Monthly Archive for March, 2008

In Praise of Taking Things Apart

The Economic Value of Taking Things Apart

In the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, Paul Romer writes:

“Economic growth occurs whenever people take resources and rearrange them in ways that are more valuable. A useful metaphor for production in an economy comes from the kitchen. To create valuable final products, we mix inexpensive ingredients together according to a recipe.”

Patak’s Madras Curry To take the analogy a little further, if I have a jar of Patak’s Madras curry paste there are a fairly limited number of tasty recipes that I can come up with. However, if I were able to disassemble or reverse-engineer that jar of pre-made curry, I would have a range of ingredients turmeric, coriander, cumin, cinnamon, etc from which I could create an almost unlimited number of recipe variations. This is obviously pretty unlikely with something like curry paste. However, not so with technology.

In The Origin of Wealth (to date the only book on Economics I have ever felt gripped by), Eric Beinhocker also explores what I am tempted to call the fractal nature of technology:

“each invention creates both the possibility of, and the need for, more inventions”… Why does technology have this exponential, bootstrapping quality? How does technology feed its own growth? Physical technologies have a modular building block quality to them. Any physical technology can be thought of as coding for both components and an architecture. A house has components (e.g. rooms, plumbing systems, windows) as well as an overall design (e.g. Mock Tudor)”

It seems fairly self-evident that understanding and being able to dissassemble technology into its constituent parts exponentially increases the opportunity for innovation, for hybridising, improving, cross-pollinating technologies into new forms of value.

The Trend Towards Un-takeapartable Technologies

In the context of the above, it is curious that technology has steadily become more and more difficult to disassemble. We have gained in push-button convenience but lost the learning and innovation opportunities that come with taking things apart and tinkering with them.

John Seely-Brown is particularly passionate on the topic of “tinkering” and argues that it is a critical strategy for learning. He argues that Open Source software has become an important place where technology (in this case software) can be taken apart and tinkered with. In the same Steve Hargadon interview with him that I mentioned in a previous post, John Seely-Brown says:

“A huge amount of the learning that a lot of us do, that formed the foundations of all the formal education that we got afterwards, could be called “tinkering.” Because of changes in electronics and cars, a whole generation couldn’t tinker. In the last ten years, these participatory architectures have introduced tinkering again. It is virtual and social tinkering, not necessarily mechanical, tinkering. And what is interesting is that it is relatively non-gender-specific. You are going to find women tinkering as much as guys do.”

This recognition of the importance of taking things apart and its role in learning has grown to the point where now in California, you can send your kids to a Tinkering School which builds the confidence of children to take technology apart and to be creative with technology. I can recommend a short, entertaining TED talk by the school’s founder Gever Tulley.

In industry, the notion of opening up technology to customers in order to facilitate innovation, Open Innovation, has been gaining traction for a number of years. The Economist has a good summary of this trend.

Taking Things Apart Not Things Falling Apart

From my perspective, this is a particularly important issue in places like Africa where history of technology transfer has often been a particularly disempowering one. The two-fold potential of empowering learners and fostering innovation make a compelling argument to encourage a culture of taking technology apart in Africa.

It is why I am so inspired by the innovation that is happening with wireless routers and the exploration of their potential as an alternative communication infrastructure for parts of Africa not well-served by existing telecommunications carriers.

Make Magazine - TshirtMake Magazine, a publication for people who like to take technology apart, have a great motto on one of their promotional T-shirts: “If you can’t open it, you don’t own it”. It strikes me that that is a pretty good motto for African technologists. Opening technology opens innovation and teaches skills that are difficult to learn any other way.

Dabba: Open Source Components - Access Node

Dabba relies on a variety of Open Source software application to enable their network. Here is a profile of some of those applications.

Wireless Access Point

Anatomy of a Community Mesh Access PointEvery local connection starts with a wireless access point (AP) that connects phones and computers alike to the Dabba network. These APs rely entirely on a suite of Open Source programs. I should point out that what I am about to describe is the latest in an evolution of strategies for access points for Dabba. In this latest iteration, a clever antenna enclosure made by poynting.co.za harbours a Linksys router.

OpenWRT home pageEach Linksys router has had it’s firmware (its internal operating system) replaced with an Open Source alternative called OpenWRT. This software expands the range of control that a user has over the device and offers the potential for installing additional software. A large developer community has developed around initiatives such as OpenWRT and there are many similar initiatives such as DD-WRT, Tomato, and others.

B.A.T.M.A.N. logoNow that the router has a flexible, adaptable Operating System, the next installation is B.A.T.M.A.N. This is a mesh networking algorithm developed by the Freifunk community. B.A.T.M.A.N. which stands for “Better Approach to Mobile Ad-Hoc Networking” is an improvement on the OLSR protocol developed by the same community. It allows wireless nodes to seamlessly and automatically configure and re-configure themselves into a cohesive network. This is transparent to the user connected to the network. Meshing offers the potential to dynamically deploy wireless networking by simply and transparently adding nodes to a wireless network.

OpenSER logoNext there is OpenSER (Open SIP Express Router) is a high-performance, configurable, Open Source, SIP ( RFC3261 ) server which can connect, authenticate, and route calls from SIP phones. It has the advantage of having a very small footprint and being quite efficient which makes it ideal for use on Linksys routers. It also means that each wireless node can route local calls directly from phone to phone without needing to refer them to a central server.

Coova logoFinally, there is Coova. Coova makes captive portal software which allows each wireless access point to authenticate data users i.e. people who connect to the network with a laptop or smartphone browser. The portal ensures that users authenticate via pay-as-you-go data cards. SIP phones are passed through directly and authenticated via a separate system. More about that later. One of the challenges of automating and simplifying the function of these wireless nodes is to have voice and data systems authenticate against a common database of users so that clients can have both voice and data credit in a single account.

Antenna and Solar Panel It is remarkable to think that all of these Open Source applications can reside on a single inexpensive wireless router like the Linksys WRT54GL or GS. You can see here at the left Rael is demonstrating how the antenna with embedded router can be connected to a small solar panel to create a completely self-sustaining wireless access node.

In a future post I’ll talk more aobut the software that runs on the back end of Dabba’s systems.

Kenya: Door opens for new non-profit telecom firms

Business Day Africa profiles the Communications Commission of Kenya’s decision to offer ISM-band spectrum to non-profits:

“Licence-free band spectrum, courtesy of the airwaves’ regulator, could allow non-profit organisations to own and operate telecom companies.

The Communication Commission of Kenya’s offer of the ISM Band 2.4 and 5.8 spectrum to registered community groups is on a first-come-first-served basis, and already organisations from Mukurweini, Khwisero, Limuru and Rangwe have expressed interest. Countries like Tanzania, Namibia, Bangladesh and India have used the concept of free frequencies in efforts to bridge the ‘digital divide’ with the West.”

This paves the way for the creation of VillageTelcos in Kenya. Comparisons may be odious but it is hard to resist comparing the forward-looking approach of the CCK to the foot-dragging, bureaucratic style of ICASA, who it appears will miss their deadline for converting telecommunications operators and VANs licensees to the new electronic communications network services (ECNS) licenses.

Why does everyone want to kill WiFi?

Reading the tech news in South Africa, you get the impression that WiMax is going to very shortly solve all of the country’s broadband issues. Articles like this one give the impression that WiMax will shortly be available in every major city in South Africa. Municipal WiMax enthusiasts argue that this is “no business case for WiFi”

And today, Mike Jensen pointed out to me that in Europe, Ericsson’s Chief Marketing Officer has predicted the demise of WiFi hotspots because of the growth of mobile broadband. It is worth reading the Slashdot comments on this article for the dripping irony that the article provoked.

One cannot help but wonder why everyone is so keen to see the demise of WiFi. Is there a whiff of desperation in the air? While the wireless vendors have been squabbling over the WiMax standard and telecom companies have been pricing themselves out of the 3G market, WiFi has quietly gotten to thirty times its original bandwidth strength while dropping so low in price as to be almost a giveaway. At the same time, the Open Source community has been developing software for cheap WiFi devices that allow them to offer connectivity previously only available in devices costing thousands if not 10s of thousands of dollars? The telecom industry thrives on expensive equipment and service contracts. Perhaps WiFi is the emperor’s new clothes of connectivity.

Certainly Bill Gates seems to get it. In a recent submission to the U.S. communications regulator, he says:

“We’re hopeful that that [spectrum] will be made available so that Wi-Fi can explode in terms of its usage, even out into some of these less dense areas (of the United States) where distance has been a big problem for Wi-Fi,”

Obviously this is not an industry in which he has an entrenched interest. Just as well. For more background reading on WiFi versus Wimax, here are some links worth reading. Judge for yourself.

Wifi or Wimax (or both)?
comments from Evert Bopp in his Wimaxxed blog
17 Oct 07

WiMAX vs. WiFi
comments from Tom Evslin at CircleID
20 Feb 08

WiMax versus WiFi
comments by David Jarvis in MyBroadband article
25 Oct 07

The Truth About WiMax
Robert Berger quoted in Bill St. Arnaud’s blog
11 Oct 06

South Africa: Income Spent on Communication

The conventional wisdom in the ICT4D community is that people in developing countries spend a higher percentage of their income on communications than the global average. For South Africa, this notion became is widely accepted (I think) thanks to the Vodafone study on mobile usage, in which Diane Coyle of Enlighenment Economics says:

“Expenditure on mobile phones as a proportion of total expenditure can give some broad information on their importance and impact on household budgets. In South Africa, 134 mobile phone owners were happy to provide information on their income and their mobile phone expenditure. These respondents spent on average between 10 and 15 percent of their income (or 89 to 108 Rand) on mobile phones (estimation was made using mid-points of income and expenditure brackets). However, as only one respondent identified mobile phones in their top three expenditure items, so these figures should be treated with caution. National data suggest the biggest items of expenditure for the poorest black South Africans (urban and rural) are food (about 50 per cent of the household budget), fuel and energy, and housing (each 7 to 8 per cent). Transport and communications follow after these categories, however, in the national statistics.”

From this one may infer just how important telecommunications is to people, its utility and the pent-up demand for access. However, I see in the recent survey of “Income and expenditure of households 2005/2006″ released last week by StatsSA, they say this about expenditure on communication:

4.7 Communication
Nationally, 3,5% of household consumption expenditure was attributed to communication, the largest component of which was telephone and telefax services. There was little disparity between provinces regarding communication’s share of consumption expenditure. Limpopo had the lowest at 3,1% and KwaZulu-Natal at 4,0%. There was even less disparity between population groups. Black African households spent 3,3% of their consumption expenditure on communication (the lowest expenditure out of the four population groups) compared with 3,9% for Indian/Asian households (the highest).”

These statistics are more in line with statistics reported by Botswana Central Statistics Office. I guess sample size is everything :-) and to Diane’s credit she does offer a disclaimer yet it didn’t stop that figure finding its way widely into usage.

I am looking forward to the impending publication of the ResearchICTAfrica household survey results later this year. Hopefully they will shed more light on this.