P. 1
ICT Special Edition 2012

ICT Special Edition 2012

|Views: 239|Likes:

More info:

Published by: New Europe Newspaper on Jun 03, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





June 2012


Issue # 989

A New Europe Special Edition

Communications Technology
A Cloud computing strategy for Europe Opening up education for new technologies Airwaves spectrum and A limited resource, an infinite opportunity fundamental rights The internet will permanently change See monopolies for what they are


Neelie Kroes

Androulla Vassiliou

Francesco Diasio

Alessandro Casagni

Frederic Donck

Rick Falkvinge

P. 03
Re-booting Europe’s innovativeness

P. 05
Cyber security covers everything Global cyber commons

P. 06
The cyberwar hoax

P. 07
FranzStefan Gady

P. 08
Singing the same old tune? Dial H for health

P. 09
Jeanine Vos

Bruno Lanvin

John Suffolk

P. 10

P. 11

Dr. Kamlesh Bajaj

Jonathan Zuck

P. 12

P. 13

P. 14

P. 15




Cloud Computing is one of the welcome developments sprouting from an evergrowing Internet. However, it also raises some issues for citizens and businesses. To take full advantage of the cloud's potential, while protecting our citizens' interests, Europe needs a cloud-friendly legal framework, and a cloud-active community of providers and users. Because if we can build trust for this new technology in the marketplace, growth and jobs will follow. The Commission's Cloud Computing Strategy for Europe, which is being finalised over the summer, will look at the following three main areas: 1. THE SINGLE POLICY AREA FOR CLOUD COMPUTING In terms of policy, Cloud Computing and the future evolutions of the Internet need to be treated in a coherent way. The European Cloud Computing Strategy needs to be a framework to manage related fields more efficiently, coherently and transparently. Because success in the cloud relies on linking up a number of different areas. We need data protection laws that are clear, consistent, and show a passable way forward into the cloud – including when the cloud crosses borders to places with lesser levels of protection. We need to offer legal clarity on issues like contractual terms, li-

The public sector in Europe can become a lead market in demand for cloud computing

making regulatory decisions more predictable so investors aren't put off; it means a more homogenous set of rules internationally; and it means an active and innovative community out there developing and deploying cloud computing in Europe. 2. THE EUROPEAN CLOUD PARTNERSHIP The public sector in Europe can become a lead market in demand for cloud computing. I have taken the first steps to set up a European Cloud Partnership, and will announce the head of that partnership hopefully before the summer holidays. The purpose of this Partnership between the Commission, public authorities and industry is to start formalising the common public sector requirements for clouds: across Member States, across regions, and across the many different applications like e-health, tax administration, and welfare payments. Building on this the public sector will benefit from simpler procurement of cloud services. It should also provide an important step toward coordinated and ultimately joint procurement across administrative borders. Let's face it: Each EU Member State, on its own, is too small (and has too small an IT procurement budget) to make much of a difference globally, in this as in so many other fields. But together we pull a lot of weight. This should lead to reduced costs for governments who need to

deliver efficient and interoperable on-line services. 3. MEASURES TO STIMULATE AND AMPLIFY Lastly, I am also working on a package of measures to stimulate, amplify and reinforce the effect of the above initiatives on the cloud. First, to support education and awareness about legal issues: standards, model contracts, data portability and so on. Second, by coordinating industrial and social policies, we can help equip people with the skills for a broader career and job mobility. This should provide the well-educated workforce that the industry needs. And third, we must support European and national research and innovation, to help industry build a critical mass of knowhow so that current applications can migrate to the cloud, helping competitiveness and giving a boost to innovative new services to emerge. We need to act to unlock the economic growth potential of cloud computing for the benefit of citizens and businesses alike. We cannot afford for either providers or users to lose out. That is what the European cloud computing strategy must achieve and we will start "at home", in the public sector, to deliver a market for providers, demonstrate the advantages to users, and ensure that standards and templates are available for to develop this growing and dynamic market further.

ability insurance and how to recover data if a provider ceases to operate. We need to offer consistency in consumer and user rights across Europe, so that users know what they are in for and providers don’t have to deal with the burden of 27 separate sets of rules. We need to make sure we have the skills and human capital for our continent to embrace the cloud. And we need to see how we can reduce the environmental footprint – for example through more efficient data centres and networks. If we get this right, we can ensure laws and regulations fit the technological reality and development. That would benefit both providers, and users. But this also means taking policy areas previously considered unrelated or fragmented and joining them up; it means


Digital Enlightenment Forum 2012
The 18th century enlightenment period gave birth to a self conscious sense of power and responsibility among people in Europe – together with a few important links to Ben Franklin’s United States – and this proved to be one of the major revolutionary events of the modern era. It can be argued that the World Wide Web, emblematic of our Digital era, embodies the basic Enlightenment ideals of Diderot’s original emblem. At this moment, two decades after the emergence of the Web, we can see changes in our social lives that were impossible to foresee 20 years ago. We have practically unlimited access to information, new attractive ways of social communication and a wealth of new services. But at the down side we see worries about security, privacy and access. Indeed, as Sir Tim Berners Lee states in his contribution to the Yearbook 2012 of the Digital Enlightenment Forum: As access to the Internet provides new capabilities that become constitutive of human thought and social life, we conclude that urgent action is needed in promotion and defense of the Internet and the Web. Public administration, industry and science struggle with the many questions raised in this transformation to a digital era. The European Commission plays an active role in this debate. Vice President Neelie Kroes, responsible for the Digital Agenda, has taken initiatives in relation to security and trust in the digital environment, including on digital signatures and electronic identity, and strongly stimulates research and innovation in Information and Communication Technology and its social consequences. In the field of Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship Vice President Vivian Reding has recently proposed a comprehensive revision of the European Data Protection Regulatory Framework. The Digital Enlightenment Forum Asbl, established in Luxembourg in 2011, aims at stimulating this debate and policy development related to it. It organises its first annual Forum in June in Luxembourg. About 60 thought leaders are invited to come together to address important issues on the governance of digital future. The Forum will be opened by Minister Francois Biltgen (Ministère d'Etat, Luxembourg), Vivian Reding (VP European Commission) and Mario Campolargo (Director European Commission DG INFSO). Other participants include Peter Hustinx (EDPS), Udo Helmbrecht (Director ENISA) and many highly respected experts from science and industry.

The Forum has recently published its yearbook which is available through: http://www.iospress.nl/book/digital-enlightenment-yearbook-2012/ Forum website: www.digitalenlightenment.org



Desks lined up in neat rows, facing the teacher and a chalkboard. This image of the classroom goes back at least a century and is still familiar to many. At the same time, it is not unusual in European schools to see teachers and pupils working together on-line and developing new forms of learning. European education is at a crossroads. Progress in the use of information and communication technologies (ICT) for education and training has been substantial in recent years. But it is still not as widespread as it could – and should – be. For instance, use of ICT in schools has not reached the extent to which it is used in business and public services. To meet the educational challenges of the future, a change of mind-set is needed. This means changing our pedagogical, technological and organizational settings and allowing new learning methods to come to the fore. ICT has an intrinsic role to play in this shift of gear; it is one of the main engines for change. As the European Commissioner responsible for Education, Culture, Multilingualism and Youth, I am committed to helping to make this change happen. Many ICT related initiatives have already been launched by the European Commission, as part of its strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training, under the New Digital Agenda for Europe, and more generally under Europe 2020, the Commission's strategy for jobs and growth. They all aim to support Member States in their efforts to deliver the right mix of skills – including e-skills and digital competence skills – to European citizens in the 21st century. ICT impacts on education in many ways. Access to satisfactory ICT infrastructure is of course a pre-requisite. PISA 2009, the Programme for International Student Assessment which evaluates education systems worldwide by testing the skills and knowledge of 15-year-olds, found that at least 50% of students in Europe were in schools where one computer is available for every two students – a significant improvement in comparison to 2000, when there were between 25 and 90 students per computer. Having said that, infrastructure needs a suitable framework and new curricula need to be developed to ensure successful use of the technological means. Developing e-skills among teachers is another basic condition for the introduction of innovative teaching methods and satisfactory use of ICT tools. Teaching staff are key players in strengthening and fostering the new digital environment in schools. Education systems still need to adapt to ensure that teachers have the necessary training to use ICT in a way that is more student-centred. Using the natural and innate curiosity of children, within and outside the classroom, to help and enable them to take an active role

Classrooms are changing. The desks may still be lined up in neat rows, but, little by little, the use of ICT in education is producing changes that have an overall impact on the wider educational system
with ICT and to achieve 'digital fluency' is one of our prime objectives to foster critical, creative and collaborative thinking. ICT know-how is also important acquiring skills and competences such as problem solving, learning to learn, risk-taking and entrepreneurship. Research has shown that using ICT can increase a students' motivation and facilitate individual learning, as well as having a positive impact on attainment. By transforming teaching and learning, ICT also contributes to the acquisition of key competences that are essential for boosting employability: by 2015, it is estimated that 90% of jobs will require e-skills. It is crucial that we start teaching e-skills to children from an early age so that they are equipped with the abilities they need a find a good job and build a successful career. E-inclusion is another area where ICT can make a difference, for example by offering tailor-made distance education and tutoring, for instance for migrants and other socially disadvantaged groups. The on-going technological change we are witnessing is a unique opportunity to develop new pedagogical approaches. Technologies are developing very fast and already cloud computing, mobile technologies and open educational resources can have a significant impact in the educational world at multiple levels – from campus infrastructure to course redesign and to professional development. These are areas where EU-wide cooperation adds value and delivers results. We will continue to support Member States in embedding digital competences in their teaching, curricula, learning outcomes and assessment. Our programmes and actions at EU level underpin a full range of innovative projects which benefit education stakeholders. Under the umbrella of the Lifelong Learning Programme, ICT teaching and learning needs are addressed in numerous ways. For instance, greater use of computers for communicating between schools and multi-cultural dialogue is encouraged through our 'eTwinning' platform. Classrooms are changing. The desks may still be lined up in neat rows, but, little by lit-

tle, the use of ICT in education is producing changes that have an overall impact on the wider educational system. I have seen this impact on many occasions when I have visited schools and projects. I am convinced, nonetheless, that efforts need to be scaled up to ensure education and training systems more rapidly embrace and embed the full potential of new technologies. In the next few months, the Commission will publish a call for proposals on 'creative classrooms' to encourage governments to test-drive projects for the development of new learning environments and for creative and innovative teaching through the use of ICT. I will also make proposals for a new European-wide initiative on 'open education' to support a more systematic use of innovative technologies in education. The initiative will focus on three main topics: open educational resources (free access to quality online educational content creating a huge reservoir of

learning possibilities); open learning networks (support for collaboration between learners and teachers who are geographically dispersed); and open learning environments (taking into account that learning also takes place outside formal schools, in other words, at home, in the community, at work, at leisure and in informal ways). Later this year, an e-skills supplement to the popular EUROPASS curriculum vitae will also be launched to enhance the recognition of individual digital competences. And, last but not least, the future 'Erasmus for All' programme for education, training and youth, which will be launched in 2014, will offer stronger support for embedding ICT for learning into long-term educational objectives and strategies. All of these actions and initiatives require political will and good cooperation between all parties. I will do my utmost to work with the Member States and to gain maximum support for our future programme.



In this sense, the most important aspect is the access to airwaves and spectrums: to ensure that access is open and transparent, with fair and balanced costs

Radio spectrum is a common good. Waves traveling in the same air we breathe. Communication rights are a fundamental right. The situation is complex because we talk here about the articulation between a common good and a fundamental right. Moreover, fundamental rights are a “forfait”! We have them all, or we not have them at all. It's not like a “forfait” or a package in a hotel, where we can choose between half pension or full pension: some rights for lunch, a sandwich for dinner. The rights of children at lunch and an hamburger for dinner. It's not like this! Women's rights are my rights, the rights of children are my rights, the rights of migrants are my rights. And conversely, communication rights are the rights of children, women, migrants... For sure, communication rights are facing a scarcity, such as radio spectrum. Today, our communication needs, real or induced, are mainly concentrated in cell phones, a voice terminal where we want to receive radio, television, internet... all that is in relation to the so called “modern” communication. And from here we can understand the great frequency hunger of the "Telecom" companies, now representing the great "enemy" of the spectrum as a common good, which is returned to the public with a price, a charge. The debate between the articulation of fundamental rights and the use of a common good, then it's also the debate between the use of certain frequencies at the detriment of fundamental communication rights, and in particular, the right to cultural diversity and social inclusion. The role of radio in this debate is crucial. In the use of radio spectrum, the FM band has always been a small piece of land in a huge farm where televisions, airports, security, ambulance had their own place. Each with its own frequency. This small portion

of band, just 20.5 MHz (between 87.5 and 108 MHz) has always ensured this cultural diversity and social inclusion (through public service, commercial radios and community radios), an international standard where hundreds of thousands of voices around the world and in all languages have reported on the latest news, traffic, on the latest trends of modern music or the nostalgic notes of the past years. To define the transition from analogue radio to digital radio, also means then to define the contours and the perimeter of this diversity in the optimal use of a scarce resource like spectrum. The debate between partisans of a technical standard or another (especially between DAB + or DRM +) is quite participated, but it is not the concern here. The interest of the partisans of rights, is to ensure cultural diversity and social inclusion in the rational use of the public good whereas these new technologies should offer even more channels, and therefore, even more diversity and even more pluralism. It's not the interest of the partisans of the rights to lobby for the use of one technology over another. In mobility rights, we need highways, provincial roads and smaller rural paths, always in the respect of the environment in which we live. The World Association of Community Radio Broadcasters (AMARC, gathering more than 4000 members all around the World), does not fight for a technical

standard or another. Both the DAB + and DRM + have advantages and disadvantages. Wide geographical coverage, or coverage restricted and therefore better suited to "traditional" local radios, management of transmission systems, costs. Both techniques may be appropriate if applied to large urban areas where there is a high demand and consumption of radio productions, or rural or isolated areas where the capacity of production and consumption are more limited. In this sense the most important aspect is the access to airwaves and spectrum: to ensure that access is open and transparent, with fair and balanced costs. Europe has same values, but not equivalent approaches so while In Belgium, the communication infrastructure (concretely the masts, cables, and multiplex transmitters which allow the parallel broadcast of several stations within the same equipments) will be in the hands of the public service of the RTBF, in Italy the “business” is controlled by a family business starting with "B" and ending with "SCONI" who is already managing the infrastructure. Without going into a technical discussion, the DRM + standard certainly allows the direct control of the broadcasting facilities, thus avoiding external controls in terms of censorship and access, but would it be really effective in a scenario like the Italian or French (with big urban areas to cover)? Would it be a truly optimal use of spectrum?

The solution is surely hybrid: the key element is in the future receivers in the cars or at home, which will need to have the capacity to pick up signals on DAB +, DRM + or FM band. Another element that represents today the great European debate about a radio "single market" or, on the contrary, the abstention from any market according to the principles of "Good of Public Utility" (what the French call SIEG, Service d 'Interet General Economique). To articulate a public good with a fundamental right is not easy ... Certain signs of appropriation of this public good and there. Small boxes that can encode, with a free software, a signal on DAB + and thus avoid a technology that so far remains theoretically closed. A system that recalls the same movement that between the 70' and 80' led to the birth of free radios in some European countries. This is not, and can not be, the official position of an organization like AMARC, which moves in the interest of social communication, and the respect for legality. But however, if these principles of diversity, pluralism and access will not be observed from the political world, perhaps this could be the direction enhanced by some social movements, not just in order to reaffirm their cultural identity, but aiming at affirming the fundamental communication right and preserving the cultural identity of each one of us, a diverse and genuine pluralism in terms of contents and appropriation of a public good as the radio spectrum is.



Society is increasingly reliant on the ability to access broadband wherever and whenever. ‘Internet everywhere’ can bring great benefits to society and be a significant driver for growth, but it relies on a scarce resource… the radio spectrum. The radio spectrum is finite and has to accommodate calls and data traffic that is growing at an unprecedented pace. The broadband community of regulators, operators and equipment vendors must cooperate closely to ensure the opportunities created by ubiquitous wireless connectivity can be fully realised. In Europe regulators at both EU and national level are addressing the challenges to wider mobile broadband adoption through various policy initiatives including the EU’s 2020 Strategy for Growth, Digital Agenda and Radio Spectrum Policy Programme (RSPP). Allocating new technology-neutral spectrum has a key role in the overall information and communications technology (ICT) debate by enabling universal mobile broadband access – the ‘right to roam’ for data – throughout the European Single Market. Huawei, as a leading global ICT solutions provider, is fully aware of the impact that current policy decisions will have on the future of the whole sector and on European citizens, and is actively engaged in on-going debates on telecoms policy issues. But why is the issue of radio spectrum so important? Society has rapidly embraced mobile broadband. Increasingly subscribers, whether personal or business, see mobile broadband as a ‘must have’ service. Global traffic on mobile broadband has grown much faster than foreseen with current levels already exceeding predictions for 2020. By 2015 global mobile broadband subscribers are expected to exceed three billion and in the next decade more than 50 billion mobile connections are estimated to fulfil ’device-to-device’ communication needs. This level of traffic will clearly require additional bandwidth. It is recognised that mobile broadband is the spectrum user delivering the best return in terms of social and economic benefits for citizens. However, how finite spectrum bandwidth is reallocated must be fair and managed in a way that is clear, transparent and respectful of the fundamental needs of other applications, while ensuring the highest final utilisation efficiency. This requires a carefully planned bandwidth migration process over an extended timeframe. At the global level preparations are in hand for the next ITU-R World Radio Conference in 2015, which will build on decisions taken by participants from 167 countries at the recent WRC-12. One of

Personally, I am confident that, through the opportunistic combination of traditional spectrum management approaches and more flexible and innovative approaches, sufficient bandwidth can be found
the key targets will be to identify new radio spectra for mobile broadband. At EU level the EU 2020 Strategy has some ambitious communication targets for fixed and wireless broadband provision. How these targets are to be achieved is broadly set out in the European Commission’s Communication on the Digital Agenda. With specific reference to spectrum, the RSPP has been effective in Europe since April 2012 and has the ambition for the EU to take the lead in wireless electronic communication. In the short term it is overseeing the migration of the 800MHz band to broadband use across the EU (with a few limited exceptions) by January 2013, as well as allowing Member States to authorise additional bands by the end of this year, subject to market demand. In the medium term the RSPP looks to roughly double the total bandwidth assigned to mobile broadband from 625MHz today to 1200MHz by 2015 with further bandwidth to be identified for the longer term. Around the world similar plans to boost the spectrum allocated to mobile broadband are being put in place. The availability of adequate mobile broadband capacity is increasingly seen as a key global competitiveness issue. Huawei welcomes the European initiative to develop common policy and objectives for spectrum harmonisation and to provide clear planning in the longer term. We have analysed current radio spectrum usage in Europe and identified a number of bands that can become fully harmonised and available at the EU level for mobile broadband in the coming years. These bands can supply the extra spectrum required to achieve the RSPP objectives for 2015. ICT providers are well placed to contribute to the definition of regulatory measures and standards in Europe and elsewhere. Our own technology base is supported by the largest R&D division in the ICT sector. This means we can both provide sound science-based input to the

spectrum debate and understand and respond to the eventual market environment in a flexible manner. Currently mobile broadband spectrum is assigned through national market-driven auctions with spectrum caps to guarantee competition and obligations to ensure that spectrum is used. Beyond 2015 it will be more difficult to identify available ‘spare’ spectrum. The regulatory process can yield some further bandwidth, but there will be a limit, and access may not be possible within an appropriate timeframe. We believe a more dynamic approach is needed, such as Licensed Shared Access in combination with Cognitive Radio technology. This spectrum management innovation allows intelligent sharing of spectrum between users. An example is the 2300-2400MHz band that is currently used by several applications, such as wireless cameras at major sporting events. If the locations, dates and times when the cameras will be ‘in action’ are known, then mobile broadband traffic can share this bandwidth during ‘silent’ periods. Personally, I am confident that, through the opportunistic combination of traditional spectrum management approaches and more flexible and innovative approaches, sufficient bandwidth can be found. Combined with ‘internet everywhere’ developments, this will unlock opportunities and benefits for business and society in Europe.



The time for dress rehearsals is over. This time we are going live. On June 6, thanks to the sterling efforts of the world’s leading content providers, Internet access providers and home equipment manufacturers, there will be real IPv6 (Internet Protocol version 6) traffic on the global Internet. And unlike the test flight a year ago, it will be for more than just a day. Next week, the Internet world as we know it will change forever. For non-geeks, a quick primer: IPv6 today runs alongside and eventually will replace IPv4, the protocol that has been used to direct Internet traffic since the earliest days of the Internet. IPv4 is not being turned off but the spectacular growth of the Internet means more addresses are now needed than is possible with IPv4. The global reserve of the 4.3 billion addresses enabled by IPv4 was depleted in February 2011. At the time of its creation, IPv4 was not intended to satisfy the needs of a global commercial Internet. It was only meant to support experimental research and government networks. We have known all along that it was a limited resource which would one day dry up. That day has come. Already in the Asia Pacific region, there is no remaining IPv4 ad-

To move forward and continue adding new devices, services, and people to the Internet, we must deploy IPv6, the nextgeneration Internet protocol which essentially provides an unlimited number of addresses
dress space to be distributed. Europe is expected to run out this year, followed by the US in 2013 and Latin America and Africa in 2014. To move forward and continue adding new devices, services, and people to the Internet, we must deploy IPv6, the nextgeneration Internet protocol which essentially provides an unlimited number of addresses. It was designed with the needs of a global commercial Internet in mind, and deploying it is the only way we can continue to progress with an open and innovative Internet. For all this, businesses and other organisations have been slow to adopt the new protocol. Most still have not taken any steps to plan for IPv6 transition. This could be because they are not yet affected by the limitations of IPv4. They cannot afford to remain ostrich-like however. By continuing to rely solely on IPv4 with no plans to implement IPv6 in the near future, they risk facing a host of challenges, ranging from higher costs and limited website functionality to competitive pressure and reduced growth opportunities in emerging markets. World IPv6 Launch is the fruition of last June’s test flight which content providers passed with flying colours. In the meantime, we have cleared the next hurdle: how to convince content providers and access providers to offer IPv6 as part of their “new normal” of Internet business. But the time has come, and access providers participating in next week’s launch will roll out IPv6 as part of their regular offering on and after June 6 – and

they will have enough of it in place by then to have 1% of their network traffic to participating content providers over IPv6. To the non-expert, 1% of some networks’ traffic over IPv6 after June 6 may not seem as a big deal. But it is a significant milestone and a solid starting point. In fact, because many home users have devices that limit their use of IPv6, participating Internet service providers (ISPs) will be enabling it on a great deal more than 1% of their footprint. The Internet Society is pleased to be working with Facebook, Google, Microsoft Bing, and Yahoo! to measure IPv6 at ISPs. These websites will, during the week after 6 June, measure the percentage of visitors using IPv6 from each of the networks that signed up to participate. Crystal ball gazing is never easy. But we can say with certainty that much work remains to be done to relieve the pressure on IPv4 address depletion and to ensure the continued ability to have a globally connected Internet – before it’s too late. Clearly, IPv6 is the future of the Internet, and without it we can no longer grow. In today’s Internet-driven world, businesses and organizations that aim to grow need to consider IPv6 a strategic part of their future as well.



If it's one thing pirates fight against, it's monopolies, and how they harm Europe and our heritage from the Enlightenment with respect for civil liberties, our economy, and our culture. In this article, I'll outline three of the most problematic monopolies in Europe today from a pirate perspective. The first of the three is the copyright monopoly. It has derailed ridiculously, and harsher - draconian, actually - enforcement has not only proven to be utterly ineffective in stopping citizens from sharing culture and knowledge; enforcement of the copyright monopoly is now threatening our most fundamental rights, such as freedom of speech and secrecy of communications. Before we go on: Yes, copyright is a monopoly. It has nothing to do with property: in fact, it is a limitation of property rights. If you buy a DVD, the copyright monopoly on that DVD limits what you can do with the property you have legitimately bought, things you could normally do with property. If you buy an empty hard drive, the copyright monopoly limits the bitpatterns of data you can use it to store, despite the hard drive being your property. (If you have ever listened to copyright lawyers speaking, you'll notice that they are talking about "exclusive rights", not property; in more everyday language, exclusive rights is simply a "monopoly".) Further, the so-called pirates don't just share culture and knowledge - they also preserve it, in violation of the monopoly laws, but it wouldn't have been preserved otherwise. Today, the vast majority of our common culture from the last century is literally rotting away in vaults, becoming unreadable and unplayable, because the monopoly constructs make it more profitable to keep arbitrary 70-year-old assets still on the books, rather than making them available to the public. Were it not for pirates who have shared what they could, this culture would have been lost forever, seriously harming European cultural diversity. But it's not just a matter of civil liberties, impossible enforcement against the lifestyle of voters in the hundreds of millions, or of European cultural diversity. At the end of the day, the copyright monopoly conflict is also a trade conflict, primarily driven from the United States. It is, frankly, not in Europe's economic interest to prop up this monopoly. A publication from the European Commission reveals that the United States gain from the copyright monopoly, but the European Union loses massively - specifically, the copyright/patent loss for the European Union is 24 billion USD yearly. (In contrast, the United States gains as massively.)

With the European Union being the world's largest economy, there is absolutely no reason for us to accept these conditions. If we decide to change which monopolies we honor (and we should!), the rest of the world has no alternative but to respect that, and it is the duty of European politicians to care for Europe first. We have absolutely nothing to gain from taking orders from the United States here - put bluntly - to hand over European citizens' money to the United States. (Read more about the trade war: "Information Feudalism: Who owns the knowledge economy?" by Peter Drahos and John Braithwhite, detailing the origins of the TRIPs agreement.) This brings me to the second problematic monopoly, which is how the European Patent Office keeps awarding patent monopolies in violation of the law. Despite the European directives clearly saying that computer programs as such fall outside of patentable matter, software patents keep being awarded in violation of these directives. When threatened over an awarded patent monopoly, it is less of a business loss for most entrepreneurs to pay the demanded license fees rather than challenge the patent's validity in court, and so, a vicious cycle is created, where patent hoarders drain money from innovation without contributing to the economy. In the United States alone, patent monopolies held by so-called "non-practicing entities" - also known as "patent trolls" have drained 500 billion USD, half a trillion dollars, from the innovation sector. This is according to a recent study from Boston University. The vast majority of

these are software patents. Today, the dysfunctional patent system drains over onequarter of innovation funding. The only people gaining from these borderline-illegal software patents (technically they're only invalid, not illegal, but they still cost tons of money to defend against) are the patent lawyers. Others are, rightfully, furious. The business angels and venture capitalists who fund our startups have had more than enough. One investment capitalist recently went on record saying - quote - "I can't believe our government allows this shit to go on" endquote. The third monopoly is the old national telecom monopolies, which have now bought out the vast majority of wired and wireless internet bandwidth. This presents a strategic growth problem, as these telecom companies will delay the rollout of a functioning net as long as they possibly can: it will disintegrate their sunk investments and cash cows. (The thought of paying per minute for a 9.6-kilobit connection that can only be used for voice communications appears laughable and ridiculous when you have a general-purpose, fixed-fee, unmetered 100-megabit connection.) To trust the old national telecom monopolies with rolling out the net at the pace that is optimal for the growth of overall European economy is like trusting the fox to guard the henhouse: it's just not going to happen. In this case, the special interest of the telecom companies specifically, their luggage of obsolete investments - is actively counteracting the public interest of economy-boosting, ubiquitous bandwidth.

Let's take a tangible example, data roaming. There's regulation coming down the pipe to make that situation just slightly less unbearable in the coming years, but it's still nowhere good enough. A company in a healthy market can have a 5-10% profit margin on a specific product. For data roaming, the profit margins typically vary between 100,000 and 1,000,000 per cent. (Yes, you read that right.) This can only happen in a thoroughly oligopolized or monopolized market, in which case regulation is required to restore freemarket functionality. The right regulation in this case would not necessarily have been a price ceiling. Rather, if our dream is a seamless Europe, it would have been to regulate plans to treat the single market as exactly that - a single market, disallowing its segmentation. Disallowing premium charges for traffic originating or terminating in other member states. (The extra operating costs for the telecom companies are, as we have already seen, negligible.) Only then, when crossing borders of member states wouldn't matter for our citizens and entrepreneurs, would we start to see free movement of business and economy across borders, integrating Europe in the strategic way needed. It is entirely unreasonable that we should let a legacy industry's sunk, obsolete investments stand in the way of this unified vision. Medium- to long-term, we should regard an anonymous, loginless, and publicly-operated wireless network coverage in urban areas to be as basic a public service as streetlighting or fire stations.



economic and administrative environment of SMEs across Europe. In many international meetings on innovation, a question often asked by audiences and panelists is ‘why is Europe unable to generate an Apple Company, a Google, an Amazon, a Steve Jobs, or a Bill Gates ?’. Maybe it is time to change the parameters of this type of question by raising another one ‘what would a young Leonardo da Vinci need in today’s Europe to start a successful global business ?’. Europe is not – and never was – short of ideas, innovative brains or disruptive innovations. Yet, Silicon Valley has no obvious equivalent on our continent, and Nasdaq companies continue to be dominantly American. What Europe still has not been able to build is a comparable ecosystem in which universities, research centers and creative individuals can find support and mutual stimulation in a vibrant financial canvas (VCs) and interdisciplinary cross-fertilization (‘organized serendipity’). A recent study carried out by INSEAD with Booz and Co for the European Executive Council shows that business leaders worldwide consider indeed that Europe has good or even worldclass ideas and people (58% of respondents) and business skills (51%), but they consider that European funding for technology and innovation is only average (37%) or even below average (42%), and 56% regard governmental policies and support as insufficient in this area (see diagram below). Principle 3 - Do not give up before trying – Europe is undeniably one of the world regions that is being hit hardest by the current crisis. A number of measures had to be taken as a matter of urgency, in order to protect European countries’ macroeconomic stability and status on international capital markets. Concerns about how broad and deep the Eurozone can be are far from eroding. Yet, austerity integrism would be a recipe for strangling Europe’s hopes for a job-rich recovery in the near-term. Injecting the right dose of growth-supporting measures in Europe’s policies is now clearly a condition for success, and innovation strategies will be a lynchpin of such approaches. Efforts similar to HBS’s ‘US Competitiveness Project’ could be replicated in Europe, and INSEAD is currently leading its own effort to do so. A critical element that Europe needs to develop in this context is to develop a ‘right to fail’, by which start-up entrepreneurs would remain able to gather support (e.g. from banks) even if their initial efforts were not successful.

From the simple observation of such data, one can identify the following five ‘key principles’ for a successful Leonardo 2.0 approach to innovation in Europe: • Do not underestimate yourself • Do not make your work tougher than it needs to be • Do not give up before trying • Play your strengths • Give youth a chance Principle 1 - Do not underestimate yourself – The data mentioned above

telecommunications infrastructure are not up to par with those of other countries and regions, quoting high prices, insufficient competition and delays in reforms, such as intra-European roaming. Although the importance to address such issues cannot be overstated, they should

Europe is not - and never was - short of ideas, innovative brains or disruptive innovations
not obscure the fact that Europe has been and remains a leader in ICTs; it has invented SMS, GSM, Skype and other tools and standards now used on a large international scale; its broadband infrastructure is among the highest in the world, and seven European countries rank among the top ten most ‘networked economies’ in the world . Principle 2 - Do not make your work tougher than it needs to be – One recurrent complain that investors have vis-àvis creating or operating a business in Europe is about the segmentation of its markets (e.g. for labor) and the complexities of its administrative, fiscal and social processes. In areas in which fast movers have a distinct advantage over their competitors (as is the case in many innovation-intensive sectors), red tape can make the difference between success and failure. The possibility to avail Europe of its own ‘Small Business Act’ could me of critical importance to simplify the Principle 4 - Play your strengths – Europe enjoys a highly educated population, significant budgetary resources (structural funds for development e.g.) and a high degree of cultural and linguistic diversity. All these assets are crucial potential ingredients for innovation: they can be better leveraged around common European-wide innovation and competitiveness objectives and policies. Principle 5 - Give youth a chance – to generate, attract and motivate the Da Vincis of today, Europe’s businesses and education systems must modernize their approaches, making them more interdisciplinary, more open to the world, and more geared to life-long learning processes. Social media, for example, offer unprecedented ways to hear what younger generations (digital natives) have to say and contribute. In the coming months and years, giving a voice to young Europeans will be as vital as giving them a job.

If, however, one takes a global point of view and compares Europe’s innovation record to that of other continents and countries, the ‘old continent’ remains a top performer. This comes out clearly from the annual rankings produced by INSEAD and the World Property Organization in their ‘Global Innovation Index Report’ .

show that business leaders (and European public opinions in general) tend to rate Europe’s assets in terms of innovation below their objective value. This is particularly the case for information technologies and information infrastructure. Quite often, Europeans express the opinion that their information and



New Europe sits down with John Suffolk, Huawei’s Global Cyber Security Officer, to discuss trends in the area, as well as his thoughts on the cyber environment in a globalised world.
Can you begin with outlining how you define ‘cyber security’? Let’s go back to before technology was even invented. When people left companies, they always took the client list, the product pricing, even when it wasn’t on a computer. Now it’s digitised, it’s far more easy to get information of people. So this whole issue of cyber crime, cyber attack, cyber security really has it root in the fact that we’ve always lost information, in whatever walk of life. Technology has basically amplified the problem. So, when I look at cyber security in my job at Huawei to do this, it can be everything, top-down, from the most senior guy down to the employees of the supplychain. Each one of those potentially has a weakness we may or may not see. So, it doesn’t matter if you are looking at simply whether your phone is safe, like if some application asks you to give it some trusted status, behind the scenes it is moving your contacts and your emails and SMS and uploaded to a server in some strange part of the world, all that is about cyber security. So, I need to be able to trace forwards and trace back, so we know no one has tampered with it along the line. If you open up your phone, you will see components manufactured throughout the world, so security is about protecting the supply chain as well, and that’s about standards, that’s about relationships. So I need to know, when I have a wagon coming up to one of our manufacturing centres, what’s coming off the back, what chips, what wagon; it’s all barcoded – I can forward trace, and I can backward trace. But what happens if I have trained you, and you do something wrong? What’s the HR policy? What happens when we are selling? Are we over-selling our capabilities? What’s the legal process that we go through? It’s about saying, if there is a standard, are we adopting it or not; it’s about your approach to international standards. So cyber security, when you look at it from top to bottom and end to end, covers everything a company should do, right down to its values. You do not get consistency of service if the processes are random. I don’t add cyber security on to the back-end of the process, just as you don’t add quality on to the back-end of a process, you build it in. What about human error, someone leaving a disc on a train, for example, can you build that into your process? As best as you can. But let’s be realistic, n’t mean they don’t have a set of de facto standards and ways that they do things, and even if they have a law, it is often interpreted in many different ways. The EU is a prime example of that; we all have a common data protection law, but it is layered with country details. But we will always comply with all the laws of all the countries we operate in, and we overlay on that any international laws in terms of trade embargoes, or the movement of technologies to certain countries. We stick to all of that where there is an international law. As a company we are absolutely passionate in terms of standards. Do you find, in terms of client interest, that governments are particularly interested in cyber security? Not really. We use about 45 of the world’s 50 biggest operators, there are 500 operators that use us around the world. We don’t look at this from a government perspective; we’re just a global player. The view of cyber security is different by country. In some countries – and there isn’t that many of them – they do view cyber security as on of their 4 or 5 top government priorities, but generally that isn’t the case. Theirs are the normal priorities of better education, better housing, health, infrastructure, economic development, national security. In some countries cyber security is there where they are seeing it a s penitential economic threat or a threat to national security, but each one of those countries has a different position on what they means as cyber security; some will say we don’t want data going outside our borders, other governments say, in essence, you must conform to a certain set of policies and procedures. Now, at Huawei, we are used to be audited and inspected. We like to be audited; it sounds a bit daft, but when we are, we find where we are hopeless, where a slight tweak here is needed, and then we find we have better products, better processes, better services to our customers, and we find we can do it at a better price. At a quality and innovation level, this closeness that we get to these audit regimes, these inspections, is dramatically improving what we do. But we also think it is improving the security posture, so I sit with many governments around the world, and I show them what we do. I know that they are learning as well. If there was a magic bullet we could fire for cyber security, it would have been done by now. The reality is, we are all learning.

Some countries do view cyber security as on of their 4 or 5 top government priorities, but generally that isn’t the case
in every walk of life, including in governments, we should never be surprised by the ingenuity of humans to be stupid. The issue is about being open to learning in terms of these things; I’ve seen examples of people doing what they believe to be the right thing for the customer, but it turned out to be the wrong thing. For example, sometimes people move from country to country, they move from customer to customer, and what was right in one customer in one country might be fundamentally wrong in another. So you are always learning things, and asking how can you stop that. Regarding the supply-chain. In a global environment where there are different standards, do you rely on governments to create standards? We operate in 150 different countries, and, of course, the law is different in 150 different countries, and even if a country has a law, it doesn’t mean they execute that law. And if they don’t have a law, it does-



Cyberspace is comprised of computer networks, computer resources, and all the fixed and mobile devices connected to the global Internet. A nation’s cyberspace is part of the global cyberspace; it cannot be isolated to define its boundaries since cyberspace is borderless, unlike the physical world — land, sea, river waters, and air - that is limited by geographical boundaries. Is it a ‘Global Commons’ like sea, air and space? Since all the networks and devices connected to them belong to people and/or organizations in specific countries, do these constitute private property, and hence a national asset? If it is a global commons, what international laws should apply to cyberspace? How can countries defend their part of the global cyberspace? If cyber attacked, do they have recourse to existing laws like the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC)? If it is a national asset, how can it be defended since the attacks can come from afar, with the challenge that attackers may be hard to identify. More so, because there are no barriers to cyberspace entry, since attack vectors - freely available at low cost – enable non-state actors to challenge large organizations and countries by attacking them for financial frauds, terrorist or ideological reasons. Even worse scenario is a nation-state using non-state actors against its adversaries for cyber espionage, and disruption of critical infrastructures with outcomes similar to kinetic attacks. Whether cyberspace belongs to the global commons, can be better appreciated, by examining how the governance of global commons for access and stability has evolved internationally, and what kind of rules of road have been created for them by the international community. Global Commons Sea, Air and Space have long been accepted as global commons by the international community. They bring economic benefits to nations; facilitate the passage of good and people. Militaries and nations view it as a means to protect national territory and strategic interests, since navigating safely through these is deemed to be part of national defence. This led European thinkers recognize the potential for international conflicts in the commons, and hence, the need for international agreements to broad rules and regulations. Cyberspace as Global Commons Where does cyberspace fit in? It spans the entire globe almost seamlessly. Does it have any national borders? Yes, there are national gateways where countries can install filters to enforce censorship –

It is clear that national assets have to be part of the cyberspace, the global commons, to derive benefits of connectivity
as is done by some of them - even though these are porous and it’s not possible to block content with complete certainty. This is because the standardized protocols that enable the accessing of information and services easily from anywhere are used by servers and networks anywhere in the world passing through national gateways. To become only a national network, a country will need to snap connection of its gateways from the landing stations; in which case it will be a national asset, operating as an intranet, without being able to connect to the outside world. It is clear that national assets have to be part of the cyberspace, the global commons, to derive benefits of connectivity – global ecommerce, email, funds transfer, stock trading, and other relations for trade and social networking. Challenges to Cyberspace as Global Commons Cyberspace is indeed a global commons, albeit of a new kind, since it is man-made. But it is a national asset too, since it enables a host of business and government services to citizens; critical infrastructure depends on it for its efficient operations. Cyberspace is anarchic today since there is no formal governance regime. Market-based governance that includes people, groups and governments around the world has produced a flexible and effective global network of networks. But its regulation is complicated by several features. Cyberspace is asymmetric, and offense dominant, provides anonymity

because of difficulties in attribution with implications for bringing criminals to justice and for deterrence and reprisal in the battle space. Governments do not know how to protect cyberspace because more and more infrastructure is owned by private sector. Existing international agreement, the Council of Europe (COE) convention on cybercrime, is limited in scope and even more limited on enforcement. It’s the owners of infrastructure, and individual users who shoulder the burden of responsibility to provide cybersecurity. It is certainly time for international agreements, though not necessarily for treaties. This is because the dynamics of cyberspace is probably not understood well enough for international regimes. Governments and private sector have to work together to evolve rules of behavior. Will LOAC be applicable in case of cyber war? Are states responsible for computer network attacks and espionage that originate in their territory? Since distinction between Cyber attacks and cyber warfare is thin (same attack vectors can lead to different outcomes), there is need to define under which condition is a computer network attack and ‘act of war’? National security of every country depends on safe cyberspace commons.



“Cyberwar is coming!”announced two RAND Corporations analysts in 1993, yet to date, there is a wide controversy surrounding the existence of cyberwar. Opinions among policy makers, IT experts and the military differ widely with some referring to the threat as a looming “Cyber Pearl Harbor,” while others simply state that “cyberwar will not take place.” The United States military views cyberspace as crucial to military operations as air, land, sea, and space. This current ambiguity is impending policy development and leads to confusion among governments about the true cyber threat. As a report by the EastWest Institute on “Rendering the Geneva and Hague Conventions for Cyberspace” states, “It is possible that the binary peace versus war paradigm is too simple for the complexities of the Internet Age.” The report recommends the development of “a third, ‘other than-war’ mode” to clarify how to use existing policy instruments and more importantly, the applicability of international law. Scattering the metaphor of war regarding cyberspace dilutes and extenuates the true nature of warfare. As an inscription in the Swedish Army Museum in Stockholm reads, “This is—after all—what this museum is about: killing and maiming, or at least threatening to do so.” Among the many definitions of war, cyberwar often (not always) fails to meet two of the most

It is possible that the binary peace versus war paradigm is too simple for the complexities of the Internet Age

basic aspects of how we understand war; war must be lethal and political. To gain clarity in this discussion, I propose a system of categorizing cyber attacks based on two simple criteria: impact and intent. Any act in cyberspace can be assessed through the prisms of this II Model. Assessing various high profile actions in cyberspace such as the infamous Stuxnet attacks, it becomes fairly clear that the war metaphor fails to apply to these occurrences. While the intent of Stuxnet may have had a political component (e.g., forcing the Iranian regime to return to the negotiation table), the lethal component was missing. Even if lives were lost in these attacks, the principle aim was sabotage, an “accepted” act in the international arena and a form of political warfare, not war and death in itself. If the II Model is applied rigorously, it becomes clear that most cyber attacks in the political sphere (the core criteria for any discussion of organized violence to-

wards a clear political objective) should be categorized as sabotage, espionage, and subversion—all actions short of war and generally not constituting a “casus belli” in international law. As such, cyberwar, is merely an extension of already existing forms of political warfare—a metaphor that may have led to the nascent “cyberwar” metaphor. Political warfare’s ultimate goal, however, is to alter an opponent’s actions without using military power. Many pundits argue that cyberwar is different because of the strategic impact and the immense power an individual can yield with just a few keystrokes. Above all, they lament the omnipresent power of cyber weaponry to strike anywhere and at any time; however, this is historically nothing new. During the Seven Years War, the Austrian Army introduced irregular forces, the famous “Grenzer” (borderers), recruited from the Austrian provinces adjacent to

the Ottoman Empire, where for centuries the Ottomans and Croatians fought small skirmishes, raided each other’s lands and destroyed crops while the Austrian Empire was officially at peace with the Ottomans. When Austria introduced this concept into the rigid understanding of Western European Warfare, the outcry by orthodox commanders, such as Frederick II, was immense and led to confusion: Was this warfare or was it not? The Grenzers unintentionally had a strategic impact on the war since the Prussians simply lacked a military doctrine on how to deal with these acts of sabotage and plundering. The Grenzers principle aim was not lethal but like some cyber attacks today, could have indirect lethal consequences (e.g., a starving population). Also, like today’s cyber attacks, once unleashed, the Grenzers were hard to contain. Last, the aims of the Grenzers were not political but only to plunder. Again we are confronted with the dilemma of failing to properly categorize actions in cyberspace because of our own rigid understanding of war. It is finally time to jettison the concept of war in the context of cyberspace, and the II Model may be a good starting point. When the model is applied, cyberwar fails to meet the most basic criteria of war, but then again, metaphors have their own life. Lest we end up with Bertold Brecht’s old – mocking phrase—“imagine there is a cyberwar, but nobody shows up for it!”—we must establish new criteria now.



The European Commission’s proposed data protection rules are at the core of an increasingly passionate debate between civil society, industry and policymakers; and rightly so. Policymakers are working to ensure citizens’ privacy is adequately protected, and that all data collection is transparent, including what personal data is kept, how it collected, by whom, and where it is held. Moreover, Europe must provide an environment where businesses can operate seamlessly across borders in order to maximize the benefits of a unified internal market and effectively tackle the current economic crisis. This requires a harmonised approach to regulation of these areas. Well designed data protection rules have the potential to boost trust in the digital economy and encourage the development of what is arguably the most promising sector of our times: information and communications technology. However these rules must be crafted with great care as they also have the potential to smother burgeoning SMEs and further push the EU into a vicious circle of decreasing economic growth, increasing unemployment and dwindling revenues. Throughout our current sluggish economy, app development has remained remarkably resilient. Pierre Abel, the founder of L'Escapadou and developer of awardwinning apps like Montessori Crosswords and Word Wizard, is an example of the

Well designed data protection rules have the potential to boost trust in the digital economy

micro-SMEs that dominate this new marketplace. Over 80% of all app developers have fewer than 10 employees, and as an independent app developer, Abel has made more than E200,000 through the Apple App Store since he introduced his first app in August, 2010. The data collection and use which the EU is regulating is critical for SME app developers. In addition to interest-based advertising, data collection helps app developers like Abel optimize their programmes and create new products by revealing which features consumers use most. During the development phase, Abel receives feedback from users through a button on the app that allows users to contact him directly and ask for new features and fixes. All these sources of data are important to allow Abel to further develop and im-

prove his product, but such customer feedback may be unintentionally eliminated under the proposed EU regulation on data protection. The scope of the proposed EU regulation includes not only data protection (what is done to data once it is collected) but also privacy (the collection of data). Inflexible regulation in both these areas can negatively impact the ability of technology developers to compete in a global market. Regulations disproportionately affect SMEs because the cost of administrative burdens associated with compliance is often nearly as high for small firms as large, especially when they are broad and vague. Well-developed products and growing SME marketplace are things that the EU should be fostering. As the EU struggles to emerge from the crisis it would be shooting itself in

the foot by imposing these unnecessary burdens on what is one of the rare recession proof sectors. Rising costs aren’t the only issue with the proposal. SMEs need legal certainty and legal clarity. The 26 delegated acts which the draft regulation contains make sure neither is provided. Moreover it is still unclear whether the rules will grant the increased sense of security amongst users that the Commission is expecting and even less clear whether this would lead to greater willingness to invest in Europe. All in all, the European Commission’s data protection regulation will be a good indicator of the future of tech SMEs based in Europe. Entrepreneurs, the vital forces of our economy, need to hear that government supports them in their endeavour and need to see the EU act to ensure that Europe is as welcoming an environment as other parts of the world. As it currently stands the proposal fails to recognise the complexity of the online ecosystem where product, not size, is the core focus. Squeezed between higher costs and lower revenue margins (an ill European governments should understand all too well) SMEs are not equipped or capable of supporting the negative implications the new data protection rules would have on their business and the environment they operate in. What European entrepreneurs are currently hearing sounds a lot like Hit the road Jack and if they do leave, it’s likely they’ll come back no more.



What is the potential for mobile health in Europe? Globally? In a word: Huge. By 2017, mobile technology will be a key enabler of healthcare delivery around the world. The global mHealth market is expected to exceed US$23 billion by 2017. The same report, conducted by PwC, identified that Europe could become the largest mHealth region with revenues of US$6.9 billion. In Europe, as in most parts of the industrialised world, government health care spending has risen disproportionately over the past 10 years, largely because of a rise in lifestyle induced chronic diseases and an ageing population. Governments in developing countries continue to face severe challenges in providing ubiquitous access to healthcare and tackling communicable diseases. On top of this, they are also seeing an increase in chronic diseases. In contrast, mobile phone access is becoming more common, irrespective of which part of the world you live in. In developed countries, almost everyone owns at least one mobile phone and coverage in Africa, Asia-Pacific and Latin America is expected to be as high as 82%, 98% and 119% by 2014. It’s clear mobile devices can play a pivotal role in supporting health care worldwide – be it helping individuals manage their own health and facilitating day to day medical advice, or supporting the health system by connecting healthcare professionals or enabling more efficient processes. How can mobile health technologies help with Europe's aging population? By 2025, one out of every five Europeans will be over 65. This presents a tremendous challenge for Europe in many ways. Health costs are already skyrocketing and in the face of rising life expectancy and a declining workforce, policymakers are looking for innovative ways to support individuals as they age and help them to continue to live independent lives. Mobile technology can play a role in enabling smart, innovative and sustainable solutions. mHealth has the potential to deliver solutions that will improve care for patients. Mobile technology can help extend the relationship of the physician or carer and patient beyond the hospital or doctor’s surgery, support patients with timely and relevant advice, and track vital stats as their condition evolves, wherever they are. For example, mobile technology can help a patient follow a treatment regime and take medication on time, can help provide confidence to an individual by ensuring their wellbeing and location is continually monitored, or can improve clinical care

Mobile technology can help extend the relationship of the physician or carer and patient beyond the hospital or doctor’s surgery

with consistent monitoring of vital information. This can translate into real cost savings. GSMA-McKinsey research estimates US$175-200 billion worldwide could be saved annually by managing chronic diseases through remote monitoring, which among other things can reduce the number of hospital visits. Is the European Union doing enough to provide an environment enabling mHealth to flourish? Governments and policymakers are key stakeholders in mhealth as they can be the buyers, promoters (for example, spreading

prevention and awareness messages), as well as the providers and facilitators. They also function as regulators, catalysts and influencers through policy initiatives. Therefore, when policymakers across the world embrace constructive agenda for mhealth, the market will start scaling up rapidly to its potential. We are pleased the European Union recognizes the contributions of ICT for the health care sector. As Commissioner Kroes has said, phones “are serious tools for health care, and may even save lives”. eHealth features prominently in the Digital Agenda, which is a key initiative aimed at helping Europe achieve a sustainable digital future.

Last, but not least, collaboration between policymakers in both the healthcare and mobile industries can truly modernize Europe’s healthcare delivery. The GSMA looks forward to continuing the dialogue with EU policymakers to ensure mHealth achieves its full potential. After all, we share a common goal, and that is to ensure citizens have access to quality, affordable health care beyond the confines of a hospital or doctor’s surgery. What are some of the recent innovations and developments happening in mHealth? Mobile health technologies are already being applied across the globe. mHealth deployments total 687 globally, and Europe accounts for nearly 100. At the same time operators and companies are continuing to devote money and resources into advancing these technologies. The GSMA tracks many of the commercial deployments in mHealth on its GSMA mHealth Deployment Tracker. One particularly interesting technology developed by AT&T is Vitality GlowCaps. A common problem among patients is forgetting to take their medicine at the right time, or at all. The GlowCap is a pill bottle cap that uses embedded technology to remind patients when it is the right time to take medicine. The caps illuminate, play music, and even have the ability to call or text the patient. A record is made each time a bottle is opened, and this information can be accessed by the patient or a designated care provider.


You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->