| :: CEO Column
Next Generation Thinking There is no doubt that success in navigating through any period of large scale change requires unity of purpose and a cohesive vision. However, as time marches on, it is the last aspect of our objective that raises questions. Increasingly it is becoming apparent that the so-called “NGN world” is not a destination. Certainly we are moving steadily from the environment dominated by circuit switched telephony to one that relies more strongly on IP technologies. However it is also becoming clear that there will be no specific jumping off point and no defined arrival point into the NGN environment. That being the case, we are fooling ourselves if we continue to talk and think and plan on the basis that we are moving from one distinct era to another – like moving from sail to steam or from the horse-drawn carriage to the motor car. What is actually going to occur is that the industry will just continue on an inexorable path of renewal, using a hybrid of new and existing technologies that are gradually phased out as they reach obsolescence. So what does that mean for the way we manage that evolutionary process? The ITU recently called for abstracts of presentations for its ITU Telecom Europe 2007 Forum where it said “We need the next generation of thinkers”. It’s a worthy concept because the approaches, the structures and the thinking that were appropriate in a fairly static PSTN-centric world are not appropriate in a constantly evolving, multi-faceted communications environment. The bureaucratic, top-down processes of the past can’t adjust fast enough to keep pace with the needs of a dynamic industry without stifling innovation and competition. That’s why those at the centre of change – the service providers, the content providers, the equipment suppliers – have to play a greater role in making sure the settings are right. Therefore Communications Alliance is becoming more active in developing input to government policy. One of the main drivers for establishing Communications Alliance was that our members wanted a strong, representative body that was prepared to present a unified industry viewpoint on the issues that affect them. That fact was underscored in a recent survey in which almost 80 per cent of our members said the value of Communications Alliance membership was that it allowed their opinion to be heard through representation and policy input to government and regulators. In addition, 90 per cent of members felt that Communications Alliance was “an effective voice in the communications industry”. Of course this new role will inevitably have its challenges when you realize that our membership covers the full spectrum of this diverse and highly competitive industry. There will necessarily be some issues where we won’t be able to gain unanimity. At such times we will have to either choose not to make a submission or we will provide a submission that highlights areas of disagreement, which could be just as helpful in identifying the key issues that need to be considered. Whatever course we follow, the objective is to be proactive in setting the agenda and influencing outcomes. Rather than have policy presented to us as a fait accompli, we want to tell the stakeholders what the industry sees as the issues. Instead of being consulted after the fact, we would hope that we can establish sufficient credibility to be consulted up-front. The logical result of that approach is that all sides will be spared a lot of pain. Ultimately we would like to see that process go even further with the industry being given greater responsibility for developing the solutions itself. We have the expertise and the practical know-how that only exists at the coalface. As was the case with the world-leading Mobile Number Portability Scheme, if government outlines the outcomes it wants to achieve, we can devise the most effective and practical ways to deliver those outcomes. Anne Hurley |
