Tuesday 27 August 2013

The case for smarter pipes

There’s been wide coverage lately of the spate of system failures affecting major internet companies.  For example, in last week's Guardian: 

“A series of system crashes affecting Google, Amazon, Apple and Microsoft in the past fortnight has brought warnings that governments, banks and big business are over-reliant on computer networks that have become too complex”.

The reporting has conveyed an unmistakable feeling that ‘the sky is falling’ on these complex internet traders. 

"The complexity of the systems created to support big data is beyond the understanding of a single person and they also fail in ways that are beyond the comprehension of a single person."

The idea that we may have created Frankenstein systems that are more complex than we know how to deal with is, indeed, a little scary.  But human frailty explains only a limited part of the recent malfunctions. Again, from The Guardian:

“While a malicious attack [on the New York Times] was initially suspected, the problem was caused simply by a scheduled system maintenance… On the same day, Microsoft customers began to report email failures. The outage was traced to problems with the Exchange ActiveSync service which serves email to many of the world's smartphones…”. 

The problem of man’s inability to manage the complexity of his own data constructs, such as high volume securities trading, is ultimately a matter for mathematicians - and maybe even philosophers.  But the robustness of data networks, the so-called ‘dumb pipes’ of internet commerce, is a matter that ordinary mortals can and should address.  Sadly, however, both government and industry have paid insufficient attention to the issue of communications infrastructure policy. Establishing a suitable policy for the UK is not only important for economic growth but, equally, to guard against the economic harm that can be – and now is being - caused by disruptions to that infrastructure.

Thursday 22 August 2013

All aboard for the Ministry of Truth

I return from holiday unsure whether I’ve really been in deepest Sussex or whether I’ve emerged into a regulatory time warp.  I dimly remember headlines in 2006 announcing Viviane Reding’s ambitions for a single EU telecoms regulator to replace the (then) 25 NRAs.  Seven years on, I see that the same European ambition has been advocated, this time by JoaquĆ­n Almunia, the EU's antitrust commissioner.  Apparently, he has been critical of the plans put forward by Neelie Kroes earlier this summer for a single market in EU telecoms.  She said then that a new EU telecoms package would be put forward in early September in a bid to ‘make it easier to run a network across borders, with better interconnections and new access products’.  However, Almunia is said to have described these plans as “suboptimal”, that they “lack ambition" and that creating a true pan-EU regulator would be the most effective way of harmonizing national differences in telecoms markets. The latter would clearly bolster the current intent to eradicate high roaming charges but the immediate objections to a single EU regulator are much the same as those voiced in 2006.  James Robinson, telecoms regulation analyst at Ovum, cited two obvious candidates:

"Firstly, spectrum that is currently auctioned on a national basis could fall under the jurisdiction of this new, super-regulator. Governments would certainly be reluctant to let this happen as such auctions have provided valuable revenue in recent years… A single regulator would also face issues with the inherent differences of national markets.  For example, EU member states are at varying stages with the rollout of next-generation broadband networks. The regulation of these networks also varies considerably: fibre unbundling has been mandated in Denmark whereas this obligation does not exist in France where next-generation broadband rollout has been relatively slow”.

As I’ve said, all of this is pretty familiar territory: a single EU regulator does indeed represent a ‘logical proposal’ on economic grounds but what surprises me a little is that I’ve seen no mention yet of the daunting scope of governance such a body might enjoy.  In an age of converged media, I assume that the Ofcom model of regulating telecoms, (postal services?); broadcasting and online media by a single body would persist.  But at a pan-European level, that implies an awesome sphere of influence!