Me and my shadow

I don’t often write about the negative impacts of ‘the wired world’ but I’ve recently been prompted to do so by my preparations for Christmas.  As is well known, Britain is the biggest online shopping nation in the developed world, with almost two-thirds of adults using the internet to buy goods or services.  I have followed that fine tradition by doing all my Christmas shopping on-line, and I’ve been very happy with my purchases, but what has made me less happy is the visible ‘audit trail’ that these transactions have left.  Every time I log on to a well-known electronic retailer, I am presented with pictorial information on the items I have purchased, the items I might have purchased - and the items my wife bought.  So much for surprises! 

Now, I realize that the audit trails should probably be seen as a benign and inevitable part of the on-line experience, and I’m told that there are ways to disguise buying information, but the experience got me thinking about other ways an on-line presence could easily become intrusive.  The hazards of social media are well understood but what about the prospective ‘internet of things?  Do I really want someone (or something) else to know where I go with my smartphone or what time I go to bed…? 

This is essentially a network security and surveillance problem.  I don’t have the technical expertise to suggest its resolution but I’m glad to see that better-equipped people – such as Glyn Moody – are starting to worry about the same issue.  I wonder if he could advise on Santa’s Dilemma…?  

‘Tis the season for giving

Whoa, can this be true?  Yet more money for broadband infrastructure?  OK, the latest (Autumn Statement) gift from the government - £10m for a ‘competitive fund’ to address coverage in remote rural areas – was really pretty modest, but just consider the investment already made: £530m for the original BDUK endowment; a further £250 allocated from the 2013 spending round; £150m for ‘Super-connected Cities’ (still- born but the subsequent voucher scheme is valuable nonetheless); £150m for improved mobile coverage etc. etc.  It all adds up to a tidy sum, and one nicely garnished with the latest upbeat opinions of research firm Point Topic: 

“95% [superfast coverage] by 2017 should certainly be achievable and is also desirable…In fact, with the inclusion of FWA, mobile and satellite in the metrics, the targets can in some senses said to have already been achieved” 

So, notwithstanding some recurring criticism of BT’s commercial tactics, the UK broadband outlook appears remarkably encouraging - and showing signs that the government’s drip-feed of subsidies is beginning to pay off. Enjoy the moment!  

It’s a pity, therefore, that some new research from the US shows Europe’s broadband investment is actually falling well behind.  Based on detailed CAPEX data compiled by Infonetics, Roslyn Layton of Aalborg University in Copenhagen has compared recent broadband investment levels in the US with that of the aggregate spend by the 27 EU states. Her results are summarized below.

	2011 CAPEX billions	2012 CAPEX billions	YoY Change	2011 Population millions	2011 $/pers	2012 Population millions	2012 $/pers
US	$72.4	$77.6	7%	311.6	$232	313.9	$247
EU27	$63.4	$50.3	-21%	501.9	$126	500.0	$100

As the table shows, Europe’s per capita investment in 2011 was already little more than half that of the US; worse, the 7% downturn in the EU’s spending last year meant that it was spending only 40 cents on broadband equipment for every dollar invested in the US.   

Now, there is clearly a ‘political’ agenda behind this research, and one might question whether the apparently superior US investment has resulted in such a vibrant broadband market, but it seems fair to conclude that any “best in Europe” claim by the UK might actually amount to a rather hollow victory.