Why do basic meeting services still suck?
-
As if meetings weren’t destroying productivity badly enough these days, it’s amazing how basic meeting services can still continue to function so badly. For example, have you ever had a phone conference with more than two participants that wasn’t riddled with a bad connection, echos, interference, feedback noise or some other problem? Has any content sharing or collaboration software ever worked properly for all participants? Or, have you participated a meeting where all the projection equipment worked flawlessly and people never had a problem connecting to a projector?
-
Apart from the very high-end telepresence systems, the basic services continue to wreak havoc on most meetings. The Calvin & Hobbes comic below captures the feeling perfectly (click to enlarge):
-
And then we have the meeting etiquette, agenda definition, timeliness, processes and preparedness (or more often the lack of all five) problems on top of the basic technological problems and one can only imagine how many billions of dollars are being wasted in meetings.
100Mbps ought to be enough for everyone
-
Yes yes, that phrase is likely to come back and bite me. But a more pertinent question is what exactly is the benefit of having a 1Gbps connection (the ones Google is planning on trialing) as opposed to 100Mbps, which is the state-of-the-art consumer broadband connection available in select locations around the planet?
-
Video? No. HD video? No. 3D HD-video? Still no. In fact, some years ago Cisco estimated that an all-senses, indistinguishable-from-reality virtual reality system would require a bandwidth of around 70-100Mbps – call it the input bandwidth of the brain. With advanced video and other codecs, the requirement is likely to be less than that. So I think it’s a fair question to ask what do consumers need speeds over 100Mbps for? Especially with the rest of the Internet along with TCP limitations usually bogging down the speed much below that for non-P2P applications.
Dumb, dumber, government?
-
Mention NBN to anyone working in telecom in Australia and you’re bound to get an opinion. (NBN is a government initiative that, with some $40 billion in cash, is to build a nationwide broadband network, delivering 100Mbps to most households.) Nothing in the project, however, seems simple. But there’s one aspect in particular that is nothing short of mind-boggling; the government is taking and threatening to take a number of hostile actions against a single, publicly traded corporation – Telstra (disclaimer: I work for Telstra).
-
Now, I agree with the need for functional separation of access networks and services parts, part of a bill that is currently being debated and looks likely to fail. But what I have absolutely zero tolerance and understanding of are the threats made by the government that unless Telstra plays nice (again, only Telstra, a single publicly traded entity) and comes to an agreement with NBN Co. on a number of non-trivial things, it will be forced to divest its 50% ownership in a cable company, Foxtel, AND be forbidden from bidding on new 4G radio spectrum. WTF?
-
I’m all pro-competition and anti-monopoly, but come on! How can it possibly be constitutional for a government to start making laws that are custom-tailored against a single corporation?! That is hardly modern capitalism.
-
And on a lighter sidenote, how is Telstra identified in these wannabe-laws? By name? If so, Telstra could change its registered name every six months and dodge all the legal mandates ad infinitum ;P


















