by Metiria Turei
I released our IT policy on Tuesday just before introducing Richard Stallman at his Dunedin talk “Copyright vs Community?. Richard found my reference to “quote intellectual property unquote” somewhat difficult – you can read it here.
It didn’t make front page news because we didn’t make ridiculous promises. Our policy is focused around access, freedom and open government. Free municipally owned wireless networks would be a great start. And Government needs to be more open with its information, both in the information it makes available and the compatibility of its systems. And it needs to prioritise local software development rather than relying on international corporations for managing NZers private information.
Just as important as investment in infrastructure is investing in the education of our children. Giving schools the ability to easily make the transition to free and open source software would be a giant leap forward. Not only giving students greater access to learning opportunities but additionally more access to computers via recycling initiatives like that employed by Warrington School.
How can saving money, recycling hardware (not up to spec for the latest version of windows but that still runs GNU/Linux comfortably) not be a good thing?
Richard Stallman critiques our policy and he made some important suggestions that we will feed into the policy process. For him our policy doesn’t go far enough, but then, thats why we need people like him and groups like the Free Software Foundation, to keep pushing the envelope. BTW, Richard is speaking tonight In Auckland, University of Auckland 1:00 – 4:00pm venue: OGGB4. Go and enjoy and say Hi from me.
Published in Environment & Resource Management by Metiria Turei on Thu, August 21st, 2008
Tags: computers, free software, information, IT, Open Source, policy, technology
More posts by Metiria Turei | more about Metiria Turei
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
It probably didn’t make front page news because it doesn’t say much.
“The benefits of IT need to be shared amongst all members of our society and not be used to enhance or entrench existing inequalities…”
Huh? Lets swap a word out: “The benefits of the fax machine need to be shared amongst all members of our society and not be used to enhance or entrench existing inequalities”.
Still doesn’t mean anything.
>>The development of IT must proceed in a socially responsible and sustainable manner.
Huh? I have no idea what this means.
>>The digital divide must be bridged so these opportunities are properly shared. The opportunities from IT must not depend on wealth but work for the benefit of all.
The reality is that capitalism has driven the cost of the PC down to a point where most people can afford one. The worlds biggest corporations provide you with free services, thus empowering the individual (Google) and removing traditional power structures (anybody can now run a global business).
It happened because engineers and capitalists run the show. Not politicians.
Long may that last.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BTW: Is this the same Stallman who once proclaimed: “”It’s better not to use computers than to use proprietary software…proprietary software is unethical and unjust because it subjugates the user”.
Same guy?
Another extremist, eh….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
OK
>
>>All citizens and groups should be able to access IT in order to:
Share their opinions, heritage and skills
Organise collectively
Be informed
Do business (buy, sell and advertise)
Work
Be educated
Maintain social networks
If sections of the community are excluded from modern information technology, and the competencies associated with it, they will be excluded economically, socially, and politically.
I guess this means that anyone who hasn’t got a PC and Broadband connection gets given one “for free”? (For free of course being translated to mean ‘on me’ as I’m a tax payer!)
Just that one part of the policy gives me the heebie jeebies about doing anything to assist the Green Party have a significant influence on the next Parliament’s agenda. Put it together with the idea of an entire school leaving cohort having a “paid Gap year” and I’m already facing a hike in taxes, and we haven’t got anywhere near a sustained ecology yet!
One for each, irrespective of ability to pay is not an equitable foundation on which to build the innovation encouraging and growth driven New ZEaland that is needed to survive the 21st century. It’s more likely to see me take my retirement and head off to the sun, coming back just often enough to ensure that my entitlement to the “Life-Style Sustaining Social Pension” I was promised when I started work (or rather that pittance of the same that will be affordable by the NZ Government) does not vanish!
Bah Humbug (a phrase I thought was reserved for Dickensian prose but is appropriate here) I cry to your socialist state.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I agree somewhat with the concerns of BP and Strings.
But well done pushing open source. With that we can have far cheaper computers in schools (recycle old machines for longer for example), and children can learn more about IT because they can fiddle with it more.
I switched from Mac to Linux 4 months ago and have switched the old Mac on about 3 times since. I use a computer pretty well full-time for my work, and Linux does the job fine. Not perfectly, Apple is still more user-friendly, but certainly fine for my purposes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Thanks Mr Dennis, for the support on GNU/Linux, I use it too and it works a treat.
Its more difficult to take the concerns of Strings and Blue Peter seriously though. The Internet has become part of the public infrastructure and there should be the best possible access for as many citizens as possible. There are many ways to do this. It s not some socialist threat, its just making sure that everyone gets to benefit from critical new technologies as they arise. Its the same principle that makes sure we can use our home phones without paying for local calls. There is nothing especially radical about the idea that our community don’t have to pay for everything that could be charged for.
meyt
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>
>>Its the same principle that makes sure we can use our home phones without paying for local calls
Meyt
If you don’t understand how you are paying for those calls, you need a quick refresher in the economics.
There are wires that go directly from your home phone to an exchange – lets call it the 0447x exchange. This is the basic heart of the telephone system and the place where you are ‘connected’ or ‘disconnected’ from the system with a simple twist of a wrist.
The exchange 0447x is their ‘arrival point’ for all phones that start with the number 04 47 – so lets call that the Wellington Western Suburb corridor. This exchange is connected by a few thousand other pairs of wire to the other local exchanges, messrs 0480x 0423x etc., the wires are connected electronically by ‘the switch’ to whatever service you require, if it’s a very local call (e.g. 0447x to 0447x ) then the call is simply connecting two local pairs, there is an incremental cost of maybe $0.000001 to accomplish. If it’s to another of the local exchanges, (say Mr 0447x to Mr 0480x) two ’switches’ are involved an the incremental cost is maybe $0.000003. The word ‘incremental’ is VERY important here as it represents the ‘direct’ (i.e. caused and incurred only for your call) cost of providing this service. The rest of the cost is included in two places – maintenance of the wire/exchange and depreciation plus interest on the carrying cost of the wire/exchange. The first is part of the difference between revenue and EBITDA, the second is part of ITDA.
Now. Here’s the rub.
Providing the call in this manner does not incur any real direct cost; however, billing it would! There would be more paper, more use of the meter, more labour to resolve disputes, more data storage for the transaction details. SO, it would cost more than it does today to charge for local calls than to leave them AS PART OF THE LINE RENTAL that we all pay.
That Line Rental is just like the line on your electricity or gas bill for transmission (or line) services. You pay a flat amount, irrespective of how much you use it! Of course, in the case of electricity, there are very few homes that don’t have something electrical ‘on’ at any time (e.g. a refrigerator,). IN the case of telephones, there is generally very little time, unless you have ADSL broadband, that you do use the line. SO the work load of the wire & exchange is quite low for a domestic phone.
All of this says, that if, as is something of the order of right, you spend about three hours a month on the phone to local numbers; and if you pay $50 in line rental fees; then you are paying 27.7 cents per minute for your local phone calls. The more time you spend on local calls, the lower the cost per minute – in other words, there is a volume discount!
(Note. When the now Telstra clear introduced ‘local loop competition’ in Wellington and Christchurch, this ’sunk capital vs incremental cost’ was the reason Telecom was able to instantly reduce its monthly line rental in those cities. It lost some revenue to keep a lot of revenue – but cost wasn’t impacted so the more customers it kept the better off it was, even at lower rentals.
I think we should perhaps look to change an old saying for the purpose of this post. Instead of TANSTAAFL, we should use TANSTAAFPC! IN other words, there ain’t no such thing as a free phone call.
My conclusion: There IS something especially radical about the idea that our community don’t have to pay for everything that could be charged for, one way or another.
PS. I too like open software, I just worry about having no one to call when the lights go out, the bank stops giving me my money and the transport system closes down. When something is owned by everyone, it is the responsibility of no one, and that’s a big risk to take in a world that depends on computing power for almost everything (including a snapped bus ride now!)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Strings
There is no marginal cost for a local call. To the user there is none by law, for the exchange it is a cost for the call that saturates the system – the straw that breaks the camel’s back. The marginal cost for that call is huge, but that is the model breaking down.
The telco deals with the problem by having a lot of spare capacity. This is not expensive as the expense is in putting the cables in. Putting in 2, 4, 8 or 16 times the capacity costs nothing like 2, 4, 8 or 16 times as much. The marginal cost of extra capacity is vanishlingly small.
The marginal cost for any call is almost indistinguishable from zero for almost any destination. Pretty much all the costs of modern telco systems are fixed costs.
So “the idea that our community don’t have to pay for everything that could be charged for, one way or another. ” is radical, economically illiterate and just plain stupid.
Charging for data by the byte is not really in this category. There is a difference between my data use of mayby 5 gig a month (in a busy month) and some people who can do 5 gig a day. But this can be accommodated like my ISP does where 20Gig is free (part of the fixed cost) and gets mildly incremental after that. Practically thinking it is a fixed charge.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yep. The same.
Yep. An extremist.
But he has shown that Free Software works. There are thousands and thousands of free software programmes. The Linux kernel is the best known. The GCC compiler the most useful, IMO.
It is a bit worrying for traditional economic theorists. So much work done for free, why would that be?
peace
W
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Strings
That is a “straw man” argument. The policy does not say that. It says that every body should be able to access the technology. That does not make it free, just affordable!
peace
W
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Strings Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 8:20 am
> My conclusion: There IS something especially radical about the idea that our community don’t have to pay for everything that could be charged for, one way or another.
Of course, councils have been treating water supply and sewage treatment as free for years, while surreptitiously paying for it out of our rates.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Strings,
You write: ” I too like open software, I just worry about having no one to call when the lights go out, the bank stops giving me my money and the transport system closes down. When something is owned by everyone, it is the responsibility of no one, and that’s a big risk to take in a world that depends on computing power for almost everything (including a snapped bus ride now!)”
Not all free software is insecure or unreliable (just as not all commercial software is reliable). I am writing this reply on a computer running an operating system called OpenBSD. It is totally free (no GPL restrictions such as Linux has), and is also incredibly secure and reliable. If you can show me a more secure and reliable commercial OS, I will switch over tomorrow.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
With regards local phone calls: in NZ, these are bundled up in the line rental, and form a significant part of it. I’m living in Australia, and pay Tel$tra $20 per month line rental, and 30c per local call. If it was not for the fact that I use VoIP for almost all my calls, my phone charges would be roughly the same as when I lived in NZ and had “free” calls.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
High speed internet is such a difficuly problem to solve because it doesn’t work well in a free market solution.
While a free market is good for deciding which type of high speed internet solution is the best it is very hard at handling competition amongst the providers of that solution.
What the government did with telecom was good at allowing competition in DSL, the problem is that DSL is NOT a good technology for high speed internet as cable and fibre.
In the US DSL tried to compete with cable and it was destroyed by the free market now the phone companies have had to spend vast amounts of money laying fibre to the house so they could again compete, Verizon(US Phone company) has come out with its fibre optic to the home solution so it can again compete with the phone companies.
The most important policy the government of NZ needs to pass is one that restricts ISP’s from packet shaping as that is a monopolistic practise that can hurt a free market economy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Looks pretty good overall. Lovely to see shout-outs to dewindowsing government computers, network neutrality, end-user-liability rather than carrier-liability, fair usage rights and crippleware. I see nothing in the policy that, in principle, should be controversial to anyone with a decent IT background.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Lovely to see shout-outs to dewindowsing government computers, network neutrality, end-user-liability rather than carrier-liability, fair usage rights and crippleware.”
Can you translate this for us please?
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Dewindowising: You will not find that in any dictionary but you can figure out what it means I am sure.
Network Neutrality: If I put data on the network and Disney put data on the network when our data arrives at a switch (think an Internet intersection) both sets of data are treated with the same priority. This is not what Disney wants. They want to be able to pay owners of Internet switches to give their data priority. This means that a start up like Trademe (founded in 1999) would have a lot of trouble getting started as they would be *slow*.
End user liability Vs. carrier liability: When Jo Blow downloads 100 GB of child porn it is Jo Blow who has committed a crime not her ISP. Jo is the end user, the ISP is the carrier.
Fair usage rights: Means you can make copies of copyrighted works in circumstances that do not impact (or impact slightly) on the copyright holder. Eg: I rip DVDs onto a computer connected to my TV so I can watch them. Technically illegal but unless I then sell the original DVD (I do not, I keep it as a backup) I have not hurt the DVD maker. Ripping CDs to an IPOD is (still) illegal in NZ (I think).
Crippleware: I use GNU/Linux exclusively so I had to look this up. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crippleware. Blows my mind that people put up with this stuff. DRM should be illegal. Grrr!!! Fury!!!! Steam coming out of my ears!!!!!!! About to expolde…. Chill Pill, calm down W, …… Time for some Bliss time!
peace
W
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Thanks for the information bliss. The link threw me until I spotted the full-stop on the end.
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>
>> There is no marginal cost for a local call. To the user there is none by law, for the exchange it is a cost for the call that saturates the system
Inside an exchange you cannot exceed the capacity of the connected twisted pairs, so saturation cannot occur.
>
>>The marginal cost for any call is almost indistinguishable from zero for almost any destination.
Not true! If the destination is outside the exchange there is a cost for power boosting, and if outside the exchange owner’s network an interconnect fee has to be paid to use the other network(s). This is a real cost, as anyone who sees the cost of ‘roaming’ in a telco will be able to attest!
>
>>Charging for data by the byte is not really in this category.
Again, a misconception. 90% of data ’shipped’ by carriers for internet usage comes from outside NZ, for which there are ’shipping’ charges to be paid to other carriers to deliver it to our shores. There is, therefore, significant cost to the ISP to provide data over an internet connection.
On the topic of IP over cable. The key issue in North America was dealt with a few decades ago, when cable television became popular and providers started laying cable (coax) throughout the land. In 2008 dollars the cost would be vast, in 1970 dollars (when my house in Toronto was connected,) it was quite reasonable (about three hours pay) and to “get connected” you had to pay a fee of about a day’s pay, for which they extended the cable overhead to the house and delivered it to the place you wanted you TV to be. Doing the same thing with Fibre today has already been estimated at about $2,000 per.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hi ya’ll, Just thought you might be keen to see some press we got out of the policy launch: http://www.stuff.co.nz/4668175a28.html
cheers, Mx
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Ms Turei says wider adoption of open source software would reduce costs and lead to investment in local IT businesses”
The IT world has been banging on about open-source OS for decades now, but it remains the choice of geeks.
Why?
It isn’t a replacement for Windows.
People weigh the cost savings of the license against the change in support structures and the conversion cost of applications and other hardware. The license always comes out cheaper.
PS: I use Windows, Mac, and Linux on different machines. Windows, for all it’s problems, is still the cheapest and most flexible OS, all else being equal. Mac is inflexible. Linux is ok for a limited range of applications, and it would be a brave IT shop that rolled this out across a user base used to MS.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>”the setup of free municipally owned wireless networks”
Laughs….you’ll have people downloading movies 24/7.
That’s going to be one expensive bill…..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
@strings – “I too like open software, I just worry about having no one to call when the lights go out, the bank stops giving me my money and the transport system closes down.”
You’ve tried phoning a major software vendor’s support line when their software misbehaves, I take it?
“When something is owned by everyone, it is the responsibility of no one, and that’s a big risk to take in a world that depends on computing power for almost everything (including a snapped bus ride now!)”
Actually, the bus / car analogy is a good one. One bus has an engine welded shut at the factory; the other can be serviced by any mechanic, including the manufacturer. Which would you choose?
Having the sourcecode (engine plans and service manuals) freely available is a boon to having more people you can turn to. The manufacturer may well have a vested interest in NOT fixing a bug (“This will be fixed in the next major release, please upgrade”), but with open code anyone can provide a fix to the community – and you can still pay someone to give you that fix.
You’ve lost nothing, and gained a more open and competitive environment. I’m all for that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>
>>You’ve tried phoning a major software vendor’s support line when their software misbehaves, I take it?
Yep. No problem on the corporate support line we use.
>
>>Actually, the bus / car analogy is a good one. One bus has an engine welded shut at the factory; the other can be serviced by any mechanic, including the manufacturer. Which would you choose?
The closed system. At least the people who open it will know what they are doing. Unlike the ‘any mechanic’ who wrecked the computer in my car because he didn’t understand “this new fangled stuff”. Cost me many pretty dollars to get that repaired.
My bottom line is quite simple. When I look at the corporate need for dependable mission critical systems, and I am faced with a choice between stuff done by a hobbyist, for free, and circulated on a ‘user beware’ basis vs stuff done by a major corporation that has a reputation to preserve and pays its people to not only write good code, but write it to standards, and to submit it to QA processes, I’ll take the latter every time.
I used to write operating systems in the Mini-computer days.They were like calculus – complicated. In today’s world, with a myriad of peripherals, interconnectivity and criminal intent, they’re still complicated. It’s just that now they’re like quantum mechanics complicated, as opposed to the relative simplicity of calculus.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Strings wrote:
“When I look at the corporate need for dependable mission critical systems, and I am faced with a choice between stuff done by a hobbyist, for free, and circulated on a ‘user beware’ basis vs stuff done by a major corporation that has a reputation to preserve and pays its people to not only write good code, but write it to standards, and to submit it to QA processes, I’ll take the latter every time.”
Much open source software is written by programmers employed by larger companies who want the software to work, and work well, and who are under less pressure to simply meet a marketing deadline. If problems are then found, they have an interest in fixing them since they are the user.
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I would like to share something with you. I just spent half my day fighting with the d**m Verizon automated help line. I tried in vein to reach an actual person! Got hung up on by the automation once, then transferred to the Verizon Wireless line where the computer started asking me if I had problems with my cell phone connection! 24/7 support?? Tell me, which 24 minutes of 7 days are talking about??
just get some ISP speed
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I wonder for there is no marginal cost for a local call. To the user there is none by law, for the exchange it is a cost for the call that saturates the system
Inside an exchange you cannot exceed the capacity of the connected twisted pairs, so saturation cannot occur.
ISP
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)