The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
One technology that is very interesting is Cognitive Radio. Bit of a Smart Grid really. Most connected mobile devices operate within a narrow frequency band. With GSM it might be anything in the 800 - 2100 MHz range, in different networks. This is all prime air estate as almost all radio frequencies are already licenced, But, and this is the crucial point, not all frequency bands are fully used at all times. Networks are designed for peak use - and even peak use can be dealt with locally by putting in more nodes temporarily e.g. a 60.000 capacity stadium music performance from a big band might generate thousands of uses of the network within a short time period.
What Cognitive Radio will do, when it works and when it is licenced, is to allow suitably equipped mobile devices (not yet existing) to connect to the network over a range of frequencies, or channels, as they are available. The network would decide (smart gridwise) at which frequency it will let you connect OR charge you a premium for bandwidth during peaks.
The problem is adjacent channel interference. GSM uses the mind boggling Gaussian minimum-shift keying (GMSK), a kind of continuous-phase frequency shift keying. But I'm sure the boffins will come up with something. You can't be me, I'm taken
Digital Money: Information rules OK
Forum friend Bob Hettinga sent me a copy of a paper on Computer-Mediated Transactions (18th January 2010) by Hal Varian of Google and I enjoyed reading it on a recent train ride. One of the points that Hal (who you may remember from the early days of cyberspace with the book "Information Rules" written by Hal and Carl Shapiro) makes is that computer-mediated transactions generate information that manual transactions do not and he suggests that using this information might be one of the key areas of competition in the future. I think this is spot on (which is why I am drawing your attention to it, obviously) and I have mentioned before about the opportunity to use payment-related information to generate additional value for customers and merchants alike. This was echoed a couple of days later at an Evershed's "Thought Leadership Dinner" that I was invited to. Shashi Verma from Transport for London gave a very interesting after-dinner talk in which he mentioned that the use of information had not been part of the business case for migrating from cardboard tickets to Oyster cards, yet analysis of Oyster information is now a crucial process that saves literally hundreds of millions of pounds every year by directing expenditure more efficiently. Very small changes made to train timetables, for example, using the anonymised journey data from Oyster, can reduce average journey times or overcrowding in ways that simply could not have been predicted.
Forum friend Bob Hettinga sent me a copy of a paper on Computer-Mediated Transactions (18th January 2010) by Hal Varian of Google and I enjoyed reading it on a recent train ride. One of the points that Hal (who you may remember from the early days of cyberspace with the book "Information Rules" written by Hal and Carl Shapiro) makes is that computer-mediated transactions generate information that manual transactions do not and he suggests that using this information might be one of the key areas of competition in the future. I think this is spot on (which is why I am drawing your attention to it, obviously) and I have mentioned before about the opportunity to use payment-related information to generate additional value for customers and merchants alike.
This was echoed a couple of days later at an Evershed's "Thought Leadership Dinner" that I was invited to. Shashi Verma from Transport for London gave a very interesting after-dinner talk in which he mentioned that the use of information had not been part of the business case for migrating from cardboard tickets to Oyster cards, yet analysis of Oyster information is now a crucial process that saves literally hundreds of millions of pounds every year by directing expenditure more efficiently. Very small changes made to train timetables, for example, using the anonymised journey data from Oyster, can reduce average journey times or overcrowding in ways that simply could not have been predicted.
These cardboard tickets were also electronic. What data does the Oyster card provide that couldn't have been obtained from the earlier tickets?
It is the ability of the card to track real time movements of people collectively - ie the flows past the readers and therefore cardholders' presence shortly after on platforms - which is useful, I think.
I have noticed on the Tube that trains often seem to terminate early (to shuttle back), and re-route on an ad hoc basis - eg at an intersection like Camden Town on the Northern Line - far more than they used to.
I suspect that sophisticated analysis of people flows from Oyster data may be driving this traffic management.
A Diary from Bruce McF or DoDo on this might be interesting. "The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson
use of information had not been part of the business case for migrating from cardboard tickets to Oyster cards [2003]
That statement is preposterous. What was the "business case" for building a new payment system, if not optimizing price structure of existing, zone-rated transit? Kewl factor? I think not.
Our examples so far have involved switching costs, like those to Bell Atlantic of replacing switches worth billions of dollars. Do not be misled: even when switching costs appear low, they can be critical for strategy. A million customers, each of whom has switching costs of $100, are just as valuable, collectively, as a single customer whose switching costs are $100 million. The point is that you must compare any switching costs to revenues on a per customer basis and add up these costs across your entire installed base to value that base. These principles apply equally to customers who are businesses or households. [Shapiro and Varian, 1999: 108]
OTOH many of the technical capabilities that get built into any technical network system in order to make it more profitable, tend to be 'misused' by subscribers. Many, especially young people, 'game' systems to reduce their own costs. And when there are enough smart 'gamers' (i.e. millions), they do a better job of 'balancing' the system than a hundred engineers sitting around thinking what customers might want to do. Often these new capabilities do end up being profitable for the carriers, but not in the way they planned. You can't be me, I'm taken
My choice of excerpt was semi-incidental. The internet revolution fantasy slathered on revenue maxing strat in that book is unavoidable. Still Oyster is a volume tool.
A characteristic common to telecom and mass transit enterprises is, both are general utilities.
Another is rate structure being a function of distance between origination and termination of service per purchase per person. That is, both producers meter length of service by zone transited, regardless of mode or payment method.
The problem then facing bureaucrats masquerading as civil engineers of unified transit operations is usually, fundamentally, revenue collection. The value of information lies not in "individual profiling" or idiosyncratic preferences. For none would argue, mass transit riders could, did, and do easily "game" a rudimentary system of "information" required to calculate price of passage.
Particularly bus fare.
I've seen it with my own two. Ridiculous situation. Not even in NYC, still a coin and paper subsidized operation, bleeds like that. omg. Marginal rate of recovery of losses attributable to that division of the London metro system alone had to make the case for installing Oyster readers.
Passenger car congestion notwithstanding,
It takes £1.8 billion (US $3 billion) to keep London buses running, but riders only pay £1.1 billion (US $1.8 billion) in fares [probably an improvement YoY since 2003], creating a 40 percent subsidy at the expense of motorists. The London Underground subway system is more efficient with £1.8 billion (US $3 billion) in fares collected to cover £2.4 billion (US $3.9 billion) in expenses, meaning riders only enjoy a 25 percent discount at the expense of drivers. Read more...
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 7
by Oui - Feb 4 33 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 2 8 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 26 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 31 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 22 3 comments
by Cat - Jan 25 63 comments
by Oui - Jan 9 21 comments
by Oui - Feb 7
by Oui - Feb 433 comments
by Oui - Feb 311 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 28 comments
by Oui - Feb 2109 comments
by Oui - Feb 16 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 313 comments
by gmoke - Jan 29
by Oui - Jan 2735 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 263 comments
by Cat - Jan 2563 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 223 comments
by Oui - Jan 2110 comments
by Oui - Jan 21
by Oui - Jan 20
by gmoke - Jan 20
by Oui - Jan 1841 comments
by Oui - Jan 1591 comments
by Oui - Jan 145 comments