted increasing concern around our ability as a nation to control our own innovation and creative works and raised questions about our ability to implement our own copyright laws.

Today it appears that the traditional vested interests behind the entertainment industry have been fudging things a bit:

The Sky Is Rising!
For years now, the legacy entertainment industry has been predicting its own demise, claiming that the rise of technology, by enabling easy duplication and sharing — and thus copyright infringement — is destroying their bottom line. If left unchecked, they say, it is not only they that will suffer, but also the content creators, who will be deprived of a means to make a living. And, with artists lacking an incentive to create, no more art will be produced, starving our culture. While it seems obvious to many that this could not possibly be true, since creators and performers of artistic content existed long before the gatekeepers ever did, we’ve looked into the numbers to get an honest picture of the state of things. What we found is that not only is the sky not falling, as some would have us believe, but it appears that we’re living through an incredible period of abundance and opportunity, with more people producing more content and more money being made than ever before. As it turns out… The Sky Is Rising!

I haven’t read it fully yet, but  am relieved there is some decent data emerging at last to demonstrate the clear success of new business models which provide content via the internet quickly and at a low cost.

I hope NZ won’t get left behind

Tags: ,
Filed under: comms & IT, internet
3 Comments

A nation of makers #8

Posted by Clare Curran on January 24th, 2012

The ODT reports today yesterday:

Dunedin-based technology company PocketSmith is one of six finalists in the BNZ Start-Up Alley competition.

The competition is to help grow New Zealand’s web and technology start-up businesses.

Pocketsmith has a competitive personal finance management tool that allows users to track their expenses.

Pocketsmith is part of the University of Otago’s Centre for Innovation Distiller community.

I first visited Pocketsmith at the Distiller about two year’s ago. They were starting to make an impact then. The Distiller is a group of people (they call themselves technopreneurs) who work on their own projects, but work co-operatively and sometimes collaborate. They share space, ideas out of their creative enviroment comes great ideas. They call it social entrepeneurship.

NBR wrote about them mid last year;

PocketSmith co-founder Jason Leong told NBR his company’s success was all down to the power of open source development, the software-as-a-service (or SaaS) model for delivering your product over the internet, and the viral power of social networking and professional community sites.

Read more about how they have become a success story here.

Good on them.

Tags: ,
Filed under: comms & IT, economy, internet
2 Comments

Farrar on censorship

Posted by Clare Curran on January 18th, 2012

This morning, this is what David Farrar blogged on the US SOPA Bill which was blocked by Obama:

My views are simple. No Government should censor the Internet.

Earlier this morning he was on Radio NZ commenting (in his role as right wing commentator)  on the NZ on Air fiasco saying it is:

 ”perfectly reasonable for programmes that NZ on Air fund to have small scheduling restrictions during politically sensitive periods.

So it’s ok to censor the broadcaster and use the government agency that funds it to restrict New Zealander’s access to well produced evidence-based documentaries that raise legitimate concerns about important issues facing the nation during an election campaign.

But we mustn’t censor the internet. According to Farrar.

Inconsistent. I don’t agree with the scheduling of many programmes on television. I certainly don’t think that politicians should be interferring in, when and if material can be shown on television during an election campaign. If the issue was lack of balance, then there are places to complain. The BSA and the Electoral Commission. That’s what should have happened.

NZ on Air should never have got involved in the issue. That they did, appears to be because of inappropriate politically motivated pressure.

Suggestions that publicly funded programmes should not be aired during an election campaign reveal serious cracks in our democratic process and must be resisted.

Tags:
Filed under: broadcasting, comms & IT, internet
81 Comments

How important is IP to our economy

Posted by Clare Curran on January 17th, 2012

Last night a proposed law passing through the United States Congress was blocked by Obama.

California congressman Darrell Issa, an opponent of Sopa, the Stop Online Piracy Act, said he had been told by House majority leader Eric Cantor that there would be no vote unless there is consensus on the bill.

Congressional leaders are preparing to shelve controversial legislation aimed at tackling online piracy after president Barack Obama said he would not support it.

The tech community has fought hard to stop Sopa and a rival bill, Protect IP, also known as the Enforcing and Protecting American Rights Against Sites Intent on Theft and Exploitation Act, or the e-Parasite act. Websites including Reddit and Wikipedia are planning to “go dark” on Wednesday in protest against the legislation. Issa said he remained concerned about Protect IP, which will go before the Senate on 24 January.

But both bills now look severely damaged after the White House came out firmly against their biggest proposals at the weekend.

“Let us be clear – online piracy is a real problem that harms the American economy, threatens jobs for significant numbers of middle-class workers and hurts some of our nation’s most creative and innovative companies and entrepreneurs,” the White House said in its first official comment on Sopa and Protect IP.

However, the White House said it would not support legislation that “reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risks or undermines the dynamic, innovative global internet.”

Though it doesn’t get a lot of coverage in mainstream media, and it’s not a well understood issue, the battle between the entertainment industry and the technology sector has been raging for some time. (Rupert Murdoch has weighed into it in the last few days as well).  The biggest manifestation of that battle has been the row over online piracy and the punitive laws  that countries across the world are being pressured to comply with. Laws that include a provision to disconnect people from the internet from infringing copyright. Laws concerning patents are also under the spotlight.

In New Zealand, there’s a law waiting to complete its passage through parliament which excludes computer software from being patented. The Commerce Committee recommendation, which was accepted by the then Minister Simon Power, believed this would free up NZ software developers to be innovative without fear of being trampled on by big patent suits. Copyright was seen as the appropriate form of protection for software (which is built on code), along with music, books and other creative endeavours. But that law has sat on our books for more than 18 months.

There have been worrying signs for a while that New Zealand’s creative and innovation sector could get caught up in the international battle being waged.

In December, Paul Matthews, the head of the NZ Computer Society wrote a column about how how changes to NZ’s patent law could be caught up in the negotiations going on for the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA).

I’ve been watching the SOPA issue develop over the summer with concern. Others may have views about the implications for NZ and our part of the world.

Thankfully Obama has stepped into the fray. The issues are complex. Online piracy is an issue. But it’s mostly an issue because ordinary people can’t access the material they want easily through legal means. Sensible laws are required to protect creators and their intellectual property. Laws and policies are also required to help promote new business models that use the enormous power of the internet to give people more access to services and material and to help spark innovation.

What lies behind this is about who controls the internet. Thankfully the White House seems to understand that.

The two bills aim to tackle online piracy by preventing American search engines like Google and Yahoo from directing users to sites distributing stolen materials. The bills would also allow people and companies to sue if their copyright was being infringed.

The White House expressed concern about both these elements and about passing legislation that threatened the openness of the internet. In the online statement it said any new legislation must be “narrowly targeted”.

Vikram Kumar, the CEO of InternetNZ, a respected and thoughtful think tank, also wrote about the two US laws in yesterday’s NBR. He warned of threats to our national interest by:

laws written by powerful corporates and expeditiously passed into law word-for-word.

He was echoing the sentiments of internet guru Lawrence Lessig,  who spoke at last year’s Nethui in NZ about the corruption destroying the United States’ democratic foundations.

Chris Keall from NBR wrote about the streetfight battle in yesterday’s NBR.

These issues aren’t always easy to get your head around. But like most things they have some principles at their core. Ownership of intellectual property is one. Intellectual property  means exclusive rights to a variety of intangible assets, such as musical, literary, and artistic works; discoveries and inventions.

Yesterday I got a tip off that the mysterious visit to our shores by a high powered US delegation of congress and senate reps last week wasn’t just about a first-hand look at Christchurch’s earthquake damage. Talks were also being held about the TPPA. Who with? and what was the substance?

I think New Zealand needs to consider its own best interests and the importance of our intellectual property and innovation to our own economy. Quantifying that should be a priority. We can’t sell ourselves short.

We are a lot more than a high protein export nation.  I’d like more discussion about this issue across the parliament. The copyright debates we’ve had in the last few years are just a subset of a much bigger economic discussion. What is the value of our IP to our nation?

Tags:
Filed under: #ownourfuture, comms & IT, economy, internet
18 Comments

A nation of makers #7

Posted by Clare Curran on January 16th, 2012

Profiled in today’s Dom Post Nathan Li’s online application Educa, which allows parents to see and comment on their pre-schooler’s e-portfolio – an online record of their development, including photos and videos, created by teachers at her preschool.

Li developed Educa with input from early childhood teachers and parents, and launched the web application in April last year.

22 pre-schools using it so far. They are hoping to expand  into Australia.

Wish this was available when my kids were in pre-school.

We need more Nathan Li’s.

Tags: ,
Filed under: comms & IT, economy
7 Comments

A nation of makers #6

Posted by Clare Curran on January 5th, 2012

Dene Mackenzie writes in the ODT about Jade Software and their innovative JOOB product. The story is a few days old but worth reading. Think they deserve the award.

We need more companies like Jade. Hopefully who think it’s worth it to stay based in NZ.

A year ago, Jade Software was preparing to invade Silicon Valley and California. After battling through the Christchurch earthquakes, unprecedented travel and successfully establishing a beach-head in California, Jade Software has earned the title of the Otago Daily Times Southern Business of the Year.

Opening an office during the year in San Francisco paid dividends for Jade Software, but there is much more to the company than just establishing a beach-head in the United States.

The US was seen as the big unknown for the Christchurch-based company which has a significant operation in Dunedin.

The product at the forefront of the big push into the US was JOOB, with which jade had previously been successful when presenting at a huge technology fair in Berlin.

Tags:
Filed under: comms & IT, economy
11 Comments

Inside the sausage

Posted by Clare Curran on January 4th, 2012

I’ve had a bit of contact with Birgitta Jónsdóttir. Would like more. She’s an advocate for open government. And I agree with her view that it is essential to make” the process of lawmaking more transparent and accessible for everyone who cares to know or contribute”.

Birgitta is an advocate for more direct democracy and some of her views are quite radical. I think they’re worth thinking about and discussing. I think the way we practice politics needs to change. I’ve never made a secret of that. It’s threatening to politicians and the parliamentary structures. But while there’s a lot of good in our existing structures, and most MPs work damn hard and are committed to what they do, there’s also a lot of bullshit that goes on.

People know that. I agree that MPs need more direct accountability. The review of MMP will no doubt throw up a few ideas. Constitutional change is inevitable in New Zealand. It’s a matter of when.

Having a real debate about how we could improve our democracy for New Zealand’s sake is surely a good thing.

Here’s a start. Birgitta wrote this piece in The Guardian in November 2011

The Dutch minister of internal affairs said at a speech during free press day this year: “Law-making is like a sausage, no one really wants to know what is put in it.” He was referring to how expensive the Freedom of Information Act is, and was suggesting that journalists shouldn’t really be asking for so much governmental information. His words exposed one of the core problems in our democracies: too many people don’t care what goes into the sausage, not even the so-called law-makers, the parliamentarians.

If the 99% want to reclaim our power, our societies, we have to start somewhere. An important first step is to sever the ties between the corporations and the state by making the process of lawmaking more transparent and accessible for everyone who cares to know or contribute. We have to know what is in that law sausage; the monopoly of the corporate lobbyist has to end – especially when it comes to laws regulating banking and the internet.

The Icelandic nation only consists 311,000 souls, so we have a relatively small bureaucratic body and can move quicker then in most countries. Many have seen Iceland as the ideal country for experimentation for new solutions in an era of transformation. I agree.

Iceland’s experience is fairly extreme. But their response to crisis has some lessons for us all.

I like the analogy of the sausage. Especially given it’s summer and we’re all eating a few no doubt

Tags: , ,
Filed under: #OpenLabourNZ, comms & IT, democracy
15 Comments

Just do it

Posted by Clare Curran on December 27th, 2011

I meant to write about this a few days ago.

US comedian Louis CK (I hadn’t heard of him, but he seems pretty popular) decided to produce a good version of his latest live show and make it available online for $5.

Nek Minnit (well 12 days later) he made $1 million.

The Age reported today:

Comedian Louis CK has proved a point: People are willing to pay a reasonable amount of money for DRM-free content from a performer they love, even though it would be trivial for them to pirate the same content for free.

Twelve days ago, Louis CK decided to skip the distribution, DRM, ads and everything else that goes into marketing and sale of a video, and simply offer the video of his latest performance on his website for $US5.

It took four days for Louis to earn $US200,000, and another 8 days to earn a whopping $US1 million.

It  blows out the water the view that content has to be locked up with laws to enforce it because too many people will only steal it. In fact people will pay money to get access to new content. If the price is right and the product is what they want.

Louis CK posted a blog saying he would keep just $220,000 from his $1m.

He said:

So I’m breaking the million into four pieces.

the first 250k is going to pay back what the special cost to produce and the website to build.

The second 250k is going back to my staff and the people who work for me on the special and on my show. I’m giving them a big fat bonus.

The third 280k is going to a few different charities. They are listed below in case you’d like to donate to them also. Some of these i learned about through friends, some were recomended through twitter.

That leaves me with 220k for myself. Some of that will pay my rent and will care for my children. The rest I will do terrible, horrible things with and none of that is any of your business. In any case, to me, 220k is enough out of a million.

I had a quick look at Louis CK’s stuff. Here is is a clip on Youtube (not the $5 version). Pretty out there, but worth paying for. I think the business model is pretty obvious. It’s just a pity that he had to spend the money himself upfront to develop the tools to distribute his work.

Imagine if that technology was readily available to artists for a small fee. Imagine if the New Zealand tech industry was encouraged to go for it.

Another point to end on. Digital Rights Management (DRM) is the technology used by hardware manufacturers, publishers, copyright holders and individuals with the intent to limit the use of digital content and devices after sale.

Companies such as Amazon, AOL, Apple Inc., the BBC, Microsoft and Sony use digital rights management. In 1998 the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) was passed in the United States to impose criminal penalties on those who make available technologies whose primary purpose and function is to circumvent content protection technologies.[1] The use of digital rights management is controversial. Corporations claim that DRM is necessary to fight copyright infringement online and that it can help the copyright holder maintain artistic control[2] or ensure continued revenue streams.[3] Those opposed to DRM argue that there is no evidence that DRM helps prevent copyright infringement and that DRM helps big business stifle innovation and competition.[4] Proponents argue that digital locks should be considered necessary to prevent intellectual property from being stolen, just as physical locks are needed to prevent personal property from being stolen.

I thought it was interesting that I learnt about Louis CK’s online  business endeavours through twitter via the ABC’s managing director Mark Scott who tweeted:

“The comedian (is) providing lessons in the future of digital rights management”.

Prescience from the head of Australia’s public broadcaster. It would be good to have a bit more debate about it here.

Filed under: Arts and Culture, broadcasting, comms & IT, digital, economy
16 Comments

Talking about open govt

Posted by Clare Curran on November 18th, 2011

Grant and I had a few things to say outside parliament today as we announced the release of Labour’s Open Government policy.

Not a flash PR video. Just a couple of real pollies telling you how we want things to be. The Labour way.

Tags:
Filed under: #OpenLabourNZ, #ownourfuture, comms & IT, democracy
7 Comments

It’s time to be more open

Posted by Clare Curran on November 18th, 2011

It’s no secret that many New Zealanders are cynical about politics and politicians.

For three years, Labour has done its best to do things differently and try different ways to bring politics and people closer together.

Red Alert is an example of that. Phil Goff took his caucus out to regional New Zealand to reconnect with New Zealanders. Most Labour MPs regularly use social media tools to build stronger relationships with people.

Today, Labour released its first Open Government policy. It’s a first for New Zealand because it was developed out of an open policy making process involving New Zealanders.

In 2010 Labour trialled OpenLabourNZ, a new way of Labour engaging with communities to seek their input by using new technologies and methods to increase participation drawing on similar processes used in Australia, the US and the UK. This policy is the distilled outcome of OpenLabourNZ.

It commits to producing a comprehensive “Open Government Charter”, based on a set of principles developed by Labour MPs in consultation with members of the public. It’s an important start.

People deserve to know the democratic process around parliamentary law making is sound. Hence, transparency of political offices is the core principle in the Open Government policy.

We believe New Zealanders understand a balance must be struck between transparency and accountability, on the one hand, and the need for the provision of “free and frank advice” to guide effective government and to protect the security and commercially sensitive aspects of advice.

But increasing people?s trust in the political process can only be guaranteed by ensuring a more open government. We believe that wherever possible; open is best.

Today I released our Open Government Policy in Wellington with my colleague Grant Robertson, who has supported me and helped with its development. Many of my colleagues have been actively involved in taking this policy through to fruition today. I thank them. It’s a big step for Labour.

It’s the start of a change in the way government and politics is conducted. I think for the better.

Tags:
Filed under: #OpenLabourNZ, #ownourfuture, comms & IT, democracy
4 Comments

If we want to be a digital nation, we need digital Kiwis

Posted by Clare Curran on November 11th, 2011

Kids who don’t have access to computers at home and not much access at school will benefit from Labour’s education policy released yesterday by Phil Goff and Sue Moroney.

If we want a nation of digital Kiwis who make NZ a digital nation with decent paying jobs in the tech world, then all of us need access to the technology. It’s that simple.

New Zealand?s economic future lies in weightless exports. The future of the nation relies on Kiwi children becoming digital Kiwis. We can’t have kids leaving school without good digitial skills becasue they come from a  poor background where there’s no computer at home and no money to connect to the internet. Or where their school can’t afford to buy computers or mobile devices for the kids.

Access to technology can help close the gap between rich and poor. The country must not have a digital divide. Labour believes some of our greatest innovation can come out of our most deprived areas. The new broadband network must not be a tool to entrench the divide between the haves and the have nots.

Computers in Homes (2020 Communications Trust) estimates that there are 100,000 families with dependent children who do not have access to a computer at home. Around 20% of New Zealand households currently do not have a computer. They are more likely to be one-parent households and from Maori and Pasifika backgrounds where children are unable to participate equitably in digital learning and using technology.

While programs such as Computers in Homes, Computer Clubhouse and Aotearoa People?s Network do great work in increasing digital literacy, their success is sporadic because of limited funding. Labour will boost that funding.

And to increase the connectedness and literacy for many New Zealand households is to leverage the education system by ensuring every child has access to a device. Labour’s education policy announced this:
 

Labour will invest $75 million over four years in “e-learning? for low-decile schools, with priority going to schools with year 7 -13 students and the capability to deliver an effective programme . This includes Government funding for students to have individual use of a mobile device.

$19 million per year is sufficient funding to ensure 31,000 year 7 to 13 students have individual use of a mobile device. When Labour takes office we will determine which schools are best placed to benefit from e-learning based on a number of factors. Priority will be given to low-decile schools with high levels of disengagement and/or low levels of academic achievement, as well as those schools that have staff prepared to lead an effective e-learning programme.

I visited the Enderley Computer Clubhouse in Hamilton yesterday. I saw kids from poor families who turn up every day after school because they can use hi tech equipment to create online games and make their own music clips and other things. These are kids with talent, who would have no way to access this hi tech equipment and might otherwise be roaming the streets. I can see a future for them. That could benefit the nation.

New Zealand needs more young innovators. We need the pathways for them to get from school into further learning and jobs that pay well. Let’s make the most of our kids. All of them.

Tags: , ,
Filed under: #OpenLabourNZ, #ownourfuture, comms & IT, digital, education
29 Comments

« Older Entries