Thoughts on Jeremy Corbyn's "Digital Democracy Manifesto" launch

(Disclosure / intro for any politics-type people who don't usually read my stuff: I'm a technology & telecoms analyst & consultant. Much of what I do involves forecasting realities of new tech innovations & deployments, part to how the tech industry commercialises its products/services and part to policy and regulation of the Internet & telcos. 

While I'm "neutral" on tech futures aside from wanting to see the "next big cool thing" as fast as realistically possible, I'm not always neutral on policy; for example, I support Net Neutrality as a broad principle. I'm also not a Labour party supporter, and I'm definitely skeptical of Corbyn's ideology, policies and general competence).

This morning I attended the launch of the "Digital Democracy Manifesto" (link) by Jeremy Corbyn, current leader of the UK Labour Party, and associated team members / advisors including Eva Pascoe, a longstanding member of the UK's web establishment (see link here). Although in theory this event was part of the current Labour Party leadership campaign, given the high probability that Corbyn will remain leader it also gives an indication of future direction - and probably forms the basis of the technology bit of the Labour manifesto for the next UK General Election, which will likely be in 2020.

Amusingly, the event was held at a venue called Newspeak House (a "hub for political technologists") the name of which derives from George Orwell's 1984. I'm sure for general tech-inspired activism that has resonance - but perhaps less than ideal for a Corbyn speech given Wikipedia's note that "any form of thought alternative to the party's construct is classified as 'thoughtcrime'". 

I'm definitely guilty of "thoughtcrime" in this post.... starting by highlighting Corbyn's first name-drop of a tech company as fond memories of Amstrad, purveyor of 1980s/90s PCs. Amstrad stands for Alan M Sugar Trading. Mr Sugar's views on Mr Corbyn are somewhat less than reciprocally positive (link). Corbyn's second reference was to Skype - amusing given Pascoe's later rant about Microsoft during the event. I should also point out that the seating space in the venue was limited & some attendees had to stand - something of an irony given recent concerns about train capacity and seat availability.

 

There are 8 areas in the manifesto, which were covered in greater or lesser detail in the event, and which fit to varying degrees with my own coverage. I'm not going to talk about the "open knowledge library" of learning materials, and given that the "people's charter of digital liberties" will be driven by public consultation it's mostly too vague at this point anyway. I'm generally pro-privacy so this sounds a good idea in principle.

The main section I have thoughts on is the first, the "Universal Service Network". This goes considerably beyond current UK policies on broadband, and included a pledge for £25bn state investment in a "public sector backbone" to help deliver high speed broadband and mobile connectivity, everywhere in the UK from inner cities to remote Scottish islands. Not only that, but the manifesto commits Labour to ensuring that access is available "at the same low price without any data transfer cap". 

The relevant part of the speech itself was mostly about "equality" of network coverage. But implied in that statement is not just coverage, but also price controls and - essentially - infinite capacity. Leaving aside the competitive niceties of forcing identical pricing from multiple providers, the "no caps" promise is essentially unattainable, especially coupled to another seeming promise for (hard-ish) Net Neutrality. A reference to South Korea and its enviable broadband infrastructure was fair, but didn't attempt to explain why it is different to the UK (eg urban population density and less planning constraints).

I asked a question about whether Corbyn would be willing to relax planning regulations for cell towers, or rights-of-way for fibre installation, in order to fulfill this desire for ubiquity and unlimited capacity. He didn't answer personally, instead allowing Pascoe to address it. She didn't mention the cell-site problem and instead claimed that FTTH was mostly an unattainable goal (don't tell the Koreans) and that Google was developing wireless technology that could help fix things. 

However, FTTH everywhere (although a popular political topic) wasn't really my point. It was more about being able to put cell-sites everywhere (with fibre backhaul, including to small-cell locations) which is a huge practical constraint and cost for mobile operators, and the ability to put fibre elsewhere for trunk connections - and perhaps financial incentives for doing so.

Someone else asked about ownership, and the relationship with telco networks. Corbyn's answer was vague, but certainly didn't discount the possibility of wanting to re-nationise parts of the infrastructure. Given his recent spat with Richard Branson about trains, I wonder if Virgin Media is in his sights too.

Nobody mentioned spectrum, at any point. Or how the new promises compare to existing UK government efforts to push mobile coverage. Or the questionable "success" of other national broadband infrastructure projects (eg Australia's NBN) or the practical limits of "local access cooperatives", especially when it comes to cellular networks.

Overall, I thought that the network part of the manifesto was pretty weak. Yes, rural areas need better networks, as do train lines. But it's hardly as if this hasn't been a focus in the past. But Labour's team doesn't - at first sight - seem to understand that both coverage and capacity incur costs. It is also unclear in explaining how planning rules and competition might fit with any government assistance. The role of state- or metropolitan-owned networks was not detailed, and the costing sounds ambitious/unrealistic when one considers the need for both remote regions and (presumably) in-building networks, plus vast increments to existing network capacities to satisfy a "no caps" pledge. Also, ongoing operations of any network would raise the cost & future commitment to expenditure much further. I suspect throwing fibre under the bus, in the hope of some future wireless tech alternative would have pleased the 5G lobby, had it actually been mentioned instead of some unspecific wireless innovation by Google. I'm assuming they don't expect Loon balloons over the Highlands any time soon.

The other area I asked a question about was open-source. Although social-media and press comment ahead of the event suggested that Corbyn would insist all "publicly funded" software and hardware be open-source, this was considerably toned down at the event. The outcome was that a future Labour government would have a "bias" towards open-source "where possible", and that government contributors to O-S projects would be be rewarded. 

I inquired how all this would fit with the ubiquity of proprietary software in things the government bought (say software in ambulance engines, x-ray machines... or political parties' campaign-management systems). I also noted the government supports/funds proprietary software through R&D programmes, support for the games industry, encouragement of IoT and so forth. The "where possible it should be open-source" seems like generic IT "activism" rather than analysis.

My takeout was that (like the network bit) none of this has been thought through properly. There seemed to be a general dislike of big (mostly US) software companies like Microsoft, but little awareness of how pervasive software is elsewhere. I'll be interested to see if all the software running the promised "public backbone" network is proposed as open-source too.

Perhaps Corbyn's first move should be to guarantee that all of the Labour Party's own software & hardware moves to open-source first. Judging by proprietary software experience required on its current open jobs (link) & previous ones (link) it's got a long way to go.

By contrast to applauding free software (especially when implemented by government), the manifesto very much wants people to pay for music and other creative output. There were promises to re-write copyright law to ensure that cash flows to the right people in the entertainment space. I got the sense that nobody had really recognised the ever-blurring boundaries between software, hardware, cloud, content, networks and the implied inconsistencies in the various manifesto pledges arising from this.


Other elements of the "digital democracy" pledges were:

- Platform Cooperatives, for which read "nationalised versions of Uber & Airbnb & TaskRabbit", plus pledges that anyone earning "most or some" money from "digital platforms" should be able to unionise and have an employment contract". (It was unclear whether the robots & AIs which would inevitably take larger roles would have the same rights as humans).
- Digital Citizen Passport, for which read "ID cards by the back door, but voluntary opt-in only and with lots of controls for privacy & who gets access to what data, honest!". It's unclear how this fits with the existing Gov.UK Verify project too.
- Community Media Freedom, which is a hotchpotch of things aimed mostly at the media industry, including education programmes for "analysing and making media". I look foward to diplomas in advanced trolling, speaking slots on RT & Iranian news TV, and YouTube/SnapChat editing. More bizarrely, this section also says "Ofcom will protect network neutrality from discrimination between data streams and manipulation of software algorithms for private gain". If generalised, the latter half of that sentence pretty much kills most of the businesses on the planet, given that software algorithms are in everything. (And yes, I know that Neutrality in its strictest sense doesn't necessarily "work", but various principles are realistic to implement, as BEREC has shown today - link)
- Massive Multi-Person Online Deliberation - this is actually potentially cool, with more participation from people in politics via web/apps/whatever to help design legislation. However there are lots of forums for this already (notably Twitter and Facebook) and the key problems are around partisan groupings and abuse/trolling. I'm not too sure about the Orwellian overtones of the this newspeak though: "The National Education Service will enlighten the British electorate with the theoretical knowledge and practical skills of digital citizenship". I'd rather get my practical skills about being a citizen from someone other than the people who want me to vote for them, thanks.

Overall, it was mostly standard "digital engagement & inclusion" waffle you'd expect from politicians - some of which makes sense but is largely happening anyway - plus lots of incoherent digs at private businesses "we hate Microsoft - except for Skype" and "we hate Google - unless it does wireless networks" and "we hate Uber - so we'll do it ourselves". 

There was very little on "proper technology" and little awareness of the realities of networks, software development, IoT, Internet architecture or existing initiatives.The pledges for uncapped and ubiquitous broadband look utterly unrealistic - even with a one-off investment of £25bn.

What was also missing from the event was the presence of anyone else in Labour who actually acts as a shadow minister for telecoms, IT and the so-called "digital" economy. Corbyn uses social media but clearly isn't a technologist himself - so is reliant on the people around him to fill in the details, which is OK in principle. But the other speakers at the event: Pascoe, an associate with a dubious history (link), and someone who runs campaigning for Labour's Momentum supporters' fan-club weren't exactly deep techies either, especially on networking issues. It's all very well addressing the "social" side of the Internet - employment by Uber, musicians' rights and "massive on-line deliberation" but unless it's underpinned with proper understanding of how networks and software and hardware and IoT work, it's just fluff.

New Year Rant: 10 Awful Tech-Industry Terms to Stop Using in 2016

In the spirit of the holiday season and New Year, this is another list about 2016. 

But it's from me, so it's a rant, rather than clairvoyancy with a crystal-ball.

There's a bunch of words and concepts used in the technology industry that make you look like a fool, or at least lazy and sloppy. They're often meaningless, duplicitously-used to "misframe" an argument, or just generally cringe-worthy. Some of them I've tackled before, and yes, mea culpa, I've been guilty of some of them before too. But I've learned from the errors of the past, and apologise unreservedly for any historical fluffiness and telcowash.

So let's double-check our terminology in 2016, call out offenders, and make a collective New Year resolution to ditch the telco-industry b*llocks....




1. Digital 

Meaningless drivel. The last time the word "digital" was informative or cool was in the 1970s, or maybe, if you absolutely must, relevant for newer telecoms switches in the 1980s. But apart from retro nods to Casio, it's now just a useful short-cut to determining if someone is ignorant, tech-illiterate, or desperate for a marketing hook - think "digital agency" as cringespeak for advertising, or "digital single market" for the EU's half-witted bureaucrats and their fawning legions of lobbyists. 

And don't get me started on the clueless telco and vendor folk talking about "digital" services. Because hey, we don't want to go back to those awful days of the analogue Internet in the 1990s, do we? I suppose I should be happy that at least some of the politicos have switched over from the similarly-execrable "ICT", but frankly "digital" is even worse. So sneer at the digitalistas with both pride and prejudice – and perhaps a raised middle-digit.


2. OTT 

This one I've tackled before, but it bears repetition. "OTT" just means "bits of the Internet we don't like". It's arbitrary, divisive and hypocritical (all telcos have websites & Internet apps). It’s also a form of telecom industry self-harm, as the "O" for "over" conjures images of a vertical hierarchy, with content/apps/comms being at the top (and therefore implicitly better) than everything "beneath". Along with “dumb pipe” the false-dichotomy of ISP vs. OTT is at the base of many of the industry’s current woes, as it re-frames a simple reality in a deliberately antagonistic way. Telecoms industry regulators and lobbyists who use “OTT” are especially unfit-for-purpose, and should be fired for incompetence.

There is an exemption for anyone saying “OTT” if they also refer to networks as “UTF” (Under the Floor) providers, as that’s where the plumbing goes.


3. Transformation 

I have a little bit more tolerance of this word, as it is slightly better than some of the industry’s other gibberish. Elements of the industry are undergoing profound change, yes… but that’s mostly being forced by events, with grudging acceptance, rather than true enthusiasm. Even where networks are genuinely being “transformed”, it is rare that the culture, process and business model is following suit. More generally, it’s important to note that telcos, and their networks and services, have been in a state of constant flux for the last century, often with discontinuities in technology.

Either way, the only meaningful use of the word "transform" I've heard this year was by my Haitian guide when I visited in July - to describe a voodoo curse which he reckoned was turning him into a cow. To listen to some of the snake-oil merchants in the telecoms industry, you'd think we were watching something similarly magical occurring, rather than just mythology.


4. Seamless 

Another one I’ve taken aim at before – seams are important. Seams are borders, where important things happen. Pretending that they don’t exist denies their significance – and can lead to mistakes or complacency, in terms of user perception, technical capabilities, pricing, security and more. A prime example is the combination of WiFi and cellular connectivity for smartphones, where two very different domains exist, and blending them needs to be done with care and humility. Creating frictionless shifts between one and the other is important – much like real-world borders. But the premise of “seamlessness” removes visibility and agency from end-users and other market participants – and often presupposes (wrongly) that network operators are the only/most-important actors involved. Seamless transitions allow inertia and lock-in to be perpetuated, rather than allowing users or app-developers scope to make “wrong” decisions.

5. Carrier-grade 

This is another term which exemplifies the telecom industry’s arrogance and self-absorption. It imbues certain bits of infrastructure – or engineering practices – with a magical aura of uniqueness and competence. And while many examples are indeed praise-worthy, they are far from the only purveyors of excellent network engineering. Corporate-grade networks are often just as secure, resilient and cost-effective – but also often more flexible. Military-grade networks are often more secure. Consumer-grade networks or various ad-hoc networks are often more democratic and market-responsive. Internet-grade networks such as Google/Facebook data-centres or Akamai’s CDNs are often cleverer. 

Telecoms carriers are not “special flowers” nor sit in “ivory towers”. Continually using terms like “carrier-grade” perpetuates the arbitrary distinctions between telecom and Internet worlds, and fosters harmful distinctions that inhibit service-providers from making pragmatic, market-aware decisions.


6. Engagement 

This is not limited to the telecoms industry, but is a general example of horrific marketing-industry and social-networking semantics and practice that needs to be stamped out. “Engagement” usually involves forcing people to “interact” when they’d often rather not, or measuring social-network actions in a cringe-worthy fashion. My recent example of WiFi “monetisation” charlatans bragging of “engaging” users for 45 seconds highlights the misanthropy present in this way of thinking. The whole area of “click-bait” posts, or those stupid list-based websites that force you to find the “next page” button, or click an invisible “x” on an intrusive floating advert are others.

This is not to say that it’s a bad thing to allow people to interact with you. Yes, they should be able to comment or share if they choose. But that’s the point: they are choosing to interact. They have agency, and take action. They should not be encouraged or forced to “engage”. It’s the coercivity that is wrong.


7. Content (& especially content-marketing)

“Content” is just one-directional application data, which flows from a “publisher” to a “consumer”. Despite some commentators’ and legislators’ ignorant comments, it does not constitute the whole Internet. While the likes of Netflix and the BBC are clearly important, so too are Amazon, Twitter, Skype, SAP, email, backups to iCloud, downloaded virus definitions and innumerable enterprise applications and services. The latter are communications, transactions, applications and raw data – not “content”. Yet too many laws and structures are designed with an historical “media” mindset, rather than an IT or Internet-native one. For example, the majority of the Net Neutrality discussion was centred on “content” and “content provdiers” – although to be fair, some regulators have talked about “edge providers”, which is a slightly more generic term.

Hopefully the rise of ever more non-content mobile apps, plus also IoT devices and traffic, will make more people (especially regulators and politicians) aware that networks are used for much more than lumps of video entertainment, media websites and music. 

To be honest, “content” is mostly another sleazy, marketing-inspired word anyway – often used with a hidden meaning of “that stuff we can embed advertising in”. That also gives rise to the most repugnant use of the term – in “content marketing”, which is basically just “long-form spam”, often masquerading as journalism or analysis. The technology industry is widely infested with dodgy “content marketing” – particularly corporate blogs masquerading as independent sources of news or analysis. You know the type: one-sided puff-pieces which laud a particular type of technology or product or brand. “Why WiFi-calling is transformational & will change telecoms for ever and allow operators to fight back against the OTTs with new digital services and improved customer engagement” (posted on WiFiCallingForEver.com, with a tiny note at the bottom that it’s sponsored by VendorX.com). The worst content-marketing of all is that derived from fake, quasi-corrupt, pay-for-play industry “awards”, where marketing companies offer “sponsors” a full package of PR and churnalism “content” in exchange for a “submission fee”.


8. Rich 

Obviously exemplified by the ludicrous RCS of zombie fame, the word “rich” also crops up in various other telecom and Internet contexts as well. It usually means “we didn’t have any proper designers involved, so we just threw in as many random features as we could, hoping that people would muddle through and ignore the incoherent clutter”. I don’t think I’ve ever seen Apple use the word – or even Facebook. I’m scared to look, but it wouldn’t surprise me if Yahoo or LinkedIn have used it, though. Rich services or apps don’t even have the redeeming benefits of rich food – they’re unpalatable as well, as bad for you.

Applications should be right not rich.


9. End-to-end

Whenever you see anyone in the telecom talking about “end-to-end” capabilities – especially QoS – you should laugh and dismiss them and their products/services immediately. In almost every case, the so-called “ends” just refer to arbitrary points over which they have some modicum of visibility and control. They are never the actual ends where a service is generated or consumed, just points on an architecture diagram where somebody else takes over responsibility. So for a streamed video, there are origination servers (perhaps even the production, editing and encoding process) and the end-device, with screen and associated processors and memory. Quality of experience ends at the retina, the eardrum – and maybe even the cortex of the brain. A great example of the end-to-end fallacy is around VoIP, where much of the quality and performance is gated by the device’s silicon and its microphone and speakers, as well as the various processing algorithms used. The network is important – and bits of it may indeed be well-managed. But they’re not “ends”. 

I’m writing this in an airport, where BA takes responsibility for getting me from gate to gate. It conspicuously doesn’t refer to my journey “end-to-end”. The handful of airlines which offer limo-service  to and from your home and hotel would have a better claim – but even they can’t control the traffic on the roads outside Heathrow, just the seat you sit in. 


10. Ecosystem

This is the term beloved of people who used to say “value chain”, especially as it allows a temporary warm & fuzzy feeling from its environmental and natural background. But for that very reason, it’s a lousy analogy. Ecosystems aren’t “built”, they evolve. It means a group of interacting organisms AND their (physical) environment and resources. It implies co-dependency – if one part of an ecosystem gets removed, damaged or destroyed, it has an impact on everything else. It’s not just a convenient term for a software or web company’s developer and partner programme.

While real ecosystems might have some symbiosis, they also typically have an apex predator, plus lots of unfortunate other creatures and plants that get eaten, or just manage to scratch a living, before rotting after their death with the help of microbes and parasites. Hmm, maybe it is a decent analogy after all. I’ll leave it to the reader to identify the parasites in the mobile “ecosystem”.

Summary

So let’s have a collective New Year’s resolution to avoid telecoms-sector “trigger words” and acknowledge what we actually mean in 2016. Let’s get rid of:

• Digital
• OTT
• Transformation
• Seamless
• Carrier-Grade
• Engagement
• Content
• Rich
• End-to-End
• Ecosystem

And, I’m sad to admit, there’s also probably a number 11 that’s past it’s sell-by: “Disruptive”. But yeah, let’s forget about that one, given that I was disruptive before it went mainstream. I reckon I can claim some form of retro-irony exemption…

Rant over. 

Happy New Year!