Connection
For 2021, IDC (International Data Corporation) expects the worldwide market to grow slightly, by 0.7%, to $1.54 trillion, with slight growth during each of the next four years to take the market over the $1.6 trillion mark by 2025. (Google search)
Are our communications secure, reliable, resilient? Are they cost effective? Do they help us communicate, stay connected, make connections?
Are our communications secure, reliable, resilient? Are they cost effective? Do they help us communicate, stay connected, make connections?
What are we talking about?
|
|
We have so many options to connect and communicate, the questions remain, are they secure, reliable, and resilient? More importantly, do they meet our needs? Do they enable us to connect as humans?
These questions have never been more important than in the past three years of COVID. Never before has the profit over innovation and core functionality been more apparent. We are all getting schooled in the function of algorithms in spreading negativity and misinformation, driving profit, but not helping us connect.
Basic needs vs. profit motive
We expect innovation and investment from the corporations we depend on. What we get is the least they can do, while maximizing their profits to shareholders. In countries that have no infrastructure like Africa, cell towers are plentiful and service far exceeds what we have available in the U.S. Why is this? It is cheaper to install new towers for a variety of reasons: land costs are less, permitting is less, labor is less, and the potential market is enormous. In the U.S., land is expensive, permitting is expensive and time intensive labor is high. While the U.S. market is one of the most lucrative in the world, it is offset by the costs, NIMBY (not in my back yard), concerns about heath affects and misinformation. In the late 1990's, major cable industry people were discussing the target of $200 per month for all of their users. There was no mention of service, value, or any mention of customer concerns, just the amount of revenue they desired from each subscriber. Understanding this helps us understand that we are viewed as a source of revenue and not customers who need reliable, cost effective service to connect, communicate, live and do business. We do not matter except in how we relate to quarterly profits. We the consumers, have a need which is only met in the most marginal ways so that profit can be maximized.
Resilience?
I think we all agree that our communication infrastructure is a vital and necessary part of our lives. The question needs asking, do the corporations that provide us the infrastructure and services think the same way? How secure and reliable are they? Are cell towers built on the most seismically stable land, or the cheapest that meets the basic need? How much back-up power do towers have to continue to operate in a disaster? Cell towers are often remote by necessity, what are the plans to access them in crisis? How about cable, fiber, phone lines (copper); can we assume that the basic foundation of communications are secure and will be available or brought back up in a timely manner? Of course not.
Inertia
For similar reasons, we see inertia in the adoption of technology. Incremental steps taken mostly in software and wavelength are taken to keep upselling customers, while planned obsolescence keeps up purchasing the "promise" of new/better tech. Along with inertia we get entropy, the slow trek into darkness caused by resource limitation, waste, our inability to recycle without China providing cheap labor and few environmental restrictions. We accept what is given us and offer trust in the corporations ability to do the right thing, even when we know that it is pure fantasy.
Painting a picture
This data is from FEMA relating to the Cascadia Rising event projected to occur between now and the next hundred years. Imagine that a nine magnitude quake occurred off the West Coast from Vancouver Island, British Columbia to Crescent City, California (900km). Kitsap County experiences 30% home loss, loses power, both bridges fail, Tacoma Narrows and Hood Canal, the ferries stop operating and the majority of roads are impassible. First responders are going nowhere, emergency management is inaccessible, water lines and sewer lines are cracked, broken and fresh water is not reliably available, waste is going anywhere. There is three days of food and maybe that much backlog of pharmaceuticals available. Kitsap County has almost 300,000 residents according to the last census. State and federal resources will not get to Kitsap for six months. FEMA projects that Kitsap will be without power for up to a year, PSE suggests it will be four to six months.
Oh, and your phone cannot connect to anything...
Without power, without resilience, without access, it is arguable that cell service will take as long as power to return.
Not a pretty picture. Who is responsible you ask? Good question, it could be argued that the government is responsible to prepare...the government has said it is up to individuals to be prepared. The corporations, well, it would take a lawyer to provide a answer to that, but other than lawsuits, after we have recovered enough, there probably is no recourse due to the user agreements we all sign without reading.
Stomach clenched yet, ours did when we realized what is at risk.
Perspective
We need a new perspective and we need to come together and decide what we want and need, then we must drive those changes via whatever means will be the most effective and provide the solutions and services we need! That is not revolution, which spins the wheels again, and gets us to the same point after a significant destructive period.
We have said throughout this that it looks like a jigsaw puzzle, we have put the edges together, but will not know what the picture looks like until you bring your pieces!
Solutions needed
A secure, healthy, resilient communications infrastructure with redundancy and contingency plans built in.
We don't know what we don't know, maybe you do?
These questions have never been more important than in the past three years of COVID. Never before has the profit over innovation and core functionality been more apparent. We are all getting schooled in the function of algorithms in spreading negativity and misinformation, driving profit, but not helping us connect.
Basic needs vs. profit motive
We expect innovation and investment from the corporations we depend on. What we get is the least they can do, while maximizing their profits to shareholders. In countries that have no infrastructure like Africa, cell towers are plentiful and service far exceeds what we have available in the U.S. Why is this? It is cheaper to install new towers for a variety of reasons: land costs are less, permitting is less, labor is less, and the potential market is enormous. In the U.S., land is expensive, permitting is expensive and time intensive labor is high. While the U.S. market is one of the most lucrative in the world, it is offset by the costs, NIMBY (not in my back yard), concerns about heath affects and misinformation. In the late 1990's, major cable industry people were discussing the target of $200 per month for all of their users. There was no mention of service, value, or any mention of customer concerns, just the amount of revenue they desired from each subscriber. Understanding this helps us understand that we are viewed as a source of revenue and not customers who need reliable, cost effective service to connect, communicate, live and do business. We do not matter except in how we relate to quarterly profits. We the consumers, have a need which is only met in the most marginal ways so that profit can be maximized.
Resilience?
I think we all agree that our communication infrastructure is a vital and necessary part of our lives. The question needs asking, do the corporations that provide us the infrastructure and services think the same way? How secure and reliable are they? Are cell towers built on the most seismically stable land, or the cheapest that meets the basic need? How much back-up power do towers have to continue to operate in a disaster? Cell towers are often remote by necessity, what are the plans to access them in crisis? How about cable, fiber, phone lines (copper); can we assume that the basic foundation of communications are secure and will be available or brought back up in a timely manner? Of course not.
Inertia
For similar reasons, we see inertia in the adoption of technology. Incremental steps taken mostly in software and wavelength are taken to keep upselling customers, while planned obsolescence keeps up purchasing the "promise" of new/better tech. Along with inertia we get entropy, the slow trek into darkness caused by resource limitation, waste, our inability to recycle without China providing cheap labor and few environmental restrictions. We accept what is given us and offer trust in the corporations ability to do the right thing, even when we know that it is pure fantasy.
Painting a picture
This data is from FEMA relating to the Cascadia Rising event projected to occur between now and the next hundred years. Imagine that a nine magnitude quake occurred off the West Coast from Vancouver Island, British Columbia to Crescent City, California (900km). Kitsap County experiences 30% home loss, loses power, both bridges fail, Tacoma Narrows and Hood Canal, the ferries stop operating and the majority of roads are impassible. First responders are going nowhere, emergency management is inaccessible, water lines and sewer lines are cracked, broken and fresh water is not reliably available, waste is going anywhere. There is three days of food and maybe that much backlog of pharmaceuticals available. Kitsap County has almost 300,000 residents according to the last census. State and federal resources will not get to Kitsap for six months. FEMA projects that Kitsap will be without power for up to a year, PSE suggests it will be four to six months.
Oh, and your phone cannot connect to anything...
Without power, without resilience, without access, it is arguable that cell service will take as long as power to return.
Not a pretty picture. Who is responsible you ask? Good question, it could be argued that the government is responsible to prepare...the government has said it is up to individuals to be prepared. The corporations, well, it would take a lawyer to provide a answer to that, but other than lawsuits, after we have recovered enough, there probably is no recourse due to the user agreements we all sign without reading.
Stomach clenched yet, ours did when we realized what is at risk.
Perspective
We need a new perspective and we need to come together and decide what we want and need, then we must drive those changes via whatever means will be the most effective and provide the solutions and services we need! That is not revolution, which spins the wheels again, and gets us to the same point after a significant destructive period.
We have said throughout this that it looks like a jigsaw puzzle, we have put the edges together, but will not know what the picture looks like until you bring your pieces!
Solutions needed
A secure, healthy, resilient communications infrastructure with redundancy and contingency plans built in.
We don't know what we don't know, maybe you do?
|
Resilient Ecosystems makes no claim to ownership or rights to Playing for Change. We are using this as an example of the power of communication and connection.
|
Playing for Change
Playing For Change (PFC) is a Certified B Corp (Social Purpose Corporation) created to inspire and connect the world through music, born from the shared belief that music has the power to break down boundaries and overcome distances between people. The primary focus of PFC is to record and film musicians performing in their natural environments and combine their talents and cultural power in innovative videos called Songs Around The World. Playing for Change |
