This raises the obvious question: Why are corporations so fleeting? After buying data on more than 23,000 publicly traded companies, Bettencourt and West discovered that corporate productivity, unlike urban productivity, was entirely sublinear. As the number of employees grows, the amount of profit per employee shrinks. West gets giddy when he shows me the linear regression charts. “Look at this bloody plot,” he says. “It’s ridiculous how well the points line up.” The graph reflects the bleak reality of corporate growth, in which efficiencies of scale are almost always outweighed by the burdens of bureaucracy. “When a company starts out, it’s all about the new idea,” West says. “And then, if the company gets lucky, the idea takes off. Everybody is happy and rich. But then management starts worrying about the bottom line, and so all these people are hired to keep track of the paper clips. This is the beginning of the end.”

The colloquium began by Nalaka explaining the big picture; Climate change and energy use.  Global warming is not new but the rate of global warming is. There is a multiplicity of gases causing global warming and their sources.

Looking at the Green House Gas (GHG) mix, Carbon Dioxide is dominant. Made source is fossil fuel use. The ‘F’ gases such as CFC are the man made – now getting phased out.  There is an expansion in the volume of Green house gases.

Nalaka explaied that all GHG are not equal. Methene is much worse than Carbon Dioxide, but Carbon di Oxide has a much worse reputation

Looking at the sources of GHG, there is a variation depend on the organiation which the data is obtained from. A question was raised about the impact of forestry on GHG emmisions, Nalaka explained that deforestation is the main contributor. Electricity and heat or energy supply are the biggest source with forestry a close second.

Nalaka then went on to talk about the Stern Report (UK govt, 2006) which said  ’Climate change is the greatest market failure the world has ever seen…’ He higlighted the lack of referece to ICT in the report. The only direct reference was to household appliances. Green ICTs have received more attention since then. The Stern report has never been challenged on its premise or analysis as far as Nalaka was aware.  ICT and Aviation has roughly the same level of emmision, however aviation gets much more flack. ICT sector directly contribute 2.5% of total GHG emisions according to the Mckinsey report to the UN in 2007.

The adaptability of the IT and Telecom sector to consumer demands, as such the sector should be able to respond better to the problem of GHG emmision than other industries.

Next, Nalaka moved on to how the ICT sector ‘green’ itself beyond simple CSR/PR gestures? An ITU report elaborated on why the GHG from the ICT industry has been rising. Among the reasons  were Proliferation of user devicesUsers owning more devices, Devices today consume more energy and More processing needs more cooling. Nalaka then explained thaat some of the new technology such as sHD televisions draw more power than the traditional units. The stand by power or vampire enrgy too contributes significantly to energy consumption. standby power cost 8% of entire British domestic power consumption (UK Energy Rev, 2006)

Some of the suggestions given by Bill Melody were Improving sector’s own carbon footprint, ICT applications improving efficiency of other sectors, esp. infrastructure.Third order implications from widespread applications of green ICT that change institutions & behaviour patterns.

In taking the first point, with IT and telecom sectors, we can look at both Macro/industry level savings and then micro/consumer level savings.

In taking the Telecom sector, the opportunity lies in telecom migrating to Next Gen Networks (NGN) as Less switching centres needed, More tolerant climatic range specs (less need for air conditioning) and New standards (VDSL2) allow 3 power modes: full, low, sleep

Are savings being offset? Some of the questions are how energy-conscious are services & applications riding on NGNs? Rapid growth of web-based services driving up power demand & CO2 emissions

Rising power use by server farms supporting PC and mobile web use: Hidden green costs of Google apps? Does a web search kill a tree?

The ETNO report highlights the need for Srategic approach and also the need for scaling. The plan to reduce GHG will only work if the operators and players make a commitment.

What are the cost benefit ratios? What is the effect of ITC on the Transport? The other is the concept is cloud computing. Finding from 3rd annual survey by Rackspace, Pub Sep 2009 (150 IT managers worldwide) http://tiny.cc/GreenCloud says that there is no tangible drop.

What are the other low hanging fruits? Also which of the technology that can be passed without bing stuck in political bickering and policy paralysis? An example is the Copenhagen summit. In copenhegen no one wanted to be the first to make changes.

The other level is where ICTs and Telecom help other sectors go green? One OCED analysis says that creative use of ICTs can reduce electricity consupltion/GHG emmisions by 15%. THere is also the process (experimetal) of carbon capture. Norway is at the moment building carbon traps.

What are the cost benefit ratios? What is the effect of ITC on the Transport? The other is the concept is cloud computing. Finding from 3rd annual survey by Rackspace, Pub Sep 2009 (150 IT managers worldwide) http://tiny.cc/GreenCloud says that there is no tangible drop.

The Transmission and distribution loss is about 18% in Sri Lanka,  Delhi can be as high as 40%. A certain level is unavoidable. US is abut 7%, theoretically SL can go lower as the systemis much more compact. Most of the loss is that the generation and end use is not prperly coordinated. This is the Smart rid arguemtn. We also have to be awre of the re-bound. The relationaship is not linear. There is a need for better measuremnent.

Big Challenges: Growing human numbers, Rising middle classes through globalization and Global warming.

What is to be done? Look for a ‘handle’ on Climate/ET/IT, Ignore corporate spin, media hype, Search for strategic ‘entry points’, Study trends & patterns, Demystify industry data, find policy implications, Look for improvements that are: significant, affordable & less politically contentious Measurable & scalable

We also will require regular tracking, simple industry wide chnges and find Ways to crowd-source for monitoring and innovation.

ICTs have the ability to make under the radar changes unlike the avation industry.

Finally; “Telcos are punching below their weight in the climate change arena – they can be part of the solution than part of the problem. They will find it hard to avoid being victims of climate change, but they can reduce their role as villains; and they might even turn out to be heroes.” –  Stephen Young, Ovum Consulting http://www.ovum.com/go/content/c,67759 and “We need both IT and ET, flat and green, working together. Because only then can everyone and everything be both distributed and connected. If we can get that, the world will have a new operating system!” – K R Sridhar, CEO, Bloom Energy

Sujata Gamage: A starting point maybe to start with Melody’s levels and form a picture with the sectors metioned at te begining.

Rohan SAmarajiva: A clear starting poitn is the improvement of the individual sectors’ carbon foot print.

Healni Galpaya: Carbon trading seems to be failing, but there is an economic incentive(s) to switch to more green technology in the telecom sectors in developing countries that adopt the budget telecom model.

Nalaka: The cost of nergy sources such as solar power are falling.

Helani, Rohan: There is no taxes etc involved in the installation on solar panels. There is a need to work wtih the industry to learn more about this.

Rohan: Transport/ICT trade off? Improvements in Efficiency does not mean green solutions.

Shazna: Maybe we can look at the Telecom sector in terms of research:

Nalaka: That maybe a sarting point. No multi country studies have been done.

“The biggest contribution from research is not what is adopted, but what is adopted,” says Bill Melody, founding director of World Dialog on Regulation for Network Economies.

“Harmful policies that are avoided with the information generated from research.”

R K Arnold the head of the executive secretariat of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India says all its recommendation is based on extensive but decisions are not

“We used a (LirneAsia) research on a tax and the government reduced the tax. In infrastructure sharing we drawn heavily on your research,” Arnold said.

“But whether the decision makers use it at the top depends on a very fluid situation.”

In many countries government were heavily taxing telecom services. LirneAsia itself intervened in Sri Lanka to stop a levy from hurting the poorest users.

IDRC, a body that is funding research bodies says evidence has to be pushed to decision makers for people to benefit.

“Research can play a very critical role in specificity and timing,” says Stephen McGurk, IDRC India.

“To be heard requires persistence and timing.”

It contains several articles of interest, including a piece on SMS and cell broadcasting in disaster warning by LIRNEasia’s Samarajiva and Waidyanatha and a review of the ICT infrastructures in Emerging Asia book by Kammy Naidoo.

Rohan Samarajiva, Course Director

The 11th LIRNE.NET course on “Telecom Reform: Strategies to achieve connectivity and convergence,” was held February 25th – March 3rd, 2007 at the Changi Village Hotel, Singapore. It was attended by 33 persons from 13 countries, ranging from Mongolia to Congo and South Africa to Bhutan.

Among the participants were 13 persons from regulatory agencies, including three members of regulatory collegiums. Eleven persons from the management of telecom operators, and nine from research organizations, universities and civil society made up the balance. Twenty were men; and 13 women.

The course had two components: a conventional lecture and assignment based module of five days and one and a half days of research presentations. In all, the participants had the benefit of listening to 28 speakers from research organizations, universities, regulatory agencies, operators, and international organizations (both ITU and World Bank) over an eight-day period. One speaker, Professor Bill Melody, who was unable to attend due to medical reasons, spoke on two occasions via Skype.

The course included a team assignment involving data and communication skills. Of the five teams, three were recognized as TelePhontastic, TelePerseverance and TeleGenic.

The keynote address at the opening session was delivered by Dr Hans Wijayasuriya, CEO of Dialog Telekom of Sri Lanka on behalf of Telekom Malaysia International. The address at the awards banquet was made by Mr M. H. Au, Director General of Telecommunications, Hong Kong China. Ambassador K, Kesavapany, Director of the Institute of South East Asian Studies, Singapore, co-organizer of the research component, spoke at its inaugural session as did Mr Evan Due from the IDRC, the funder of the research meeting.

The course evaluations were extremely positive, with only three items receiving average scores below 4 on a five-point scale (airport transfer (3.43), hotel facilities (3.86) and hotel location (2.43)). In actual fact, the hotel was ideal for a course of this nature, though the participants were somewhat frustrated by the distance to the city center and the frequency of the hotel’s airport shuttle). Most importantly, none of the lectures and assignments got scores below 4/5, with all topics and speakers being very highly rated.

The presentations made are available for download below:

February 26, 2007

1. Introduction to the course

Rohan Samarajiva | Download Presentation

2. Benefits of reform and regulation

Rohan Samarajiva | Download Presentation

3. What do users at the bottom of the pyramid want? Survey research from five Asian countries

Harsha de Silva | Download Presentation

4. State of the art: Regulatory priorities in 2007

Bill Melody | Download Presentation

5. Market entry and scarce resources 1 (emphasis on licensing issues), including demo of infoDev Toolkit

Rohan Samarajiva | Download Presentation

6. Measuring regulatory and sector performance to meet the challenges of legitimacy

Rohan Samarajiva | Download Presentation

February 27, 2007

1. Market entry and scarce resources 2 (emphasis on spectrum issues)

Rohan Samarajiva | Download Presentation

2. What regulators can do to facilitate universal service: Universal Service Funds and least-cost subsidy auctions

Harsha de Silva | Download Presentation

3. Asymmetric regulation, including new approaches to price regulation

Rohan Samarajiva | Download Presentation

4. Interconnection & inter-operator access

Rohan Samarajiva | Download Presentation

February 28, 2007

1. Periodic recalibration of the regulatory mechanism, including meeting the challenges of convergence

Rohan Samarajiva | Download Presentation

2. Alternative regulatory practices and alternative dispute resolution

Rohan Samarajiva | Download Presentation

3. From service-specific to unified licensing: Problems and prospects

Rajendra Singh | Download Presentation

4. Unbundling the local loop and regulatory measures to encourage broadband

Rajendra Singh | Download Presentation

March 1, 2007

1. The challenges and opportunities of VoIP

Tim Kelly | Download Presentation

2. Pricing, billing and interconnection in the Next Generation Network

Tim Kelly | Download Presentation

From IDRC’s website
World Summit on the information Society, Kram Centre, Tunis, November 17, 2005
Conference Organisers: the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) and the Information for Development Program of the World Bank (infoDev)

LIRNE.NET and the World Dialogue on Regulation (WDR)

LIRNEasia Research ICT Africa (RIA)

Diálogo regional sobre la sociedad de la información (DIRSI)

November 17, 2005 – Morning Program

November 17, 2005 – Afternoon Program

My presentation was Expanding Access to ICTs (Powerpoint)

Along with Bill Melody’s forceful comments it clearly established the importance of market and regulatory reforms, a position that may otherwise have been deemphasized as a result of the Chair’s interest in subsidies.

The visit was also used to pursue the disaster warning-communication issues that have come to the fore in the aftermath of the Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004. On the 18th of January I visited the Big Island’s Civil Defense Emergency Operations Center and the Pacific Tsunami Museum accompanied by Bill Melody and at the invitation of Dr George Curtis, a tsunami expert at the University of Hawai’i at Hilo. On the following day, Peter Anderson, the expert we had recruited for the disaster warning work in Sri Lanka, and I visited the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center at Ewa Beach, Oahu. The information gathered in these visits was written up as “Surviving tsunamis: Lessons we can learn from Hawai’i.” I am not attaching this article at this time because I hope to get it published in Sinhala and English in Sri Lanka shortly. This article has been circulated to contacts in tsunami-hit countries in the region as the first step in broadening the disaster warning-communication work.

On the 19th I made a plenary presentation (posted on website previously), “What happened in Sri Lanka and why it won’t be as bad next time.” I was one of four speakers at the closing plenary of the PTC 05 conference. The plenary was well attended. I established useful relations with the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration as a result of the plenary and the related contacts.

The PTC event itself did not live up to (possibly unrealistic) expectations. It had lost a lot of the government, academic and first-tier telco participation that it had back in 1990 when I last attended. There was a dearth of significant fund-raising or academic collaboration opportunities as a result. However, signaling the presence of LIRNEasia as a player in the Asia Pacific and the contacts related to the disaster warning-communication work made the trip worthwhile.

Worth thinking about: Bill’s central point is that the new regulatory agencies must have flexibility. He says their managers must have expertise, independence, capacity, etc.: “they must be informed and sophisticated market managers focused on using market tools strategically as their principal weapon in achieving pubic interest objectives.” Given the difficulties, nay impossibility, of achieving these good qualities in real-world regulatory staff, is this going to create more harm than good?

An organization that is coherent and focused must have a common purpose and its members must know what that purpose is. Even better, those members must have ownership of that purpose, having participated in defining it. This is the case in organizations that are more than the sum of their parts.

LIRNEasia is an affiliate of LIRNE.NET, an organization that was created by Bill Melody, Rohan Samarajiva and Knud-Erik Skouby (with the help of several others) in 2000. It is through IDRC’s interactions with LIRNE.NET and its affiliates that the conditions for the creation of LIRNEasia arose. To a certain extent the transmission of the value and culture of LIRNE.NET into LIRNEasia cannot be avoided. But there must be a participatory process whereby LIRNEasia members shape the vision and mission of the organization. The colloquium of the 12th of November 2004 was the beginning of that process. It wasn’t intended to be the beginning, but that was the outcome of our discussions. This is the next step. Given our ambitions of becoming truly regional, we cannot privilege the face-to-face interactions of the colloquium that much over the virtual interactions of the web. We hope to wrap this up before yearend, if we can get the input of the Board of Directors organized by that time.

First let us agree on working definitions of “vision” and “mission” [open to revision, if supported by good arguments]. I am purposely keeping away from the standard management definitions. These working definitions are based on experience and hopefully in line with common sense. In my view, mission is more important than vision for an organization of our type. I am open to working only with a mission statement, if that’s the majority view.

Vision: a succinct statement of how we see ourselves in, say, five years. It is an abstract statement of an ideal. It should not be possible to measure progress toward the vision quantitatively.

Mission: a statement of our principal purpose(s), values, and to some extent the methods we plan to use to achieve our purpose. It should tell us what we are about and what we are not about. It should help us to decide on priorities. It should accurately communicate to our stakeholders who we are and what we are about. The mission statement can be operationalized into measurable goals.

The provisional mission statement that was articulated on the 1st of September when we started work at the LIRNEasia office was:

To improve the lives the people of Asia by making it easier to use the information and communication technologies they need; by changing the laws, policies and regulations to enable those uses; by building Asia-based human capacity through research, training, consulting and advocacy.

My vision for LIRNEasia:

A truly regional organization that serves as a catalyst for reform in Asian network economies. Its services are in demand by governments, private-sector actors and civil-society because of its expertise, commitment, and fairness. It is financially stable and able to reward the work of its members appropriately.

Please give us your comments, proposals, alternative formulations, amendments, or whatever. Given the nature of the process, we will give weight to the views of those having a stake in LIRNEasia, so it will be necessary to login and give your comments under your names, rather than as guests. Divakar will collate and tabulate the responses and post them on the web. Then we will go into a second round where people will be asked to respond to the collective views expressed in the first round. Let’s think of the 23rd of November as the end of the first round.

(as Word/OpenOffice Document)

It was an auspicious launch with the personal message from Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa delivered by Mr. Lalith Weeratunga, Secretary to Prime Minister (see previous post for tea with the PM) and a message delivered by MP Milinda Moragoda. Also in attendance were Manju Hathotuwa, CEO of the Information Communication Technology Agency. There were also 3 generations of Samarajiva’s including Ainsley and Evelyn Samarajiva. It took 7 people and 15 waiters to light the ceremonial lamp in the winds from the beach.