If you want an uninformed opinion on broadband, ask a stockbroker

You can say what you want about Chairman Rudd's National Broadband Network, but this statement surely takes the cake: "I've got no idea what's driving the Government to do this," Ivor Ries, an analyst with EL and C Baillieu Stockbroking, says. Hmm, not reading the papers lately, Ivor? Can't even make a decent guess at it?

Mr Ries goes on (somewhat tediously) to speculate that"what it will do is create a market for people selling downloads to homes - people selling movies for downloads to homes will obviously be big winners from this. "But is it going to provide some sort of magic shot in the arm to productivity? Probably not.".

We may as well have stuck with dial-up modems then, eh? All it's really good for is movie downloads. So much for companies with a need to move drawings or artwork around between offices or to staff who work from home. So much for teleworkers who may appreciate the extra speed of file transfer and multi-user VoIP teleconferences; or educators in remote schools who want to tap into virtual classroom material; or hospital staff who may want to send diagnostic images quickly (or at all) to services in capital cities, or to get second opinions from specialists 'over the wire'.

Bravo Rudd and Co.. Nice solution to what was looking like a sub-optimal solution. Instead we make friends with Telstra again, if only just to avoid litigation, potentially get a big, new competitive telecoms landscape and please the small operators as well. Let's hope it all comes to pass quickly with no further hiccups.

Solving the trouble we are in - carbon, cars and warming #environment

My answer is simple, yet contradictory: "It's never simple, and there's no one answer".

I do get annoyed (ever so slightly) at people who say there's just one, best way (usually their way) to deal with "problems". For example, let's assume that we are facing a global warming catastrophe and there's something we can do about it (like reduce carbon emissions). This is based on an assumption, but a reasonable one given the evidence to hand. So what to do?

• Some people say we should just consume less, but that means that our economy (predicated on sustained rather than 'sustainable' growth, of all things) will decline, shedding jobs (at least in the short to medium term, after which things may balance out). If it means your job, would you do it? (Or will the financial meltdown do it for us - at least for a while?)
  
• Others may say that fossil fuels are the problem, so we should swap over to hydrogen power and fuel cells. It's a super-clean fuel that just expels water as exhaust. Fine, but where does the hydrogen come from? Oh, we use electricity to crack water into hydrogen and oxygen. And where does that electricity come from? And what energy is used to compress the hydrogen into a usable volume, and where does that energy come from? And what energy is also used to make the light-weight but super-strong fuel tanks that hydrogen needs in order to be transported - and stored - where we need it, safely? Do we build more power stations to generate the energy required? Hmmm. And when we have done all that, are we actually ahead?
  
• Others say that we should swap to electric vehicles, but they also - obviously - need electricity. So we end up having to devise a sustainable method of generating that electricity, too. And by making electric cars we increase the load on our power stations, so we are making more of those (and potentially burning more coal, for example). At least we are not adding the 'create hydrogen' step as well, and by using mostly existing infrastructure (and by time-shifting peak loads) we avoid some of the massive new investment we'd need for say hydrogen fuel tanks, pipelines and tankers. But we are (as a consequence of 'replacing the fleet') building more vehicles, not less, and they don't just materialise out of nothingness. It takes energy (and other resources) to make and transport these electric vehicles to the end users, just as it does for petrol-powered cars. And to make a difference we need to get the volume up, quickly. Although electric cars are simpler (a good thing) they need batteries - and thus we have another calculation to make in dealing with an explosion in battery sales, storage, distribution and disposal. It's better, but when you look at the emissions you still have does it actually add up?
  
• Perhaps solar cells are the answer? It looks like a good idea on the surface, if only to replace household power, but they too have to be made, distributed, installed, maintained and replaced. If we all went out today and bought solar panels we'd drive the price up in the short term, which would induce new players into the market and eventually lower prices. But we'd also employ people to install the panels, and they would drive around in vehicles... which when added to the carbon emissions generated during manufacture this won't be lowering the carbon foot print at all - at least not for a while. Indeed, until solar panel efficiency levels rise, which we'd expect, it may be that the extra millions of individual investments in wiring, control units and panels actually cause an overall increase in carbon emissions... until at least we have reached some sort of balancing point. And then again, how long will these panels last? Will we be repeating the effort in 10 or 20 years time, or after the next major hail storm?
  
• Or we could focus on cutting back emissions in many other ways, including changing our diet to reduce meat consumption. That too will impact someone, somewhere.
  
• We could reduce our travel, perhaps cutting back on tourism, but that too will reduce the incomes of many people in many lands.
• We could plant lots of trees, but that's not necessarily creating natural habitat, and it may rob us of farm land, too.
• Or we could look to a technologically left-field answer like artificially reducing the planet's absorption of sunlight with an umbrella of scattered particles. But who knows where that may lead.
  

So it's not an easy question, nor does it have one simple, straightforward answer (at least not if you pull the options apart and think about the consequences, anyway). It probably means that we do a bit of everything, slowly, carefully, but in a directed, meaningful way. But do we have the time? For myself, I'm doing less driving, more walking and cycling. I use household electricity carefully, prudently, and stay as true to my general principles as I can. I'm not rushing out to buy a medium or large-sized (and complex) hybrid, or even an electric car - I'll stick with small, economical 4-cylinder cars thanks. It may mean that the car industry rationalises, consolidates and declines, but that may be one of the things we need to accept. And I'll hang back on solar panels (or wind turbines) until we see greater efficiency levels and more transparency in actual costs of manufacture, installation and distribution. But if the figures start to stack up, I'll be there.

Aussie Federal Govt backs mind control startup? #tech #mind control

There I am digesting this Forbes article (with annoying adverts) on mind control gadgets when I read that "As imperfect as both companies' technologies may be, they've each found real venture funding. Neurosky says it's received a total of $7.7 million in investments but wouldn't reveal the investors. Emotiv has taken $15 million in funding from Technology Venture Partners, Epicure Capital Partners, Stillwater Capital and the Australian federal government".

Whilst I can see the applications - now and in the future - will find enormous markets (after all, who doesn't want telekinetic powers?) I was a bit surprised to see Kevin Rudd's government backing Emotiv. The company's website says that one backer is Aussie investor TVP. Whilst I can't yet see the link with any Aussie government investment I imagine (read guess) that it's of the tax concession variety. But I could be wrong.

One application that I imagined straight away was using mind control to drive a car, thinking that was probably a stretch (and likely to be a bit dangerous in the 'real world' of drug-fueled road-rage and distracted cell phone users). But of course they've already done it. 

Blu-ray moves to an early majority? A what? #tech #marketing

I know what an early adopter phase is, but what's an 'early majority' phase? Are they just making stuff up? Well, yes, of course they are - we all make stuff up. Being human we like to categorise and label - it's how we learn and cope with our environment. Aside from labelling poisons and food stuffs for purely practical purposes, we have invented 'baby boomer' as a broad demographic label for a real surge in births and then felt compelled to continue labelling each succeeding 'generation' whether it makes sense, or correlates with real research, or not. Mostly not.

So it is with marketing speak and the phases of a product life cycle. We are getting carried away with granularity whilst mixing in some hype and spin. Yes, Blu-ray has won the HD war, yes sales are growing and prices are falling. If it becomes compelling enough we'll all buy one. Unless something disruptive comes along first, like massive, cheap broadband and Internet-enabled home A/V gear. Who needs a disc in a data-on-demand world?

In any case 'Early majority' doesn't really make any sense - either you have a majority or you don't (and Blu-ray technology has less than 10% share no matter how you look at it, so 'majority' is a hard label to pin on it). So it's a majority of what? Nothing?