Fear of a wireless planet

By Graham Brown-Martin

Read all about it...In an age where there is so much information the headline is king.

So it is with those reader hungry newspapers who live off scare stories where they don’t have practice much, you know, “journalism”.

Journalism is defined in Wikipedia as “the practice of investigation and reporting of events, issues and trends to a broad audience”.

The Oxford English Dictionary is more succinct and describes it thus “the activity or profession of writing for newspapers or magazines or of broadcasting news on radio or television”

Whilst I prefer the more lofty definition presented by Wikipedia I’m more inclined to believe the investigation-free version offered by OED that's more in keeping with the journalistic practice demonstrated by todays mainstream press.

Take this headline from The Telegraph newspaper:

“Ban mobile phones and wireless networks in schools, say European leaders”

Or this headline from the Daily Express:

“CALL FOR SCHOOLS TO BAN MOBILES IN NEW CANCER ALERT”

Or this one from the Daily Mail:

“Ban mobile phones and wi-fi from schools ‘as they are potentially harmful’”

Heady stuff (no pun intended), more than enough to fuel numerous blogs (including this one) and copycat news items around the world much like the story of Chicken Little who after an incident with an acorn decided that the “sky was falling in” and sets off to tell the king collecting, other animals along the way.

Optional cartoon interlude:

Given the shortage of journalists working at these papers perhaps a little critical thinking from an enquiring mind might be in order.

So what’s the background to the story?

Well, a committee from the Council of Europe published a report / working document on May 6th entitled “The potential dangers of electromagnetic fields and their effect on the environment”. The committee proposes a draft resolution that

“all reasonable measures to reduce exposure to electromagnetic fields, especially to radio frequencies from mobile phones, and particularly the exposure to children and young people”.

It then proposes banning

“all mobile phones, DECT phones or WiFi or WLAN systems from classrooms and schools” and also anticipates legislation to “to keep high-voltage power lines and other electric installations at a safe distance from dwellings”.

It justifies this proposed action because “waiting for high levels of scientific and clinical proof can lead to very high health and economic costs”.

So what’s the Council of Europe (CoE) and who belongs to the committee?

First off, the CoE is not the European Union neither is it the European Parliament nor the European Council.

The CoE has been around for over 60 years with 47 member countries and whose objective is

“to create a common democratic and legal area throughout the whole of the continent, ensuring respect for its fundamental values: human rights, democracy and the rule of law.”

Mr Jean Huss MP, Green Party, LuxembourgThe CoE’s Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs responsible for the report is composed of politicians rather than scientists. The report has been prepared by Mr Jean Huss, a Green Party MP in the Luxembourg legislative Chamber.

The report has yet to be debated by Council of Europe which is scheduled for debate in Kiev on May 27th where it will be approved or otherwise. So currently this report does not represent the views of the Council of Europe. Besides even if it did the views expressed are somewhat different from the European Commission.

The reason why our auspicious newspapers would pick up on this non-story and run such misleading headlines is clear, they sell newspapers.

The reason why these politicians would ignore the peer-reviewed research from the World Health Organisation, Health Protection Agency and numerous other organisations including the European Commission in favour of claims made by the anti-RF lobby is less clear.

Hello, may I speak with Mr Huss...It’ll be interesting to learn how the Council of Europe responds to this report.

Certainly if it makes recommendations about mobiles, Wi-Fi, WLAN, health and kids that differ from the advice already provided by the agencies responsible there’s a story worth reporting which may or may not have anything to do with health but until then let’s look at the facts rather than the catchy headlines.

If you've found this post interesting and would like to leave a comment please do!

The trouble with free

By Graham Brown-Martin

Free is the new business model and we like free don’t we?

Free search, free information, free social media, free apps, free newspapers - the list is almost endless as businesses adapt to this new model.

Business writer and editor-in-chief of Wired (£2 per copy on subscription), Chris Anderson (not to be confused with the guy who runs TED) followed his best selling Long Tail book with another best-selling book entitled “Free: How today’s smartest businesses profit by giving something for nothing” (available from Amazon for £5.45) which documents this 21st century business phenomenon.

The strap line for the book “How todays smart businesses profit...” is a clue to what’s happening here.

One of the examples in the book concerns that of King Gillette and how he built a hugely successful empire on the back of giving away the razors that were useless on their own but created a demand for disposable blades.

Billions of blades later the rest is history giving birth to a business model that is the foundation of entire industries from free mobile phones with monthly call/data plans to cheap video game consoles with pricey games to free coffee machines in offices with expensive coffee sachets to satellite TV with monthly subscriptions and so on.

The approach pioneered by Gillette became known by economists as “cross-subsidy”. Get something free as long as you bought something else.

Anderson convincingly proposes that a new kind of “free” business model has emerged as a result of the web because the costs of the products themselves is falling fast. Recording artists Prince, Radiohead, Nine Inch Nails and the thousands of artists who launched themselves off YouTube and MySpace have all benefitted from the audience-building concept of nada.

But you know what? None of this is free

Whether it’s that free newspaper you pick up on your morning commute or that Facebook page you update religiously, someone, somewhere is paying.

But as long as it’s not you it’s great right?

Well, maybe...

Let’s play a game. Answer me these questions, if only in your head.

How much would you charge to sell me:

• your web-browsing history?
• your purchasing history?
• your list of friends and business contacts?
• your social security number and credit card info?

We are now so conditioned to free that we sometimes forget to value these things to balance the deal.

So what has this to do with learning and education?

Well, a friend of mine in the UK education sector recently told me that due to the cuts in public sector spending that he would no longer be able to attend paid-for conferences.

Another colleague in government told me that an edict from the UK Cabinet Office stated that departments could no longer support commercially operated events. Now I don’t mean  events designed for commercial purposes like trade shows that also fall under the ban but also any event that is being operated by a commercial company - like LWF for example.

At first pass given the precarious state of of public finances in the UK these seem like prudent measures to encourage the private sector to become more resilient and less dependent on the public purse.

I’d also be the first to say that during the glory days there were a host of chancers who would set up a conference at the drop of a new government agenda and trouser the cash. These events added little to the idea of debate and were simply promotional exercises for the agenda, its followers and any commercial parties who were in on the act. Those in attendance got their day out, a free lunch and nodded (off) at the required times.

Optional musical interlude:

Naturally, as someone who monetizes their organisation by hosting events, I have an interest here. LWF’s “free” bit is the distribution of valuable resources and facilitating a platform for unfettered dialogue made possible by this “monetization”.

But what if we did it a different way?

What if we made all our events free to attend?

Well, we have thought about it and it could be done. However the nature of the events and the discussion via our various communities would change beyond a point that I would feel comfortable.

There a numerous free events, summits and even “world forums” aimed at the education sector. Some even fly you across the world and put you in expensive hotels.

But are they free?

No, they’re not and someone is paying. Someone who quite reasonably has an interest in gaining a return on their investment which means the programme of these events, just like the editorial in your free newspaper, will be influenced by those who control the purse.

The education supply sector is after all a business, no different from any other. It relies on influencing the thought leaders, opinion formers and budget holders.

Without commercial supporters the delegates would have to shoulder the entire costs of attending the event which could be considerable. The rightly renowned TED conferences charge their delegates upwards of $6,000 to attend and even then take sponsorship dollars for funding the pre-roll on their gorgeous videos.

But what commercial organisation in their right mind would support a dialogue that may question their position in the market or enable an open dialogue that may take the market in a totally new direction that isn’t in line with their business plan and quarterly returns?

Only those who are courageous, authentic and secure in their own position.

Of course, as a reader of this blog you’re smart and savvy. You know when you’re being sold to and when the agenda is being pre-programmed to deliver a certain result.

I’m not as naive as to suggest that some of those free junkets or conferences hosted by a single commercial vendor or consortium don’t hold an element of value, after all if nothing else there’s always a chance to catch up with your mates, but the control of debate and the agenda solely for commercial ends fills me with concern when it relates to the future of learning and that of our children.

And that’s why free ends up being the most expensive option of all.