Is there anyone outside the UK government who thinks its scheme to impose identity cards and other surveillance measures on an -- at best -- reluctant public is anything but an expensive, pointless, anti-democratic folly?
Some 20 percent of the world’s CCTV cameras are engaged in monitoring the streets of densely populated Britain. A fleet of cameras already monitors Britain’s roads and is linked to a number plate database, which allows police to monitor people as they drive around the country. A database containing details of the DNA of both offenders and even non-offenders is already being maintained by Britain’s police forces. And a hugely expensive ID card scheme is currently being hatched which will see every UK citizen issued with a card that will provide biometric identification.
The argument runs that these systems help protect citizens -- sorry, I mean ‘subjects’, as people living in the UK are subjects of the unelected monarch rather than citizens. It helps identify those who don’t pay car insurance, people who kidnap children and burgle houses, say the proponents of the increasing hordes of publicly funded watchers around the country, it is argued.
Even if it’s all true -- and there are grounds for doubt -- there has to be a balance between that and the right of privacy.
Certainly the UK’s (unelected) House of Lords (HoL) seems to be of the opinion that the UK is sleepwalking into a surveillance society. The latest event in this long-running story saw the HoL’s Constitution Committee warn that ‘increasing use of surveillance by the government and private companies is a serious threat to freedoms and constitutional rights’, according to this news story.
The committee said: "The expansion in the use of surveillance represents one of the most significant changes in the life of the nation since the end of the Second World War. Mass surveillance has the potential to erode privacy. As privacy is an essential pre-requisite to the exercise of individual freedom, its erosion weakens the constitutional foundations on which democracy and good governance have traditionally been based in this country."
(A sideline to this story is that that a number of the Lords were recently caught accepting money in return for influencing legislation, so there might be some self-serving going on here. Back to the main story.)
And, in December 2008, the retention of DNA belonging to innocent people was ruled illegal by the European Court of Human Rights, which could mean that the half-million-plus DNA profiles in the database may have to be deleted.
In response, the UK Home Secretary said that the government would “carefully consider the judgement”. She went on to defend the government’s use of that information purely in operational terms: it seems that any form of higher thinking, such as whether it’s democratic to retain the details of innocent people, simply doesn’t enter the equation. It’s reminiscent of the days when environmental issues were not admissible as an argument against planning permission decision for large civil infrastructure projects, such as new motorways.
Meanwhile, the HoL committee said that it was time for a review of the increasing range of measures that the UK government is accumulating to watch the people who pay for it all, and whom the government is allegedly there to represent.
The committee also questioned how effective CCTV is at crime prevention. Hardly surprising when the government’s own research into the effectiveness of CCTV found that street lighting is up to seven times more effective in preventing crime: better street lighting cut crime by 30 per cent, it found.
One of the main worries of campaigners about the rise and rise of biometric data acquisition is that such data are non-refutable. Once they’ve been compromised because the database has been breached, the individual in question has zero recourse. They cannot change their DNA, fingerprints or iris images.
Even if the database remain secure -- and the cavalier manner in which the UK’s civil servants have developed a tendency to leave it lying around on public transport in the form of laptops and memory sticks doesn’t inspire confidence in this regard -- the issue remains about who has access to the data, for how long, and what they do with it. None of these issues has been subject to a public debate.
As one of the government’s own information commissioners said recently: “More of our personal details are kept and for increasingly longer periods of time. They can become out of date or fall into the wrong hands and be used in ways to the detriment of individuals."
Yet the chances of the UK government changing its policies in the light of overwhelming evidence -- as US President Obama has promised to do -- are slim, judging by past experience. It remains only to continue to campaign for change.
9 February 2009
14 January 2009
Social networking: is it really a business tool?
Is social networking all it's cracked up to be? If you've ever wondered what Web 2.0 was all about and why, then you're not alone. And in particular, you might wonder just what it can offer your business.
The thought came to me as I wondered -- not for the first time -- where people find the time to report on the minutiae of their lives. And who else might be interested. I'm talking mainly of course about those living relatively uneventful lives, as opposed to those being elected president of the richest country on earth, for example.
Advocates of the likes of MySpace and Twitter argue that if you're not involved in social networking, then you're in decline.
It's a new communications tool and, if you don't make use of it, your employees will anyway, so you'd better get in there. And if your company doesn't, your competitors will, and you'll be left behind, looking like a dinosaur.
It's that old "keep up with the Jones's" routine.
One argument you hear a lot is that we're all connected now, that the world is getting smaller and it's all thanks to the technology. Because you can connect to everyone and anyone, therefore you should.
Yet there are plenty of reasons why, even as an individual, you should be careful about how you approach social networking. You'll have heard many of them before but the central one bears repeating: if a snippet of information isn't something you'd want seen or heard by any future (or present) employer, spouse or children, then you probably shouldn't put it in a public space.
It's also true that any information you put out there is available for those with malicious intent to use. Piece by piece, with all the snippets you put out on the web, others can build up an image of you and your life.
Your pet's name, your mother's maiden name, your place of birth -- none of them are that critical themselves but your bank asks you those questions and the answers shouldn't be easily accessible. Again, that's not to say that you shouldn't put information out there -- just that you need to be aware that the Internet is a very public space.
What's more, just because we call it social networking doesn’t actually mean it's all that social. As one long-term professional Internet user put it, the problem with blogs and comments is that one person sets the agenda. And the problem with Twitter is that it's real-time but it's not conversational and the same is true of Facebook and forums. While the problem with instant messaging is it's one-on-one.
So, what about the business issues? Social networking? It's just communications and you're a business, so you want to communicate, right?
Wrong. A business wants to communicate particular information to particular people at a particular time, a time it chooses -- not everything to everyone. Allowing your employees to go online and broadcast your logo and -- who knows -- confidential company information is a recipe for disaster. Even if that doesn't happen, who's to say where your company name and brand could end up?
If you doubt it, look at the scepticism being displayed by the advertising industry about social networking. As one report put it: "traditional advertisers are especially cautious when it comes to the idea that their brand logo might appear next to an image of a marijuana leaf posted by a 16-year-old. Never mind that Facebook's audience rivals that of some television networks."
The other problem is that you don't know how long many of these companies are going to be in business. Over a year ago, one report found that user engagement -- aka user boredom -- was starting to make manifest itself on social networking sites. As the story put it: "When Friends Reunited enjoyed its "phenomenal" growth period people would join, log in maybe a dozen times, catch up with those class mates they wanted to, then forget about it. On Facebook behaviour seems much the same."
For a business, that's not good enough, if you're going to make serious use of such tools, then you have to persist -- or follow users as they move on to the next slightly more interesting site. And then you have to start all over again. Quite an effort for questionable returns.
Gainsaying the phenomenon completely is like pushing water uphill. And of course it all depends what you want to achieve. Just go into it with your eyes wide open and your bullsh*t detectors on full alert.
The thought came to me as I wondered -- not for the first time -- where people find the time to report on the minutiae of their lives. And who else might be interested. I'm talking mainly of course about those living relatively uneventful lives, as opposed to those being elected president of the richest country on earth, for example.
Advocates of the likes of MySpace and Twitter argue that if you're not involved in social networking, then you're in decline.
It's a new communications tool and, if you don't make use of it, your employees will anyway, so you'd better get in there. And if your company doesn't, your competitors will, and you'll be left behind, looking like a dinosaur.
It's that old "keep up with the Jones's" routine.
One argument you hear a lot is that we're all connected now, that the world is getting smaller and it's all thanks to the technology. Because you can connect to everyone and anyone, therefore you should.
Yet there are plenty of reasons why, even as an individual, you should be careful about how you approach social networking. You'll have heard many of them before but the central one bears repeating: if a snippet of information isn't something you'd want seen or heard by any future (or present) employer, spouse or children, then you probably shouldn't put it in a public space.
It's also true that any information you put out there is available for those with malicious intent to use. Piece by piece, with all the snippets you put out on the web, others can build up an image of you and your life.
Your pet's name, your mother's maiden name, your place of birth -- none of them are that critical themselves but your bank asks you those questions and the answers shouldn't be easily accessible. Again, that's not to say that you shouldn't put information out there -- just that you need to be aware that the Internet is a very public space.
What's more, just because we call it social networking doesn’t actually mean it's all that social. As one long-term professional Internet user put it, the problem with blogs and comments is that one person sets the agenda. And the problem with Twitter is that it's real-time but it's not conversational and the same is true of Facebook and forums. While the problem with instant messaging is it's one-on-one.
So, what about the business issues? Social networking? It's just communications and you're a business, so you want to communicate, right?
Wrong. A business wants to communicate particular information to particular people at a particular time, a time it chooses -- not everything to everyone. Allowing your employees to go online and broadcast your logo and -- who knows -- confidential company information is a recipe for disaster. Even if that doesn't happen, who's to say where your company name and brand could end up?
If you doubt it, look at the scepticism being displayed by the advertising industry about social networking. As one report put it: "traditional advertisers are especially cautious when it comes to the idea that their brand logo might appear next to an image of a marijuana leaf posted by a 16-year-old. Never mind that Facebook's audience rivals that of some television networks."
The other problem is that you don't know how long many of these companies are going to be in business. Over a year ago, one report found that user engagement -- aka user boredom -- was starting to make manifest itself on social networking sites. As the story put it: "When Friends Reunited enjoyed its "phenomenal" growth period people would join, log in maybe a dozen times, catch up with those class mates they wanted to, then forget about it. On Facebook behaviour seems much the same."
For a business, that's not good enough, if you're going to make serious use of such tools, then you have to persist -- or follow users as they move on to the next slightly more interesting site. And then you have to start all over again. Quite an effort for questionable returns.
Gainsaying the phenomenon completely is like pushing water uphill. And of course it all depends what you want to achieve. Just go into it with your eyes wide open and your bullsh*t detectors on full alert.
8 January 2009
Recession: time to slow down and think?
For just much longer does the consumer -- do I mean us? I surely do -- have to put up with stuff that just doesn’t work properly? I contend that the Big Slowdown is an opportunity for the whole consumer product machine to rethink its strategy and realise that now is the time to start turning out quality products that work properly.
It’s become a mantra of modern life that electronics will kind of work most of the time but will more often repay several hours spent tweaking and fiddling to get it just so.
How much time do you need to spend getting the TV to display an image in the right aspect ratio? Why do digital radios sound worse than their analogue counterparts and still require extensive tweaking to get them to do what it says on the tin? And how come my mobile phone will output sound from a phone call via the phone speaker, but audio comes from a second speaker on the back of the device when I call using Skype?
This applies four-fold when you’re talking about persuading several items to inter-communicate. Getting stuff to connect is far too difficult.
People spend hours trying to get stuff to work properly and, assuming it’s not broken in some way, then either give up or, if they’re lucky, they contact either a child or a bloke who knows a bit about IT somewhere in their circle of friends and acquaintances who knows exactly which arcane sequence of buttons to press in order for stuff to work properly.
DVD players can now sport up to six different sets of video outputs, TVs have a similar range of sockets round the back -- and which one you use is a mystery to most -- and anecdotal evidence universally produces non-verifiable evidence that most people have no idea how to use much past the most basic features of their whizz-bang super-multi-function mobile phones. Any why do broadband and phone lines go down on a regular basis?
And yet much of the equipment used by our parents in the 1960s or 70s soldiered on for years or even decades. Who changed their TV set more than once every 10 years? Watches were once or twice in a lifetime purchases for most people. And you bought a car, looked after it and kept it till it fell apart.
Which brings me to the automobile which, in contrast to the rest of the stuff most people spend their hard-earned disposable on, has transformed itself. Cars rarely break down any more. They diagnose themselves to let you know when the biennial service is due, and apart from checking the tyres every now and again, that’s the most attention most people give or even need to give their cars. Manufacturers have designed them that way because they know that’s how their products will be treated.
The cost of this has been a serious lag between the level of user-accessible technology in cars and that which most people are used to or which is at least available in the shops. Car makers take a conservative approach to introducing new technology because it has to work, it has to last, and has to inter-operate without user intervention. And this approach works: there’s a lesson to be learnt.
I would argue that technology makers need to rethink and that a global recession is an ideal opportunity to do so. Rather than taking the line that more and more new technology needs to be shoved at people in an increasingly desperate effort to get their attention and cash when they have less and less money to spend -- or are at least much less inclined to spend what they have -- vendors should start working on and promoting stuff that works properly and that makes consumers’ lives easier.
It would be a great USP for the company which decides to opt out of the helter-skelter race of volume before quality. And a great USP is worth its weight in gold right now...
It’s become a mantra of modern life that electronics will kind of work most of the time but will more often repay several hours spent tweaking and fiddling to get it just so.
How much time do you need to spend getting the TV to display an image in the right aspect ratio? Why do digital radios sound worse than their analogue counterparts and still require extensive tweaking to get them to do what it says on the tin? And how come my mobile phone will output sound from a phone call via the phone speaker, but audio comes from a second speaker on the back of the device when I call using Skype?
This applies four-fold when you’re talking about persuading several items to inter-communicate. Getting stuff to connect is far too difficult.
People spend hours trying to get stuff to work properly and, assuming it’s not broken in some way, then either give up or, if they’re lucky, they contact either a child or a bloke who knows a bit about IT somewhere in their circle of friends and acquaintances who knows exactly which arcane sequence of buttons to press in order for stuff to work properly.
DVD players can now sport up to six different sets of video outputs, TVs have a similar range of sockets round the back -- and which one you use is a mystery to most -- and anecdotal evidence universally produces non-verifiable evidence that most people have no idea how to use much past the most basic features of their whizz-bang super-multi-function mobile phones. Any why do broadband and phone lines go down on a regular basis?
And yet much of the equipment used by our parents in the 1960s or 70s soldiered on for years or even decades. Who changed their TV set more than once every 10 years? Watches were once or twice in a lifetime purchases for most people. And you bought a car, looked after it and kept it till it fell apart.
Which brings me to the automobile which, in contrast to the rest of the stuff most people spend their hard-earned disposable on, has transformed itself. Cars rarely break down any more. They diagnose themselves to let you know when the biennial service is due, and apart from checking the tyres every now and again, that’s the most attention most people give or even need to give their cars. Manufacturers have designed them that way because they know that’s how their products will be treated.
The cost of this has been a serious lag between the level of user-accessible technology in cars and that which most people are used to or which is at least available in the shops. Car makers take a conservative approach to introducing new technology because it has to work, it has to last, and has to inter-operate without user intervention. And this approach works: there’s a lesson to be learnt.
I would argue that technology makers need to rethink and that a global recession is an ideal opportunity to do so. Rather than taking the line that more and more new technology needs to be shoved at people in an increasingly desperate effort to get their attention and cash when they have less and less money to spend -- or are at least much less inclined to spend what they have -- vendors should start working on and promoting stuff that works properly and that makes consumers’ lives easier.
It would be a great USP for the company which decides to opt out of the helter-skelter race of volume before quality. And a great USP is worth its weight in gold right now...
23 December 2008
Looking to the future on NTV
It's traditional at this end of the year to send out seasonal greetings -- and NTV's not about to break that tradition. So, as the sun sets on (almost) the shortest day of the year, let me wish you the very best for the coming year -- and even if things might be quite as good as we'd all hope, I fervently hope you have a great holiday over the coming few days.
And it's about the future that I'd like briefly to grab your attention. You may have noticed that we've not uploaded much content onto NTV over the last few weeks. That's because we're storing it up for a big push in the new year, as 2009 will see us producing more content than ever. We've streamlined our processes and plan to bring even more exciting content than ever.
Let me be specific. Coming up we have a wide-ranging interview with Art Coviello, president of one of the world's most innovative security companies, RSA Security, in which he talks about the future of security, the industry and his company.
While we're talking about CxOs, we'll also be publishing a fascinating interview with Rob Clyde, who's in charge of technology at Symantec -- you'll have heard of them. You'll find that and the Coviello interview in our CxO Perspectives Channel.
Additionally, we've interviewed a leading industry analyst, Michael Howard of Infonetics Research, who provides his views on the recession, how long it's likely to last and what it means for the IT industry. Check out our Analyst Outlook section for that.
And perhaps best of all, we went to Silicon Valley especially to ask the money men (and they were almost all men) where the money's going to come from now, what it'll be spent on and when it'll run out. You'll find their views along with those of a host of hopeful entrepreneurs in our Silicon Valley Recession Special.
All of this will be published in the next month, along with our regular monthly documentary, which focuses on IMS and asks where this much-vaunted but undelivered multimedia-enabling technology is -- it's been promised since 2002 -- and whether it matters any more.
You'll also find a new feature called Editor's View, in which I provide my view on a topic of the day. Comments always welcomed of course.
That's it for 2008 -- some say good riddance but it's been interesting if nothing else and I've learnt a lot. Hope you have too.
And it's about the future that I'd like briefly to grab your attention. You may have noticed that we've not uploaded much content onto NTV over the last few weeks. That's because we're storing it up for a big push in the new year, as 2009 will see us producing more content than ever. We've streamlined our processes and plan to bring even more exciting content than ever.
Let me be specific. Coming up we have a wide-ranging interview with Art Coviello, president of one of the world's most innovative security companies, RSA Security, in which he talks about the future of security, the industry and his company.
While we're talking about CxOs, we'll also be publishing a fascinating interview with Rob Clyde, who's in charge of technology at Symantec -- you'll have heard of them. You'll find that and the Coviello interview in our CxO Perspectives Channel.
Additionally, we've interviewed a leading industry analyst, Michael Howard of Infonetics Research, who provides his views on the recession, how long it's likely to last and what it means for the IT industry. Check out our Analyst Outlook section for that.
And perhaps best of all, we went to Silicon Valley especially to ask the money men (and they were almost all men) where the money's going to come from now, what it'll be spent on and when it'll run out. You'll find their views along with those of a host of hopeful entrepreneurs in our Silicon Valley Recession Special.
All of this will be published in the next month, along with our regular monthly documentary, which focuses on IMS and asks where this much-vaunted but undelivered multimedia-enabling technology is -- it's been promised since 2002 -- and whether it matters any more.
You'll also find a new feature called Editor's View, in which I provide my view on a topic of the day. Comments always welcomed of course.
That's it for 2008 -- some say good riddance but it's been interesting if nothing else and I've learnt a lot. Hope you have too.
3 December 2008
Recession? What recession? Just follow the money!
As the US car giants beg the US taxpayer for a loan, and BA and Quantas float the idea of a merger, have you ever wondered what impact the recession is having on the technology sector?
This sector is in deep introspective mode right now, as the economists report that the world's major economies -- from the US, across Europe and Asia, plus Russia and China -- are either in or are about to tip into recession. But signs are that there remains a good deal of optimism here in Silicon Valley.
Back in March 2000, NetEvents made a video in which I stood at the top of Silicon Valley's Sand Hill Road -- which contains a high concentration of venture capitalists -- and asked how much longer the bubble could last. This was just before the bubble burst and the silly money evaporated.
So where the money comes from and where it goes are key indicators of the health of the IT industry. This fact drove me to Silicon Valley this week, where the second AlwaysOn conference is being held.
The event, held in a swanky hotel within sight of the Pacific Ocean at Half Moon Bay, is all about bringing together technology entrepreneurs and investors, and debating the issues of joint concern.
Oh yes, and there's tons of networking going on too. Everyone I spoke to said that this was a great opportunity to make deals, either finding start-ups for investment, or finding cash for new commercial ideas.
While there's a considerable amount of scepticism among investors at the current glut of variations on a small number of themes -- essentially Web 2.0, mainly in the form of web messaging and social networking, plus online advertising -- the overall mood remains positive. And there is money around.
I write this from a conference session entitled: 'Is Angel and early stage investing dead?'. The panel of investors onstage are discussing how they make investment decisions.
There's not as much cash available for investment as there was -- long-term Silicon Valley angel investor Ron Conway, who says he's has money in over 200 companies, reckons that "anyone raising capital needs at least 18 months of investment cash" and that, in his opinion, a company with less than a year's cash in the bank is in intensive care.
These numbers are far more conservative than they would have been a year ago, the panel agreed. Investors are more cautious than they were.
However, Conway also said: "The quantity and quality of my deal-flow haven't fallen. Unlike the technology bubble....my pace of investment is staying the same." Others on the panel were in broad agreement, along with a need for start-ups today to be more focused on customers rather than technology, which has often previously been the case. Howard Hartenbaum from August Capital said: "My attention is now directed towards the companies who already have customers." I heard this kind of comment from several people in the investment community during my conversations with conference attendees.
But what's different between this recession and the post-technology bubble period is that the epicentre is not the IT sector but Wall Street, as one panellist remarked. In other words, the money men reckon that the technology sector has better chance of coming through the recession.
As a result, people are looking ahead to the good times but they also realise that investments will go elsewhere such as Russia, China and India.
And what's hot, according to the investors? The answer is green tech, life sciences, mobile technology, digital entertainment, search through crowd-sourcing -- and cloud computing.
Remember, investments can go down as well as up. But then, you probably know that....
This sector is in deep introspective mode right now, as the economists report that the world's major economies -- from the US, across Europe and Asia, plus Russia and China -- are either in or are about to tip into recession. But signs are that there remains a good deal of optimism here in Silicon Valley.
Back in March 2000, NetEvents made a video in which I stood at the top of Silicon Valley's Sand Hill Road -- which contains a high concentration of venture capitalists -- and asked how much longer the bubble could last. This was just before the bubble burst and the silly money evaporated.
So where the money comes from and where it goes are key indicators of the health of the IT industry. This fact drove me to Silicon Valley this week, where the second AlwaysOn conference is being held.
The event, held in a swanky hotel within sight of the Pacific Ocean at Half Moon Bay, is all about bringing together technology entrepreneurs and investors, and debating the issues of joint concern.
Oh yes, and there's tons of networking going on too. Everyone I spoke to said that this was a great opportunity to make deals, either finding start-ups for investment, or finding cash for new commercial ideas.
While there's a considerable amount of scepticism among investors at the current glut of variations on a small number of themes -- essentially Web 2.0, mainly in the form of web messaging and social networking, plus online advertising -- the overall mood remains positive. And there is money around.
I write this from a conference session entitled: 'Is Angel and early stage investing dead?'. The panel of investors onstage are discussing how they make investment decisions.
There's not as much cash available for investment as there was -- long-term Silicon Valley angel investor Ron Conway, who says he's has money in over 200 companies, reckons that "anyone raising capital needs at least 18 months of investment cash" and that, in his opinion, a company with less than a year's cash in the bank is in intensive care.
These numbers are far more conservative than they would have been a year ago, the panel agreed. Investors are more cautious than they were.
However, Conway also said: "The quantity and quality of my deal-flow haven't fallen. Unlike the technology bubble....my pace of investment is staying the same." Others on the panel were in broad agreement, along with a need for start-ups today to be more focused on customers rather than technology, which has often previously been the case. Howard Hartenbaum from August Capital said: "My attention is now directed towards the companies who already have customers." I heard this kind of comment from several people in the investment community during my conversations with conference attendees.
But what's different between this recession and the post-technology bubble period is that the epicentre is not the IT sector but Wall Street, as one panellist remarked. In other words, the money men reckon that the technology sector has better chance of coming through the recession.
As a result, people are looking ahead to the good times but they also realise that investments will go elsewhere such as Russia, China and India.
And what's hot, according to the investors? The answer is green tech, life sciences, mobile technology, digital entertainment, search through crowd-sourcing -- and cloud computing.
Remember, investments can go down as well as up. But then, you probably know that....
17 November 2008
VoIP -- is it ready for the small-time?
You don't get something for nothing. If it's cheap, there's always a trade-off. You get what you pay for.
All these familiar clichés are effectively saying the same thing, and it's hard to think of a market where this doesn't hold true. Exceptions, where they exist, usually turn out to be loss-leaders. And it's true in the VoIP market too -- and in a week where voice-grade equipment vendors such as Nortel are cutting back heavily as sales plummet, can VoIP rise to the challenge of filling the gap between expectations and reality?
You might think that it's a bit late in the day for this discussion and to an extent I'd agree. After all, the industry hype about 'the year of VoIP' happened a three or four years back. Now the dust has settled and VoIP has made considerable inroads into businesses large and small.
But the voice market -- or rather, the way that people use voice and the expectations they have of it -- is quite different to those in other parts of the IT forest. For example, connectivity does fail from time to time, due to external influences -- such as extreme bad weather, an over-enthusiastic trench-digging JCB or finger trouble at the local exchange.
We're used to that now. We don't like it, we get annoyed if not downright angry that we cant get our emails, but we accept that systems do fail. The same goes for almost all IT systems. We've been trained to accept that this new -- now not-so-new -- technology is not fail-proof.
VoIP's unique features
When it comes to VoIP, though, things are different. The trouble is firstly that voice is an intensely personal way of communicating, so we accord it great importance. The second is that the voice carriers have had a century to hone their circuit-switched systems to such a level of refinement that we just don't expect voice to fail.
And in general, it doesn't. Add to that the fact that many point-of-sale systems system still use modems, and fax machines -- those ugly duckling remnants of 1970s technology -- remain in widespread use, and it's clear that voice circuits still retain a number of unique advantages.
This is the challenge faced by vendors of VoIP systems. You've got to be bullet-proof, you've got to look like a voice circuit to a fax machine or modem, and you've got to sound like a voice circuit to a human being.
VoIP's big plus from an end-user perspective is that it's cheap, especially for long-distance and international calls. What's more, say proponents, VoIP's ability to add features, such as shared contact books and the like, are compelling.
So far so obvious. But the experience of many users -- most users? -- is that it's nowhere near as reliable as it's made up to be, and often, the quality isn't that great either.
Small companies need not apply?
Here's an example. One small company I know uses VoIP exclusively and, most of the time, it works fine. But every now and again, one senior member of staff -- the most technically knowledgeable person in the office -- has to spend significant amounts of time either liaising with the VoIP provider and carrier, or both, and fiddling with the router configuration. He's not paid to do that -- it's a waste of his time.
This example not unique, especially in companies with zero expertise on tap.
And what about those added features? As one commentator points out, "on a PBX system with 40-50 users, less than half will know how to use the recall button and you won't need the fingers of one hand to count the number who use hold or mute."
Of course, if you throw enough money a VoIP system you can have that famed reliability and probably high quality voice too. But for everyone but the large enterprise, there remain a number of caveats.
You'll still need a backup line to the PSTN for emergency calls and just-in-case. You'll have to be prepared to spend more time than you otherwise might fixing and fiddling with configurations. If you rely on Skype, with its highly proprietary technology, you'll still need a backup for when it goes down -- as the system did in August last year. And if you go for a technology that's a bit more robust and which offers business-quality, VoIP forums are awash with people having problems getting it to work reliably.
All this is not to denigrate VoIP generally. It's big step forward from what we had in many ways but we seem in many ways to be stuck in an interim phase, where neither the networks nor the software are quite ready for voice.
However, it is clear that, now VoIP has reached a broad mass market, expectations are high. This means the technologists -- largely in the shape of the vendors and service providers -- need to pay attention to user demands for ease of use, for reliability and for quality if the reality gap is to be filled, especially at the low to middle ends of the business VoIP market.
And a bit of training on how to use all the whizz-bang features probably wouldn't go amiss either.
All these familiar clichés are effectively saying the same thing, and it's hard to think of a market where this doesn't hold true. Exceptions, where they exist, usually turn out to be loss-leaders. And it's true in the VoIP market too -- and in a week where voice-grade equipment vendors such as Nortel are cutting back heavily as sales plummet, can VoIP rise to the challenge of filling the gap between expectations and reality?
You might think that it's a bit late in the day for this discussion and to an extent I'd agree. After all, the industry hype about 'the year of VoIP' happened a three or four years back. Now the dust has settled and VoIP has made considerable inroads into businesses large and small.
But the voice market -- or rather, the way that people use voice and the expectations they have of it -- is quite different to those in other parts of the IT forest. For example, connectivity does fail from time to time, due to external influences -- such as extreme bad weather, an over-enthusiastic trench-digging JCB or finger trouble at the local exchange.
We're used to that now. We don't like it, we get annoyed if not downright angry that we cant get our emails, but we accept that systems do fail. The same goes for almost all IT systems. We've been trained to accept that this new -- now not-so-new -- technology is not fail-proof.
VoIP's unique features
When it comes to VoIP, though, things are different. The trouble is firstly that voice is an intensely personal way of communicating, so we accord it great importance. The second is that the voice carriers have had a century to hone their circuit-switched systems to such a level of refinement that we just don't expect voice to fail.
And in general, it doesn't. Add to that the fact that many point-of-sale systems system still use modems, and fax machines -- those ugly duckling remnants of 1970s technology -- remain in widespread use, and it's clear that voice circuits still retain a number of unique advantages.
This is the challenge faced by vendors of VoIP systems. You've got to be bullet-proof, you've got to look like a voice circuit to a fax machine or modem, and you've got to sound like a voice circuit to a human being.
VoIP's big plus from an end-user perspective is that it's cheap, especially for long-distance and international calls. What's more, say proponents, VoIP's ability to add features, such as shared contact books and the like, are compelling.
So far so obvious. But the experience of many users -- most users? -- is that it's nowhere near as reliable as it's made up to be, and often, the quality isn't that great either.
Small companies need not apply?
Here's an example. One small company I know uses VoIP exclusively and, most of the time, it works fine. But every now and again, one senior member of staff -- the most technically knowledgeable person in the office -- has to spend significant amounts of time either liaising with the VoIP provider and carrier, or both, and fiddling with the router configuration. He's not paid to do that -- it's a waste of his time.
This example not unique, especially in companies with zero expertise on tap.
And what about those added features? As one commentator points out, "on a PBX system with 40-50 users, less than half will know how to use the recall button and you won't need the fingers of one hand to count the number who use hold or mute."
Of course, if you throw enough money a VoIP system you can have that famed reliability and probably high quality voice too. But for everyone but the large enterprise, there remain a number of caveats.
You'll still need a backup line to the PSTN for emergency calls and just-in-case. You'll have to be prepared to spend more time than you otherwise might fixing and fiddling with configurations. If you rely on Skype, with its highly proprietary technology, you'll still need a backup for when it goes down -- as the system did in August last year. And if you go for a technology that's a bit more robust and which offers business-quality, VoIP forums are awash with people having problems getting it to work reliably.
All this is not to denigrate VoIP generally. It's big step forward from what we had in many ways but we seem in many ways to be stuck in an interim phase, where neither the networks nor the software are quite ready for voice.
However, it is clear that, now VoIP has reached a broad mass market, expectations are high. This means the technologists -- largely in the shape of the vendors and service providers -- need to pay attention to user demands for ease of use, for reliability and for quality if the reality gap is to be filled, especially at the low to middle ends of the business VoIP market.
And a bit of training on how to use all the whizz-bang features probably wouldn't go amiss either.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
