RE: [kGen] DTI's Broadband Content Pilots Study...

[Daniel Harris <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Alex and All,

Many thanks for your email. I'm finding this a most stimulating discussion. 
Apologies in advance for my detailed questioning. I'm just trying to 
clarify the issues and, hopefully, I'm being logical about all this. Please 
note the last paragraph (9.) has a summary of the most important questions. 
Sticking to your clarifying numbering system...

1. Great! We are agreed that "there is a need to recognise informational 
architecture [I guess 'architecture' is the same as 'infrastructure'] as a 
component of the digital content marketplace" . As I've asked in 5, is the 
creation of informational infrastructure your priority? And if not, what is 
your priority?

2. OK. I will accept that you need to "show that a good return can be 
earned" to provide encouragement. Please could you state the exact return 
that needs to be earned that will encourage "other private sector operators 
to enter the area also"? Above this stated return the BBChannel will be 
considered a success and below which it will be considered a failure.

3. OK. I will accept that you need proof that "informational infrastructure 
works". Please could you state the exact criteria that you are setting 
which, when satisfied, will prove that "informational infrastructure 
works"? I'd suggest that the criteria needs to be based on things that we 
can measure right now. So that as the BBChannel progresses we can plot 
these things as they reach their "proof" targets. Without having these 
strict criteria we can have no proof target and without the possibility of 
there being any proof, or testing for it, it follows that there's no reason 
to have a BBChannel - using your reasoning. Yes?

4. We are agreed on this point, however, I am concerned that your "brief 
was not focussed on standards" because informational infrastructure 
requires "codifying current business practices" and when you code anything 
it has to be to an agreed "standard" for it to be interpreted. Are any of 
the "working bodies in the BSG and DCF" writing reports that will be 
recommending putting millions of pounds into standards research, in the 
same way that you've done for portals?

5. I'm sorry but you have misquoted/misunderstood what I am saying in 
reference to "informational infrastructure" and "sites". I'm absolutely not 
suggesting that "sites should be de-emphasised" and not saying that we 
"need to have informational infrastructure rather than sites". Quoting from 
my paragraph I said "both the sites and the informational infrastructure 
are required for it to work". I am questioning your idea of putting all 
your eggs into "one" site/business such as the BBChannel. One site/business 
does not show evidence of informational infrastructure existing. It's like 
having a car but no roads; or computers with no Internet; or banks with no 
banking system; or people with mobile phones but no common spoken language. 
However, multiple sites/businesses exchanging information does show 
evidence of informational infrastructure. For Kendra Initiative the two are 
inseparable. From your conclusions I can only postulate that it is of 
higher priority for you to see the creation of a big content aggregating 
company than it is for you to see the creation of informational 
infrastructure for all people and organisations in this industry to utilise 
to for revenue generation. Am I wrong? What is your priority here?

6. I don't feel you've gone far enough in saying "what happens after". From 
everything you've said there seems to be no clear vision of the future that 
you desire. Without this "clear vision" how does one know what direction to 
take? Your hope is "encouraging further investment" but it's not clear to 
me where this investment will go (other than "similar" businesses) and I 
simply can't help wondering how it's any different from what we have now on 
the current Internet. Nor is it clear whether any of this is tied to 
bringing about an open informational infrastructure. I should emphasise the 
word "open". It means anyone can take part in the content marketplace as 
long as they talk the protocol/language - in Internet terms that's TCP/IP. 
What I am not talking about is a closed system where people or 
organisations can be locked out of participation as that's not going to 
drive overall revenues.

7. I've discovered a fundamental difference in our approach to solving this 
problem - it came to me on my bicycle. Your remit is "encouraging further 
investment in other businesses similar to the broadband channel". You are 
trying to prove to investors that they should put money into broadband 
projects. But investors are, respectfully, fickle entities, generally 
following the heard and not to be considered "early adopters". I don't envy 
your task. Especially after they've just all been burnt (and continue to be 
burnt) by technology investments. It seems like an uphill struggle to me.
    Conversely, we, in Kendra Initiative, are the early adopters. We 
already have businesses that are up and running and, hopefully, 
sustainable. We are the people and organisations that are passionate about 
seeing this informational infrastructure exist. We not only desire it to 
make ours lives easier but require it for businesses to continue to be 
competitive and stay afloat. We do not need proof that informational 
infrastructure will work. We know it will work as long as we are included 
in its design process.
    That's why so many of us have listed ourselves on the Kendra website. 
We want to be part of the informational infrastructure design process. I 
strongly suggest you re-evaluate your target audience. Do you want to be 
working with the early adopters - people that are passionate about making 
this happen? Or do you want to work with people that need persuading that 
all of this stuff is a good idea in the first place? To quote Obi-Wan, "use 
the force". I mean, use the people that want this to happen to help make it 
happen rather than people who are not even sure yet.

8. When I co-founded an ISP (Cerbernet) back in 1995 we visited a few other 
ISPs. At that time Easynet's modem pool looked smaller than a PC and 
Pipex's servers and routers fitted into a small room. We knew that TCP/IP 
worked. That was our informational infrastructure for the business model 
that we would go on to use: selling Internet connections. We had zero 
outside investment and put very little hard cash into the business 
ourselves. We built the business organically over 5 years and were very 
lucky to sell it off for several million a few months before the "investors 
market" started to take a dive. Without TCP/IP (the Internet - our 
informational infrastructure) we would not have been able to achieve what 
we did and that can be said for all Internet businesses current and 
dot-com-gone.
   I guess what I'm trying to say here is that it's not always cash 
investment that's needed to get an industry going. Sometimes a bit of good 
old hard labour and sleeping on the office floor is what it takes. In some 
ways the most crucial bit of investment that the Internet ever really got 
was the initial cash stumped up for funding TCP/IP's creation. Once we had 
our common language the industry flourished...

9. I have asked a lot of questions but really I only have two important ones:

9.1. What are your priorities?
9.2. What is your vision of the future that you desire to be created?

Without knowing your answers to these two questions I'm finding it really 
difficult to make comments on your strategies/methods as I'm not sure of 
your goals/motives/desires.

Cheers Daniel

At 09:31 14/10/2002 +0100, Birch, Alex wrote:
>Dear Daniel
>
>>From your last e-mail I think the key issues you would like comment on are
>these (phrased from your perspective):
>
>1.	There is a need to recognise "informational architecture" as a
>component of the digital content marketplace
>2.	There are lots of examples of the BB channel up and running - no
>need for another one
>3.	Even if the BB Channel "works" it does not facilitate the setting up
>of other businesses - the market doesn't need "proof" it needs "action" in
>the form of tools and "informational infrastructure"
>4.	"Informational Infrastructure" should be broadly defined to include
>"standards"
>5.	Need to have "informational infrastructure" rather than "sites"
>6.	What happens after the Broadband Channel is up and running
>
>...