Thanks, Luk. Great point, especially about the "Big 16".
In fact the problem is even bigger.
The Internet was the first widespread communications system that gave full respect to all connections -- and therefore all people -- regardless of who or what connected them. The Web did the same.
But the big communications companies, especially the phone and cable TV operators, have never liked the Internet, and have been trying to stuff the Internet genie back in the telephony, television and national communications regulatory bottles for the duration.
This, by the way, is the idea behind "broadband," which most of us think means "high speed Internet." But it doesn't. To "broadband providers" it means "not the whole Internet, but enough of what you want, faster."
"Broadband" is to carriers what "right to life" is to anti-abortion activists. To anti-Internet activists, which the carriers are, better to say "broadband" than "Internet" at all.
This is the de facto policy of the International Telecommunications Union, or ITU, which (like the Big 16) is based in Europe, and is in fact much older. It began as the International Telegraph Union. It is also very powerful, and very much likes such things as intentionally complicated phone bills and tariffs for countries tacked onto those bills. Which is one reason why the Internet works everywhere but Internet over 3G or 4G (ITU terms, by the way) suddenly costs far more (if it works at all) when you travel outside your account's home country.
In a speech I attended at the Techonomy conference in August of last year, Reinhard Scholl of the ITU spoke glowingly about the future of broadband, and did not once utter the word “Internet.” Instead he talked up “broadband".
My point here is the same as yours. We are up against some very powerful and very entrenched interests. And what we're doing is very subversive. It is not best to attack them directly, but to create the tools that work for people, and have those people show up as desirable customers.
Doc
On Oct 13, 2011, at 4:00 AM, Luk Vervenne wrote:
Ever since the web’s client/server model, the individual has been locked up in his browser confronting, now almost two decades of ever-growing server sophistication at the organisation’s end. That’s power play.
Case in point : Europe’s one year old "Future Internet” research programme (some 900M € funding) which is controlled by the 'big 16' (Europe's largest IT companies), largely keeps on using this model. Given the programme is using tax payers money, that's an insult!
Introducing the individual as ‘a genuine stakeholder in his own processes’ (note: in my opinion a precondition for BOTH user- centric and user-driven processes, but that's for another discussion), means we – in addition – now also need a personal server / infrastructure to talk to organisations as the client. (by the way, the meshing with 4th parties is where trust becomes interesting).
Anyway, now both sides can freely act, both as client and/or server exchanging both services and/or events (thx for the reminder, Phil).
In that light VRM has long superseded its original meaning, and evolved into a brand, a symbol and an acronym for a container concept.
I say: deal with it and move on.
Luk
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.
