As more and more corporate blogs begin to appear, companies are entering into unknown territory when it comes to conflicting company and personal views online. This week has seen this issue raised again with Telstra spokesperson Rod Bruem using the Now We Are Talking blog as a way to air his concerns about the reach of the new Lobbyist Code of Conduct. Apparently the lawyers have been called and much like the commentary offered by actors on DVDs, Telstra has said the comments do not reflect the view of the company but rather Mr Bruem’s personal views. But where is the line?

The golden rule of corporate blogging is that they can’t be censored, otherwise you lose all credibility and the blogs become just another marketing tool for business. While this may seem unrealistic in today’s litigious society, it’s a reality of the medium. Therefore the employees chosen to blog need to be trusted by the company. Likewise, the bloggers need to be conscious they can’t be protected by the legal weight of their employer.

The jury is still out on whether corporate blogs are actually influential. While they provide a direct link to a company and allow for two way interaction rather than traditional one way communication, they aren’t without risk and need to be managed to maximise their effectiveness.

After initially setting an ambitious timeframe for the middle of this year for finalising the $4.7 billion national broadband network tender, the reality of the much slower wheels of Government has hit the new Communications Minister.

Senator Conroy announced his new expert panel yesterday including the Secretaries of Treasury and Communications, Broadband and the Digital Economy (Ken Henry and Patricia Scott), the former head of the Australian Communications Authority (Tony Shaw), two telecoms researchers (Professors Reg Coutts and Rod Tucker), the Chair of mobile retailer Allphones (Tony Mitchell) and the investment banker (John Wylie of Lazard Carnegie Wylie) who advised Telstra on its full privatisation. The Minister also flagged that the process is unlikely to conclude before September.

In a sign that all sides of the telco industry want to be on the Government's good side - both the G9 consortium and Telstra have welcomed the panel and the process.

Despite the delay - the panel will receive submissions on how the process to select a successful network tenderer should be structured only until 30 March - less than 3 weeks away. Anyone wishing to comment on the future of Australian broadband has just 18 days to put pen to paper and send any relevant comments to: mailto:nationalbroadbandnetwork@dbcde.gov.au

A recent survey in the UK has revealed what many of us have already known, Generation Y is turning away from TV and other traditional media to spend more time using social networking websites like MySpace and Facebook.

Conducted by UK-based analyst The Future Laboratory, the survey commissioned by MySpace has found that a quarter of 18 to 24 year olds have spent less time watching TV in exchange for time spent online. The user base and demographic of these sites has increased and aged respectively being embraced for the first time in the last election by politicians looking to connect with younger voters. All signs are that in one form or another its users will continue to use these social networking sites as they continue to get older and the potential opportunities from this are vast.

This increase in time spent in front of the computer has lead to a 43 percent increase in emails sent and a 25 percent increase in instant messaging. Hitwise has flagged the similarities in behaviour in Australia and the UK "Given the similarities between Australian and UK social networking users, the MySpace UK research findings should be reviewed by anyone interested in the impact online social networks are having in Australia."

Rebekah Horne, Vice President of MySpace Australia and New Zealand says social networkers are changing the way young people are living their lives and creating new places to make friends.

“While MySpace will always be a great place to communicate with friends, the site has evolved into the centre of people online and offline lives.”

“MySpace is now a collaborative and creative hub that allows people to keep up to date with, comment on and define the wider cultural scene.”

 - Media Management Specialisation Leader Rhylla Morgan

Department store, Target, in the US recently found themselves in a media and issues management pickle because of their dealings with a blogger. Little did they know when they brushed off Amy Jussel - mother, Target customer and blogger about marketing to children – with an email saying they would not respond to her enquiry about one of their ads because they “do not participate with non-traditional media outlets” that the story would spread into the very traditional New York Times and around the world.

It raises important questions about how organisations identify what media enquiries are worthy of their resources and the answer is – it depends.

The growth of online media and the speed with which stories now move from the private into the public sphere is staggering. Organisations need to be attuned to the new ways their audiences are getting information and understand that more and more of this is done online, peer reviewed and generated by people outside traditional media.

Yes, a call from a national television newsroom is important and worthy of a swift and suitable response but potentially so is an enquiry from a blogger if they are influential in your sphere. At the very least they may be a customer, but by virtue of their blog they are a customer with a mouthpiece. If they have a wide readership and are extensively linked to other blogs they may also reach thousands of readers. So, like any media enquiry it is wise to evaluate it on merit and not use blanket rules.

In an example closer to home it will be interesting to see whether Treasurer Swan decides to grant the independent online media outfit Crikey access to the Budget lock-up for financial journalists, something they have been until now excluded from.

After watching Kevin Rudd, apologise on behalf of the government for the stolen generation, I took a few minutes to check my Facebook account (don’t tell my boss). It seems that hundreds of Australians have changed their FB status to “I am sorry”. I certainly hope that these people don’t fancy themselves as the Freedom Riders of 2008. The sentiment is noted however changing your Facebook status surely does not make you an activist….

I also noticed twelve (12) groups who all purport to be against the apology.

Now, we here at Digital Influence are all for robust debate and healthy discussion but some of the people posting comments on these groups are obviously not familiar with any of Australia’s anti-vilification legislation. One such group, “NO I’M NOT BLOODY SORRY & DON’T HAVE ANYONE TO BE RECONCILLED WITH!” has over 250 members and has posted sarcastic comments such as “We apologise for providing you with warm clothing made of fabric to replace that animal skins you used before.”

Certainly one of the best aspects of the digital age is that people espousing unfortunate rhetoric are now out in the open for decent people to see.

By portfolio leader, David Masters

There are some firm signals that ICT procurement in the Commonwealth Government is about to undergo the most significant change since the implementation of IT outsourcing arrangements by the Howard Government in the mid to late 90s.

Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner has flagged that he wants Finance to take a greater role in scrutinising ICT expenditure - moving Finance from a role of solely approving Budgets to possibly far greater project engagement including scrutinising implementation and procurement plans in a two-pass Cabinet process.

Tanner has also flagged that he wants to investigate some centralised capability that is common to multiple agencies such as grants management. Depreciation funding is another area the Finance Minister is flagging for change - that is funding provided upfront to agencies to fund the replacement of ageing IT systems and software. There has been some speculation that agencies have been double-dipping, banking the depreciation funding and re-applying for budget allocations to ostensibly replace systems hidden within large-scale transformation and change programs.

This has significant implications for engaging with agencies. Since the Humphrey Review of the ICT Outsourcing arrangements in 2000, Australian Government decision-making has been completely devolved. There have been some pockets of multi-agency activity - but nothing widespread or systematic. The division within Finance with responsibility for ICT has lacked a mandate and a seat at the Cabinet table.

It now has a seat at the table and may very soon have a mandate as the pendulum seems to be shifting back towards some degree of centralised control.

Expect a gradual process rather than a revolutionary big-bang shift; Rudd and Tanner will have learnt much from the previous Government and will want to avoid antagonising agencies and creating animosity towards the process.

Government censorship of the internet took another significant but unheralded step forward last Friday with release of guidelines for industry having to put in place systems for  restricting access for certain internet and mobile content. Last Friday ACMA announced its period for public comment on the proposed Restricted Access Systems Declaration (RAS).

The ACMA papers and consultation period follows Government legislation passed earlier this year which was in part a reaction to the Ch10 Big Brother "turkey slapping" incident where live streamed content on the internet was deemed inappropriate for general viewing (even if it occured at 2am and was only a few second long and seen by only handful of people). The legislation brings new requirments for anyone who hosts content, provide links or access to content (film or TV) which is classified MA15+ or above and the connection is based in Australia.

In order to ensure that a 15, 16 or 17 year old can legitimately access or download their favourite TV show or film over the internet or mobile phone, after January 20 2008 the person will have to pass through an 'age verification device' and provide evidence as to their correct age.

This development poses many difficulties for industry in complying with this legislation and regime and in designing and defining a system which provides access to people under 18 and in providing appropriate 'evidence'. As the ACMA paper says, "section 4 of the BSA requires ACMA to regulate designated content/hosting services in a manner that enables public interest considerations to be addressed in a way that does not impose undue financial and administrative burdens on industry and will readily accommodate technological change".

This is the rub; designing a meaningful RAS that does not impose undue burdens on industry. The trend of Government imposing greater restrictions and filters on the internet is only just starting - we will have a China-style internet censorship based on the interests of a noisy but minority Christian lobby to which the polticians on both sides too easily bend.

The downside of such conditions being imposed is that two consequences may occur: 1) content will be moved and hosted off-shore so that these news rules don't apply and thus relaxed or no classification advice will be in place, and 2) previous TV self-assessed MA 15+ content available for download may be assesed at the lesser  M rating so as to avoid the RAS. Either scenario works against the intent of the new system and legislation.

The Government needs to balance between restricting access and accurate classification of content and driving content hosting and new business models off-shore to avoid Australia's increasingly strict and onerous internet censorship laws. Lawyers advising these online business models may also suggest to avoid any chance of liability under the RAS scheme to move business and content hosting overseas.

The Government and Christian lobbies should be careful what they ask for as they could end up pushing Australian businesses, who generally want to do the right thing, off-shore where Australian's will access content unregulated or businesses will simply decide not to establish new business models in this highly regulated market where the consumer will be the loser.

Hundreds if not thousands of Australian small business and jobs are being lost and many more threatened due to Australian Government inaction and the recalcitrance of Customs in particular. Bizarrely, no Australian law makes it illegal for people arriving into Australia from importing pirated and illegally copied films and optical discs (covering business software and music).

The current law states that people cannot bring into Australia ‘commercial’ quantities of pirated DVDs which in the wisdom of the Government and officials mean multiple copies of the one title – showing little regard for modern digital technology and multiple perfect copies being created from the one master disc.

The result is that with the tacit support of the Howard Government people are bringing into Australia films on burnt DVDs in their tens of thousands which are blatant and easily identified rip-offs. I know from speaking to Video Ezy franchise store owners in Perth, which is particularly impacted by its proximity to Bali, that they are so effected by this behaviour that many small businesses have closed over the past 12 months as well as many staff laid off.

I should also point out that none of these DVDs have any classification markings and so break other Commonwealth and State laws if on-sold or these massive pirated DVD libraries are circulated to friends and families.

I have had numerous discussions and written and received letters from past and present Customs Ministers and whilst they have made favourable noises promising to respond to industry concerns absolutely nothing has been done with numerous government IDCs (inter-departmental committees) having come and gone and decided nothing! Bureaucratic obfuscation and lack of Ministerial leadership are the culprits to date at getting to a solution.

If the Howard Government believes in a concept of copyright, if it supports small business and jobs and if it believes in a system of appropriate classification for Australian families and children then it must do something at Australia’s borders and stop this massive in-flux of illegal and pirated films.

Simon Bush is also the CEO of the Australian Visual Software Distrubutors Association

Michael Sainsbury | September 25, 2007

IT is high time the Australian Government - regardless of its colour come the new year - recognised the convergence of the telecommunications, technology and media sectors.

It is also vital that Australia's political parties deliver a cohesive vision for the sector reflecting how fundamental technology and communications infrastructure is for all industry sectors.

At the top of the list are the government-heavy sectors of health, education and defence, but technology touches everything these days.

As such, the upcoming election is a rolled-gold opportunity for Australia's major political parties to take a quantum leap with their technology policies.

For the 11 years of the Howard Government we have had telecommunications, technology and media policy in silos - and often silos within the silos. To call its approach to technology issues unsophisticated would be generous.

When Helen Coonan released her spectacularly backward-looking media "reforms" last year, it was clear there was limited understanding at Government level of how media and communications interact.

The same lack of understanding has been apparent in the isolation of IT from general industry policy.

It's true most of the damage in communications policy - which coalesces around selling the Government's Telstra stake without putting a broom through the structure of the industry - was done prior to Coonan taking the job. It was finished off when Treasurer Peter Costello and Finance Minister Nick Minchin pushed the Telstra sale through last year with little thought as to what they would leave in its wake.

The chickens have now home to roost.

Broadband, of course, has emerged as the physical manifestation of convergence. It is the future single pipe for telecommunications companies to offer their services, the emerging ubiquitous media platform as well as the means of networking business and delivering myriad applications.

Even so, the unseemly and hysterical debate about a new fibre-based residential broadband network worth $5 billion or more has largely focused on the provision of the pipes and internet data speeds.

There has been limited discussion by the Government about how the technology relates to the provision of media, and more importantly how it underpins productivity gains in every single industry sector. It is, shamefully, also missing from many broader discussions on infrastructure.

In fact, the next government may need to rethink the whole portfolio.

The Government's failure to fully comprehend technology has been compounded by a moribund department.

Coonan waited too long to change the head of her department but at least she has finally moved. New Communications and Information Technology Department secretary Patricia Scott, who is also heading the broadband review panel, is breathing some life into the torporous bureaucracy.

Long-time broadcasting and IT deputy Rod Badger is on the way out and plenty of others are doing their sums.

It's easy, of course, to dwell on the Government's failures - and the above is is only the very tip of the iceberg

So far, we have also seen little of what Labor plans to offer beyond a sketchy, derivative broadband policy.

There is a very real opportunity for broad and imaginative policy making, locking the communications and technology piece into the rest of plan for government, business and the community.

Hopefully, at least one side will seize the opportunity.

Today, Special Minister of State Gary Nairn launched the Government's latest eGovernment initiative: The Government Blog Consultation and accompanying discussion paper is available here.

Nairn invites people to provide feedback on this discussion paper regarding the possible functionality and operation of an Australian Government Consultation Blog.

The foreward to the discussion paper says:

"Changes in the way people communicate online have provided opportunities to the government to improve the ways in which people can contribute to and influence government policy and how the government delivers services.

The possible future establishment of a consultation blog could make it easier for people to find, be informed about and to provide feedback on issues on which the government is consulting.

This discussion paper on the provision of the consultation blog sets out to balance the opportunities provided by the new online environment against the challenges and very real threats emerging to the identity and privacy of individuals.

As the success of this initiative requires participation by citizens, this paper asks for your opinion on some important issues that will affect the ways you can contribute to and participate in the consultation blog.

Feedback received from you will be used to shape the services provided through the Australian Government Consultation Blog and will be important in ensuring the success of this endeavour. "

Do you think a Government sactioned blog will work as another way for people to express their democratic voice? I have my doubts but it does not hurt to ask the question.