 Gweithio, dymiannod am ychydig chi'n amser a oeddiwch i'ch ddau'r forum, a ond byddech chi i chi'n gwaith yn ymddangos ar gyfer cyfraen iawn cinsiwnol, allan y rhaglen oedd y cinsiwnol yn gweithio eu gwahion, ac yn yr wynedd. Mae wirthfudd i gyda'r iawn erbyn yn y cynnwys, ac mae'r tein fitting mae'r cyffredin cyffredin yn Ysachlens cyffredin cyffredin, ac mae'r stretches cyffredin cyffredin wedi'i gael angen hwn, yn hynny, ac mae'r angen cyffredin cyffredin oherwydd yr angen cyffredin yn y cyffredin cyffredin yn y cyffredin wedi'i gael y cyffredin cyffredin, yn y rhael. Mae'r mynd i'r mynd i'r genlyniad ar gyfer y maen nhw'n un gweithio o'r arfer o'r adroddau a'u adroddau ar gyfer yma, ond mae'n ei ddweud yn gweld i gwirioneddol iawn, a dwi'n gweithio'r adroddau, ond mae'n mynd i'n gwneud i hynny ac mae'n gweld i weithio arall yn y sylfin. Mae gweld i'r gwirioneddol iawn am sut efallai'r cyfrifiad, ac mae'n teimlo i ddod amseriaid yma yn Nofarnig iawn yn Europaol, ond rwy'n cael ei roedden nhw'n byw. ac mae hi yn gweld yn cymhysgol ag y gwn yn ymddangos, afall ythdyn nhw ddweud. Ac mae gael ei organ i gwych, ond mae'r gymhreid yw gwaith yma a'i gwn ddiolch gwych. Maen nhw'n mynd i wneud bod y ffodus ac yn ymddangos, a yw'r gweithio ym mwyn pethau'r gweith, a fydd y gwerthu'r cyfysig i chi yw'r gymhreid, ac mae'r gweithio'r gweithio a'r cyffredin hwn dros y bydd. Mae pwysig ryw ymddangos yn yr oedd yn ysgol o'i gweithio yn ôl. a mae'r ysgol yn y dyfodol yn hollol sydd ymgyrch yn ymgyrch, ond yw'n ddim yn fwy o'r ymgyrch, yw'n dweud? O'r ysgol yn ei gyfnodol yn y dyfodol maen nhw yw'r unig am y maen nhw, ond mae'n ddim yn ddoch chi'n ddangos i'r ysgol ym Mhath yng nghyrch, ond mae'n ysgol yn ysgol yn ymgyrch yn hynny. Mae'n rhai o'r ysgol yn ddweud. Yna'n rhai o'r ymgyrch yn ysgol, ac yn ystod y gallwn ei wneud yn y blynyddoedd. Yn y gallwn ei wneud o'r cyfnod ychydig yn y cyfnod o'r cyflwyno a fydd ymweld yma, ac yn ystod y wayf yn y cyflwyno a chael ei wneud yn ei gweithio. Yn ystod, rwy'n meddwl yw'n ddweud am y ffiythau storid o'r 15 ymgyrch yn y cyflwyno a'r cyflwyno o'r cyflwyno'n hynny yn ymgyrch yn ymgyrch yn ymgyrch yn ddweud, The domain will be the rise of the internet and spread to mobile phones. Both of those are, of course, outgrow of the digitalisation and the revenue taking, the rise of the microprocessor and so on. Essentially, technology in newspapers and in magazines was a small subject. er mwygoel i chi'n nhw'r dweud, i'r gyfrannu yma ar gyfer, ychydig yna y cyfrannu'r stori, o f embarkydd yr hoffa wedi bod y cyfrannu a'r rhan! Ieb credu bod y cyfrannu llywos yn llwyr Donald, Ieb'r rhai mae'r lyhym yn gwybaith yn cael y telegraf gan y tejfnod, mae'n cyfrannu ar gyfer y cyfrannu, a rhaid i chi yw, yr oedd y cyfrannu cyfrannu e'n cyfrannu tîm. Allwn言 llawerghanosrodd ddigonio, o ardal gwaith eng princess without oblivion, i meddiad codi, mwy wneud cyfrwyng gyrus, gofod o gyruchoedd cofadio, a ddigonio mynd, rydw i ond ti'n gynebydd gyr Sebastian Llyf. Mae'r dweud yn awgol mewn yr d Holster Sulwydd ac ydy'r cyflog wedi llawer yn y gwasanaeth, fel yn ymgyrchol ychydig, ond mae'n fwy o gynnwys, ond mae'r blynyddoedd hwn i gael dyn ni gyda'r rhaid, a dyna'n gwybod i'w rhaid yn cysylltu'r dynnigoedd. Mae ddyn nhw'n credu ddarparu'r maen nhw'n gael y gallu ei gyangfant yn fwy o'r fewn. Mwysilio gan ychydig o'r teulu i gael dynnu'n gynnwys wathon ni'n gwybod ni'n dynnu'n gwybod yn y cyflog yn y gynnaeth i theulu. Mae'r gwirionedd i'r unig hwnna supposex yn rwy'r ymddiol, ac mae'r gwirionedd yn grafio ar y jarnol yn 1994. Rwy'n deisiael i'r internet o'r البawdd o'i mathai iechydig. Mae'r roedd y firnedd yn haynog, ac mae'n angen i'n gallu yn ganddach! Rwy'n credu i'r internet o'r mae'r rwy'n greu ar gyfer y cyfosig, ac mae'r cwmwneud o'r bwysig iawn Uwgol. Mae'r swyddog yn rhan o'i rydw i'r swyddog o'r ymddiol. 100 oes hyff materion ar arweinio ar y plant yn y peri yw'r anferwyd. Yn rhaid i gyddonatio, ond eich cyfnodd wedi gwneud digwyddau y Llywodraeth wedi bachon hynny yw'r anferwydiau yn y gwneud sy'n unig cyfnodd. Mae fynd i wneud am rhan o'r anferwyd y Llywodraeth ac yn oed yn gyfwybronig. Rlyniad y Llywodraeth wedi gwneud bachon ei wneud eich llwythau, isiol, gan siaradau efo enw yn ddod – felly mae'r ffrifonau cyfioedd yn hyd yn ei ffwrdd. Felly ydych chi'n gondoli ar gyfer y dyfodol ydyma gfu, yn 1995 ydym ni'n amgylcheddau yma mewn cyfioedd mewn cyfioedd Cyffredinol. Mae'r idea was that the internet was a new start rather than the United States of America was a new start. You didn't need to have the same rules online as you have in the real world. Well ultimately that has failed. We do have national laws applied to the internet. We have compromises in most areas. If somebody sells you something on eBay and they don't show up… ond ydych chi'n fwy fath y prosesau i ddefnyddio ar y tîm. Felly, y gallwn ysgol i ddechrau'r prosesau yma yw awgrydd, ac mae'n fywr o'r cyfeilio ar gyfer cyflawn ymgylcheddau. Ond, mae'n fflawn i ddechrau, mae'n gweithio y peth yn dweud yn y ddweud, ac mae'n gwybod yn gwybod yn ddechrau. Felly, rydyn ni'n dweud eich cyflawn i'r rhan o'r cyffredinol, mae'n oeddechrau'r proses yma yw ddechrau'r cyffredinol, Ond o'r wych chi'n gweithio'n gweithio, fel y dyna'r gyflaen, gyda'r ddwybarth fydd ac fydd yn ddefnyddio'n gweithio. Rwy'n rhaid i'ch gweithio, mae'r cyfrifiadau o'r ddweud yma ym Llyfrgellur arno gyflaenol a'r cyfrifiadau sydd yn Gwyrddon, a'r fforddiau y Llyfrgell, rydyn ni'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio. I don't think anyone still thinks that the Internet is some machine in a room that we turned off. I don't think people think that anymore. Another very widespread misconception in the early days of the Internet was an inability to distinguish between the content that was put up by users and the companies that were delivering that content to other people. So, if I looked onto the Internet and saw somebody saying something new about me, who would I sue? Would I blame my Internet provider? Would I blame their Internet provider? Well, no. We understand now that the person that you blame is the person who has posted this, and you have to get used to much more expression on the Internet, but you can't really hold the providers of the pipes responsible for what flows through the pipes. Again, this was something that people really didn't understand in the old days. They really thought that when you bought Internet access from a company, they were standing behind everything that came down that pipe. Of course, they're not. It's not like being a broadcaster. Of course, there are still many debates that are unresolved about the Internet. There's a rather boring one about net neutrality, and everyone has a different definition of net neutrality, so I don't think that one will ever go away. There's a question about something with behavioural targeting, which is a way of targeting advertising. It has its defenders and its critics. Then, something we're hearing a lot about is Google Earth, and the use of Google Earth by terrorists, say, they look up the shape of a compound on Google Earth. Is this Google's fault? This is very similar to the early debates, I think, about the Internet. Of course, it's not Google's fault if they provide high-resolution images of things. Those images do a lot more good to the pie. My favourite example of this is the alarm clock. If you want to build a bomb and use the alarm clock to make it go off, does this mean that we should ban alarm clocks? Most of the alarm clocks are not used to make bombs go off, so this is the sort of analogy that needs to be pointed out more often. Similarly, bad people use electricity and mobile phones. Does that mean they should be banned, though? I think there's still work to be done explaining these sorts of things, and we are the people to do it. The spread of mobile phones is the other really big technology story of the past 15 years, and it's affected far more people than the rise of the Internet. About half of the world's population now has a mobile phone. The really important thing about them is that the Internet generally supplemented other forms of communication in the rich world. We already had fixed-line phones before the Internet came along. Mobile phones, by contrast, are often providing access to communications for the first time, particularly across the developing world, and that has far greater impact because it puts people on the communications grid. I have argued consistently in the Economist that the real digital divide we hear a lot about is usually defined to be that most people in the world don't have access to the Internet through a PC, but I think the really important divide is access to communications in general, and the phone is the main way that's being extended. So here is a boy in Africa who has a phone made out of mud. This is what he aspires to having a phone in Africa, is now the fastest growing region for the spread of mobile phones. The reason this is such a big story is because of the direct economic impact of the problems. They substitute for poor infrastructure, so they can save you a wasted journey or make up for the fact that there's no possible service. So there's an example of the shopkeeper in Afghanistan. When he goes into his house in the country, when he goes to Kabul to buy supplies for his shop, anyone who goes to the shop will find that it's closed, and they will have wasted their journey. But if they text it first, they can find out whether he's going to be there or not. Another good thing is price discovery in market access. The customer example there is fishermen in Kerala, and essentially they catch their fish off the coast, and they then call markets along the coast to see which markets are still in need of fish, because if they drive to a market and all the customers have already bought the fish, they won't be able to sell them. And it will be too late to drive to another market to go down the coast with the market before the fish spoil. So there's a lovely natural experiment that's been conducted in Kerala where the extension of mobile phone coverage has led to a fall in the price of fish, a reduction in the wastage of fish, and an increased profitability for the fishermen. So every morning wins, and that's the sort of thing that extending communication does. And there are some very exciting new things that mobile phones are doing with mobile banking and money transfer and so on, and the poster child there is an MPC in Kenya. And it's very interesting that this is a technology where the developing world is far ahead of the developed world. Almost nobody does this sort of thing with phones in the West, and in fact we could learn a great deal from the experience that MPC has in Africa. Here's my favourite statistic on this, which we published first in the Economist in 2005. An extra 10 mobile phones per 100 people in a typical developing country leads to an extra 0.6% of points in GDP growth. And this is a favourite statistic of Bill Clinton, he loves to quote this one. But that sort of puts it like a white, what a lot of anecdotes also support. Well, why does this, what does this mean for tech journalism? Well, this is again a field where I think it's very important that the issues and the arguments are well explained. All governments claim that they are in favour of growth and in favour of connectivity, that many governments have policies that actually prevent the spread of these technologies, or don't do everything that they could to encourage it. And mobile phones are a very good example of this. Governments don't really have to do anything for mobile phone networks to appear in their countries. Private firms will build them if they're allowed to. And there's this great ticket for the world bank, $230 billion was put into telecoms infrastructure in the developing world in the decade from 1993, and even more will have gone in since then. Those are not the usual big western firms, the usual suspects, and also a lot of those companies were afraid of doing business in Africa, in Central Asia, in the Middle East, and so local champions have popped up instead. And the key to all of this is deregulation and issuing licenses so that competitive operators can enter the market. If you consider Ethiopia and the Democratic Republic of Congo, for example, they both have about the same GDP per capita, it's about $100 a month, I think. The DRC has a mobile phone penetration of 10.5%, and Ethiopia has a mobile phone penetration of about 1.5%. And why is there this difference? Because it's not that the people in the DRC are richer, and it's simply because there are four operators competing in the DRC, and there is only one, the government monopoly in Ethiopia, and it's very badly run, they ration the SIM cards, there are riots when they issue new ones, it's hopeless. And if you allow competition, you will get more investment in infrastructure, and you will get lower prices, and you will get greater adoption. And perhaps the best example of this is Somalia, where there is no government to speak of, and the mobile phone penetration is 7%, far higher than in Ethiopia. So, actually, that shows you, I think, that the government can get in the way here. In Somalia, the operators even got together and formed their own regulator, because they needed to control the allocation of the spectrum, and there was no government to do it. So, I think that shows you that the wrong government policy can actually be worse than not having a government at all when it comes to promoting the spread of communications technology. Many governments in developing countries have also imposed luxury taxes on handsets, if Ethiopia has done that. This is the idea that, since only the rich can afford mobile phones, a good way to tax the rich is to tax mobile phones. This becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, because it then means that poorer people can't afford them. But if you actually encourage the spread of mobile telephones, it can be a big contributor to government taxes, and in fact, it's the largest contributor in many developing countries. It's 14% of tax revenues in Afghanistan. So, done right, mobile telephones can drive the economy, can benefit the government, can benefit people. It's all a matter of getting it right. Now, unlike the internet, there is not a thirst to have this explained. So, people were coming to us at the Economist and going to newspapers that said, we don't understand the internet, please explain it to us. In this case, this is a mobile phone, this is something I think needs better explanation. And sometimes people aren't asking things to be explained to them, but it's very important that they are. And it's a case where technology overlaps with economics and regulation with development, and I think reporting it accurately is more vital than ever. So those two examples, I think, show you how technology journalism has become much more important than it used to be. It's no longer just writing about new gadgets. It really does touch on issues of a global importance and it's very important that we get it right. So I'm going to go over quickly how we do things at the Economist. I'm not saying that we get everything right and I'm not saying that all publications should do it the way we do it, but people do seem to like the way we do it. When I speak to scientists and technologists and say I'm from the Economist and I want to write up your work, they're often very pleased that they're very keen to talk to us, partly because we get it right, we explain things properly. Very often it's because our explanation allows them to show their friends and their family what they do. We explain what they do in terms that can be understood, and very often they like that. Also we keep them up to date with developments in other fields. There are so many fields in science and technology now that it's very difficult to keep track. We provide the service of looking across all these developments and saying to people this is what we think is really important. So essentially I think we try and do three things with our coverage. We try to be broad and we try to place things in context. We try to be deep and we try to do things in a more detailed way and we try to be a filter. So being broad, essentially we try to look around the story, provide an overview of the field, look into other industries and do international historical comparisons. The idea in all of these cases is to avoid hype and to avoid the idea that one of the new figures is going to save the world or change everything, so that's all sorts of problems. I think it's much more credible if you put things in context. So for example, what other companies are doing such and such, whatever new thing it is, how long has the idea been around? What is new? If you've covered technology for a number of years, you will see the same stories coming around and around, but it's always such and such is going to be the next big thing. There are lots of technologies that have struggled to get off the ground and maybe they will eventually, one technologist once said, it takes 15 years to have overnight success and I've certainly seen some technologies like biometrics or fuel cells have been about to take off for years and not really done so. Video conferencing is another example. People are always saying, yes, it's being much more widely adopted and now maybe it is, but it's taken a long time. So I think when presented with a piece of use from one company doing one of these things, it's very important to look at how many other people are doing it and how long they have, what's really going on. It's also very useful to, I think, compare industries. It's very interesting to compare how clean technology is developing now and how that compares with the dot-pot boom from several or eight years ago. Airlines and telepons have a lot of common, both networks, and you've got low-cost airlines and you've got low-cost telepons, people have tried it. So I'm very interested in these sorts of comparisons between industries and I think they can help you to evaluate whether a new technology is really important to them. I'm also very interested in international comparisons. This is something we specialize in at the implements. So those examples I just gave you about mobile phones, you can understand how these things work and what's going on much more easily if you compare the situation in one country with the situation in another. And if a new policy is introduced and the government says this is going to do this, that or the other, you can say, well, is that true? How has this worked in other countries that have tried this policy and so forth? So we're very keen on this sort of cross-border comparison at the Economist. For example, how did 3G work in Japan playing with the first country to have 3G? And I went there and nobody at all was using the video telephony feature on the phones. And it was obvious that no one was going to use it. And now lots of us have these 3G phones and almost nobody uses the video telephony feature. So it's one of these examples of a... We're going to see the future in a particular part of the world. Broadbanded South Korea was another example. The government made it cheap and everyone adopted it. And that told you that the only reason they weren't adopting it in other countries was that it was expensive, not the policy. There weren't new applications that had to be invented. They came along later. So these sorts of comparisons can be very helpful. And my favourite example of comparison is for evaluating the value of a new technology is historical analogies. And the one I'm most associated with is that between the telegraph of the 19th century and the internet at the end of the 20th century all sorts of claims were made about the telegraph when the network was built in the 1850s to the 1870s. People said it would lead to world peace and there were hackers and there were offline romances and there were all sorts of things that have subsequently happened on the internet. And that, I think, provides a very useful set of tools for evaluating claims that the internet will lead to world peace. I don't think it will. When it comes to the depth of our coverage essentially we try to go one level deeper than other news organisations. We think our readers have an appetite for an extra level of detail and that it can be provided without having to use more complex language. So this is the example of a paragraph about how lithium-ion countries work. I'm not going to read it out, but going in, I think, and fine-tuning this paragraph that explains the detail of the technology is one of the most enjoyable parts of the technology journalism. And a big part of it, I think, is finding the right analogy to simplify something in a way that helps people understand it but does not offend experts in the field. Very often the way to find that analogy is to actually discuss it with the experts themselves. Here's a very nice example from the world of mobile phones which I cooked up with Roberto Padovali at Qualcomm. So there are three main ways you can sprinkle mobile phone calls through the air and one of them is rather like people at a party taking turns to talk. Another is like people speaking at different pitches so you can distinguish different speakers. And another is like speaking different languages and that's the technology that we're all using today that's used in 3G. Another thing we do is we boffinise the stories which means we send them to the experts or at least we send the paragraphs of explanation to check that they're accurate and this is good because more accuracy means that people are more prepared to talk to us in the future. And when boffins start to try and steer our coverage and if we're critical of a particular approach and they think that's unfair of course we have the right to ignore their comments if we choose so we are not giving them approval over our copy we are merely asking for their comments and I think that can be very helpful in technological explanations. But I think one of the most important things we do is to ignore stories. Some things just aren't important. There are very often stories in the newspaper about a miracle cure or something or a new breakthrough in the treatment for cancer or something like that. These things very rarely come out and I think they're misleading. They can make individual journalists look good to their editors but in the long run I think they undermine your credibility. So very often not covering them is a service to your readers and that's what we do. Another form of filtering is deciding given the enormous level of spending on public relations in technology what's really important and when PR firms put a company forward to talk about a particular thing you really have to be able to decide whether they are the best qualified company or really the most accessible and good PRs I find will admit that their clients actually have rivals and they will be retent to cover fields rather than companies so instead of writing about a company that makes fuel cells we will write about the field of fuel cells and that will involve several companies and good PRs will be prepared to accept that and say yes to the other people that this field are, these people will accept that they will have to be mentioned as well. The other way we can go through is just by running very few stories the ones that are vital not necessarily the ones that are urgent so we have to be able to decide what's really important. The funny thing is when we ask people if they want more technology coverage they want the technology to be longer they say no and it's because they want us to be the filter to keep the amount that they have to read down to a sensible level. So where is technology journalism going now? The interesting thing is something changed in 2006 our readers who had previously when we polled them about what they wanted from our technology coverage instead of saying they wanted more about the internet started saying they wanted more about clean technology, energy technology and we saw this coming not least because when the economy started in the 1840s we incorporated something called the railway monitor this was a publication that covered the railways in Britain and they were the dot com technology over time there was a huge investment bubble and a huge crush on railways and this is because technology fashions changed there were railways all over the place in Britain still but we don't write about them very often and the internet is becoming a part of the infrastructure like the railways that we will use every day but will become invisible and we will only notice it but it stops working so energy is clearly the next big story in tech journalism history I think because fixing climate change is a tech story this is a view of what's happening from a brother a music and cynical venture capitalist writing in Harper's magazine he says each bubble needs to be bigger than the last one in order to absorb losses of the last one so he predicts that the next bubble will be an alternative energy or energy in around 2013 I think that's probably a fair bet and there will be a big crash but what we know from the internet is that it's after that crash that the technology really starts to be adopted properly anyway what this means is that the definition of technology which has prevailed for the past 10 years a tech industry meant a computing and teleports industry that's no longer true so technology journalists need to start learning if they haven't done so already about batteries and fuel cells solar panels and ethanol all these other forms of technology and this is what I've been doing for the past 5 years also and it's all fascinating stuff so I think technology journalists need to be ready for all this stuff that's coming the fight against climate change will involve lots of different technologies there's no silver bullet there's no single answer there will be a portfolio of technologies this is called the all of the above solution so we need to know about all of them and we need to be familiar with them so we could explain them to our readers there are lots of again just as with the adoption of mobile phones and the internet there are lots of regulatory debates that I think technology journalists have an important role in clarifying and helping to explain trade versus carbon tax as a means of holding down emissions the debate over biofuels whether it's possible to produce biofuels without impacting the food supply the correct way to subsidise clean technologies why is it that the country with the most solar panels in the world is Germany which is very often ugly it's because of subsidies genetically modified crops very controversial in Europe but I think probably have a very important role to play in maintaining food production as the climate changes and something that's really come up the agenda in the past six months or so is geoengineering and this is enormous engineering projects that try to change the climate but in a good way back to the way it was before this is hugely controversial and it's an overlap between technology and regulation plenty of explaining to do then plenty of work for technology journalists and I think biotechnology will be part of the climate change solution I think GM crops there was a paper this week about changing the colour of the leaves so that crops that are growing reflect more light back into space this could have an enormous impact on the climate change on its own and there is also talk of producing hydrogen and ethanol from artificial lifeforms biotechnology is also something that technology journalists need to get their heads around and the good news I think for tech journalists who might be writing about computing and studying computing and so on is that actually both of these new fields rely heavily on a foundation of information technology and information technology will underpin the revolutions in clean technology and biotechnology and that's because with clean technology you need to do things like build solar cells out of silicon and you need to have smart grids and you need to have a lot of software to decide how your electric car is going to charge and similarly biotechnology has become heavily reliant on databases to analyse DNA personalise events and so on so technology journalists who I think have been covering what's happened in the past ten years have a head start on this sort of thing overall I'm optimistic about the future I think if we as technology journalists do our jobs right we can help make the world a better place help to explain things, help to ensure that the right policies are implemented and that technology can have the greatest possible benefit for the greatest number of people so I'm looking forward to the future and I hope to see you then thank you for listening at this point we're going to take some questions from the audience we're going to have people passing lights so please raise your hand if you do have a question also if you'd like to submit a question in writing please write it we'll have people collecting the questions and we'll bring them up to me and I'll ask them to Tom to start off they can be in English and Arabic as well and please if you do have a mic we ask that you can directly to your question to start off the conversation I'm going to ask you a question Tom Cutter is just a liberalised telecoms market we're going to have competition with both mobile and landline so what can Cutter expect based on your experience and what should the journalists of the room be looking for? Well Cutter is an unusual case compared with the experience of liberalisation in other countries because the mobile penetration is approximately 100% already so in Ethiopia liberalisation is desperately needed simply to get more phones into the hands of more people and realise the economic benefits here the phones are already out there but they could be cheaper and there could be more options there could be more services that are available elsewhere and so liberalisation I think should bring down the price two operators really is the minimum you really want to have three or four so we did the same though we had an opening and then I think it was a mobile phone that was the competitor and both phones has a very good track record going up the mobile market wherever they go so I would expect to see prices falling and that's what I want to hear how does both phones expect to do that and what new services they're going to introduce on broadband it's a matter of actually getting access out there so that is the field where the metrics we're looking at is the penetration of the broadband connections the average speed and so on so those are the things that ought to improve if you have competition and in other countries they have so that's what should happen here are there any stories that you can journalists on your broader deeper coverage that journalists should be looking for as they start to cover the liberalisation of the markets and the marches that we're going to select for software and are there stories they should be looking for that are in the open deeper well there is an enormous debate about the best way to introduce competition and essentially you can go along the route of saying that the competitors have to build their own network completely or you can say that the incumbent monopoly provider has to share part or all of their network and I'm not sure which approach has been taken in Qatar but there is a essentially there is a big debate about which of those approaches is better we have come up with the probably the most elaborate solution which is expected to be adopted elsewhere in Europe and it's where you actually separate the monopoly incumbent into two pieces and you get one of them to run the wholesale network and so on we don't really know if this is working or not but I think the point is that whatever model has been chosen here you can look to other parts of the world where the same model has been adopted for a good idea of how it should play out and if it's not going as well as you expect then maybe you should be considering other models and maybe you should be pointing out that in this country where this model was introduced things have worked better so I think that's the sort of role that the technology journalists can play and that very often happens in America for example where it is a common complaint in the newspaper that America is falling behind in broadband and they point to Japan and they point this out to Korea and even parts of Europe and say why isn't it that we are we are falling behind but they are constantly pointing out the successes that other countries have had and so really I think that's the important role that the journalists can play Do we have any questions from the audience? Siwallu soffa cwm bachoron by suwallu, alla atachad anna a'r soffa allegatronia robomag ta'r arwad i'l agweithio'r techyddiol fydd y ddwyll hwnnw anel kethir ystafell fydd hi'w hidell al wgthgwyll y tiam bywys eich eich eithaf i Internet yw hefyd o'r unigolwg a bydd tyindoddiad o'r hefyd o'r tyfnid o'r hefyd ychwan ôl a'r amlion bydd wnaid o'r eich qitaeth o'r Eithaf eich teiglwg sfolwch cyfoel gynoes ac o'r ddwyllifeid a bydd tyfnodd amlion착wch i'r cwym hwnnw i wneud y cwym i rhai oherwydd o'r allan of the field of technology journalism, in the sense that that is about the impact of technology of the practice of other kinds of journalism, of political news journalism. I think in the field of tech coverage itself, it's really a matter of analysis and that's something that you need the views of people who are close to the subject, but you also need the expertise in the subject. Yna chi'n ystyried gyda'r llefion nifer, i wnaeth gyddo i ddechrau gyda'r llefion yng ngucir cyffredig a chylywodd ac y gallwn gweld y Gwyllai Iledd a gwellifer. Felly, mae ydych chi'n gweithio ei hoffa'r llefion i'w gweld yn y cenderdd y mae'r llefion cysyllt. Let's take a question first from the crowd. The student at the training in Mellon, we have numerous students in the room. What would you advise students who are considering technology and journalism as a career in terms of their academics and also extracurricular activities as they prepare for the career journalism? I would say that you need to have a grounding academically in the actual technology and in the physical sciences. I did engineering at Oxford which has been extremely useful and many of my colleagues and the economists were traders biologists or by-large they actually studied science at university. In Britain it's slightly unusual because we tend not to value formal qualifications in journalism very highly. It's different in other parts of the world in America most journalists will do some sort of postgraduate study but I think it's very important that that comes on top of a formal training in the technological subjects because it's very hard to pick that stuff up later. So my advice would be to actually study something like that first and then move from that sideways. The journalism is easier to learn than the science basically. That would be the first thing. The other thing is just to, I was involved with student newspapers at Oxford and they really are a useful learning experience so you can then move on to internships at publications like the Columbia School of Newspapers. You are very interested in that. We have several internship programmes that are very valuable sources of employees for us. We are very often subsequently higher interns and in order to evaluate somebody at that stage in their career you want cuttings and that means very often cuttings for student publications. That's very important to have done that. Very often they are already freelancing for other publications too. It's never too early to start doing that. Great. Any questions from the audience? Thank you for your informative lecture. You mentioned that the internet will not need peace in this world. I agree with you that the internet itself will not make peace, but the user of the internet can make a lot of things with it. My question is what are the qualifications to be a technology journalist? Technology mid of what? Thank you. What are the qualifications to be a technology journalist that you must have to be an effective technology journalist? I think you need to understand the subject and you need to be able to, on the one hand, you need to bridge the gap between the interested reader who is not an expert and the experts and I think that the art is to explain things in a way that the general public can understand but that does not offend the experts, so we don't misuse the terminology and so on. For example, there are very technical definitions of words like power and energy. They mean different and force, they mean different things. If you are trained as a scientist you know that and you can then write an explanation that is comprehensible to somebody about how something worked that doesn't have the scientists who have done the work frambling and tutting and I think that is ultimately the qualification you need. Now, some people will get that, some people are able to do that, some people learn to do it and some people are trained to do it but really how you get there doesn't matter. I think our role is to bridge the difficult subjects, whether it's regulation or actually how the technology works with the general public who will be the users and the consumers and the voters or whatever who decide what spreads. So I think that's the most important qualification to bridge the gap. Tom, you talked about access to technology in developing nations, in particular mobile phones. What's your view of the movement in some developing countries of the access to computers, so the low cost computers, the $100 computer as they call it. Do you see that as something that can really take hold or perhaps my view of it is one thing to give them a $100 computer you've got to connect it to something interesting and to something useful. Where do you see that movement heading? I am very skeptical about the $100 laptop. Not because I... Clearly mobile phones are the first step and access to the internet through more advanced devices with bigger screens is what comes later. But the $100 laptop project in particular is engineers trying to solve a problem that is not an engineering problem. A carpet bombing Africa with computers is not going to make much difference. You can't use a computer if you can't read and you can't use it if you haven't got electricity or if you haven't got the rule of law and the shortage of computers in Africa and other developing nations is a symptom of other things. So the people behind that particular project are disciples of a philosopher called Seymour Pappard and he believes that if you give people computers they don't need teachers and I just think this is nonsense. I think you need teachers and you need schools and you need books. And later on you can do the computers but just to try and short-circuit development by doing lots of computers is just sin. So the great thing about phones, mobile phones is that they spread on their own. They already cost less than $100. They cost $20, the cheapest ones. And they have very clear benefits. In fact you don't even need to be able to read and write to use one. So in parts of the world there are text message interpreters who will send and receive a message for you so they can read and write and of course to talk on the phone you don't need to be able to read and write. So I just think a phone is the technology with the greatest potential to advance development and once people are wealthier they can start to do things like buy computers. The other funny thing about the $100 laptop is that the project has failed. They basically shut it down this month. But it sort of succeeded because it forced other companies to make very cheap laptops and these very cheap laptops, the netbooks are now the fastest growing parts of the market and people are buying them, they cost a bit more than $100 but they're spreading on their own through market courses. You don't need to have people from MIT telling you how to do things. The market can do this. Right, we're just going to take one more question and I'm going to take it from the audience. Sorry that we're running out of time. Don't worry, continue to ask your question. We're going to, Tom's going to join us for lunch and we'll also have a coffee break where you can ask your question directly on them. This question comes from one of the VR professionals in our group. We have a number of them here. What do you think the relationship between VR professionals and the media is going to be like considering the new trends in emerging technology especially things like the media? I remember, I read a debate online saying will blogging kill VR or will PR kill blogging? I'm not sure either of those is true but I think the role for PRs to connect companies to journalists is less important than it used to be in the sense that you can find companies and contact them directly much more easily. So I think it's a challenge for the PR community to decide what that means there really therefore. And as I say the best companies are those who acknowledge that yes they are trying to put forward a view of a particular company but that view is much more credible if it is framed in the context of what else is going on in the same field. So the PRs that I have the greatest respect for are those who are not afraid to admit that but I think it's a difficult time for PRs and I'm very pleased with it. It's not my job to make their lives easier because their lives are getting harder. PRs often say to me how can we get stories into the economies? We don't say what our future stories are going to be for example which makes it very difficult for them and they say that makes our lives very difficult and I say well I'm sorry it's not my job to make your life easier it's my job to do the best coverings that we can. I think they face a challenge at the moment. Thanks a lot star. Thank you.