Securing views Berg

Seanet Maritime Communications AB filed for bankruptcy on February 22. On 28 said all staff up to 22 March, all leave, except the three of us to keep the boat floating to a new owner takes over. There is a sadness that is not the death of friends long after ...

Seanet is the world's smallest GSM operator. At most, twelve employees and three agents connected to the company. We delivered maritime GSM, ie ferries, cruise ships, accommodation platforms and everything else during the relevant period a year find themselves in international waters, or the part of national water where we can offer our service.

Why did not this work? Should it work? The answer is that it possibly could work.

CAPEX

• Telecom is an activity that requires large investments and have low marginal costs, which is the recipe for large economies of scale. Seanet never came up to a volume of traffic that was sufficient to meet the costs of their infrastructure. The switch did many thousands of simultaneous calls - Seanet had a peak of just under 30. Seanet never really got the momentum in sales in order to achieve business plans, volumes would be required to bear the financial backpack.
• The infrastructure was probably not properly dimensioned for the business. I initially used equipment from a vendor, but stability was lousy and burnt by the experience of using a small, unknown supplier in conjunction with Chairman and CEO with a background from Ericsson, so it is understandable if the need for technical security primarily was with Ericsson. The infrastructure has been fantastic and Ericsson as the supplier's nothing to complain about, but the price has been disproportionate to the business was capable of carrying capacity and we have needed. If I had had the choice again, I had advocated that Seanet had chosen a solution from Tecore. Not only had they been able to use existing base stations from Ip.access (instead of having to make a change to Ericsson), and had gained a much less expensive gear, and had to buy a cheap SGSN from Aricent (ie an in-house produced GPRS service) and also had the bargain with a functioning prepaidlösning.
• Since there has not been relevant expansion capital, we have been searching lösningr that transformed CAPEX to OPEX. Leasing of antennas rather than buy. Own project where you yourself are not economically credible and the collateral on a boat is not easy to get to. In combination with the strategy change to indirect sales, there was then no provision for the leased antennas that we got back that the vessel was sold. The supplier of the leased antennas refused manage reduction of leased capacity and who also took payment for field service of antennas in stock because it is in the agreement as set Seanet with a current expense without corresponding revenues. A supplier who sneer banks' Agreement shall be held "in the mind of his client is no man shall buy from, but you could discover too late.
• A considerable amount of the proceeds of the IPO was put on development of a stabilized VSAT antenna. If you look at what happens to C2SAT you will see that it was a qualified felsatsning.

Funding

• Börintroduktion - an IPO is a prestigious project and a place on the stock market, some market benefits, but numerous disadvantages. The cost to be listed, the transparency that will result from that one is public and that the valuation is the audience. When shares slides from postage stamp to junk it will issue to the reasonable values ​​hopeless. The issues leading to severe dilution if the share price was in a perpetual basis.
• Inadequate financing - owner never wants to be diluted so that it takes in as little capital as one affords. Seanet has hankat the front of the bridge loan. In connection with share issues have been brought in so little that the proceeds sometime in principle only covered the current stock of overdue payables, and a sugar stressed bridge financing. This has clear parallels to take SMS loan when money is gone and before the next paycheck comes and that the entire salary is booked once it appears.

Revenues

• Turn up the topline in a business case is the lightest available. If the top line is counted backwards to what you "need" to reach a particular result, it is on track to achieve minimal results. There have been clear hints of what we cautiously call "real optimism" in the context of budgeting.

• Seanet aiming for a lower retail price and negotiated discounts with mobile operators who in return undertook to lower the retail price. Seanet thus earned less per harvested minutes but there is no support in the statistics that this would stimulate consumption. Operators in the same country with drastically different price to the customer shows no statistically significant difference in consumption per person.
• A lower price is only an advantage to promote it. Seanet has marketed its services, but the effects of that people become informed rather have been that used the service less than more. Chances are that the knowledge of the price - even if it is lower than for competing services on the other boats - is too high for the general public will think it is reasonable.

The conclusion is that if there is price elasticity exists at least not in the price not forage where Seanets services sold, and you might as well take out as much as you can. Unfortunately.

The lack of revenue based on that Seanet acted in a manner that is perhaps morally right but economically fault falls squarely on me.

Competition

In Europe there are four providers of maritime GSM. There is no doubt that the volume is not sufficient to four to conduct a healthy business on its own merits. For example it is obvious that the infrastructure is an integral subset of the vessel (cabling) should be borne by the owner, but this has not been able to get through in the negotiations since the second offers to cover this cost. guarantees of "revenue share" to levels that are directly unsound is legion, but no guarantee of an industry that is thriving.

There are things one experiences and learns that may be helpful to know, even if they escaped gladly learn them. I have a little bit too close now learned a lot about obestråndsjuridik and sharing in the social security systems that are related to bankruptcies.

When a company goes bankrupt, there's a government wage guarantee that you come in and it is from this guy gets his salary. The state then requires the money from the estate and act so as buffer between the employee and the bankruptcy estate.

Wage guarantee - how long is it?

Pay security is limited in time and money, whichever ends first.

- Time Limit: Regardless of your notice period as per contract to apply the rules of the Law on Employment § 11 , which is calculated from bankruptcy and beyond.

- Cash Limit: The maximum amount is four times the basic amount. See Wages Guarantee Act § 9 . At the moment approximately 176 000. Note that if a company goes into bankruptcy by the end of a month, but before payment of wages, one must guarantee to pay it, but it also means that you also consume a portion of the guaranteed amount for a period of time before the bankruptcy decision. To the extent that this restriction will be applicable will pay the remainder of the notice period is an unsecured claim in the bankruptcy.

Work Duty in case of bankruptcy

: During one month from the bankruptcy estate may require that you work ("labor service"), but after this first month of:

- If the estate requires you to work all or part of the period must be agreed and the estate must account for the salary - it is so, not for pay security.

- If the estate does not require you to work, you are automatically exempt work.

Pay security when working-leaving

To get the pay security when you are working exempt, you must meet certain requirements (See Lönegarantilag § 7 ):

- You must not perform work for another

- Not PERSON,

- Be registered as candidates at the job center.

- Do not meet the requirements of Priority Act § 12 6st ​​.

The employee has a duty of disclosure if you perform work in another or in an activity. See Wages Guarantee Act § 10 .

Paying authority

The authority manages the wage guarantee is the County Council.

During the song festival finale stretched a woman up on his arms and showed off two thick bushes. Made me think of an old ståuppa with Lennie Norman on the East German runner Katrin Krabbe . Stylish, did think not only I, but was convicted of doping. Lennie had a long harrang about how she ran, won, and stretched his arms in the sky "and then saw that she was the East German".

Armpit is not the nicest part of the body. It's actually one of the five zones that the baths are asked wash before going into the pool.

Where do you pull it off? Well,

- No one forces someone to shave anywhere without it doing that we want, and depending on what you think

- It is obvious that a large group of people think women are prettier and nicer to shave under your arms. This is illustrated by the "twitter storm" that has arisen, which as usual have to expect that some want to be seen taking in presumptuous to rise above the noise. It is unfortunately the "herd behavior on those social media", all in a big gaggle of screaming runs in the same direction.

Tying it together that it is up to each one if you want to "please" what many think, or you want to go against the tide. It is not wrong for the group who feel anything about what attributes they prefer in the opposite sex (or same if one is placed in that direction), but it's wrong for those who think in a way but choose to follow the path of least resistance and comply despite that it affects people's perception.

And it is so clearly wrong to run their perception so hard that you treat someone badly just because you choose not to follow the stream. The fact that every time to be "offended" or "bullied" just because you are challenged is another - very tiring - trend.

Gunnar Hökmark publishes an opinion piece in today's SVD . Pirate Party is responsible . The premise is that Gunnar sees a major problem in today's high tariffs for mobile data roaming. There is Gunnar and I TOTALLY agree. Today's price levels are a drag. Today's smartphones have data roaming blocked in the normal case. It is of course quite unreasonable and obstructive.

What should politicians do?

A general reflection is that it is good for policy makers to have the vision, setting the course and may determine the outcome. Decision maker must determine WHAT. However, it becomes a practical problem when the decision maker also chooses HOW without understanding enough about the underlying mechanisms. Gunnar Hökmark's proposal is largely unworkable in practice, which of course is a relevant objection to the proposal.

When Gunnar STILL trying on HOW

Gunnar suggests "Local break out" as a solution to the problem of roaming charges. It is fundamentally badly thought I shudder in the whole body.

1) Local Breakout would make it cheaper?

Local Breakout means that data traffic coming onto the Internet to visit online, while it normally goes home to home service provider before it comes out on the internet. The teknsika cost of sending dataströmen over a home network is, indeed, and latency becomes a little worse. Undoubtedly. But they are like emptying the ashtray to reduce the weight of the car so that it uses less gasoline. As to straining at gnats and swallowing camels.

Let's assume that you pay € 5/MB;

Of those earning home operator € 1 and then have the cost of end-user billing, half the cost of bringing home the traffic to the country and peering with the Internet. Visit the Web earn € 4, and to this cost on to provide a radio network (which is built up to the national customers - the marginal cost of roamaren is negligible), cost to bulk bill the home service provider for all their customers' demand (one invoice per month therefore for perhaps thousands of customers' total consumption). Särkostnaden for a customer, therefore microscopic. In addition, half the cost of traffic to the home operator.

It is obvious to anyone with insight and understanding of the mechanism are currently NOT suffering from the problem that the cost of the mechanism as such is incorrect. . It is a structure that is commercially corrupt and therefore one should not seek a technical solution. You can not optimize the technology and believe the price drops for the technical cost is a non-relevant subset of the set-aside rate.

Ergo, Local breakout makes it technically cheaper to produce the service, but the technical cost is negligible. It is not the cost that's wrong and it is completely wrong way to begin to tackle the problem.

2) Who should get paid

Danens stuktur based on the traffic goes to the home network. It's only the home network that has a customer relationship with the mobile client. If the visiting network provides Local Breakout, how can they charge for the service? Where Spanish operators send invoices to the Swedes, as they have no commercial relationship with? Will they then need to make credit assessments, and you have to register locally?

Or should they invite the LBO? Would be nice, but then why pay a monthly fee for mobile broadband? When you buy a prepaidkor from the neighboring country and have a completely free data access in perpetuity.

Ergo: visit the network has no mechanism to charge the roaming customer without breaking through the home operator and it should remain.

But what to do? How to solve the problem?

First, by setting a vision and a goal.

Objective: Today you pay € 25 / month for the principle "all you can eat" data at the national level. What is reasonable to pay for all you can eat at the EU27 level? € 50 maybe? How about having the goal of data roaming, which is all you can eat in Europe that cost up to twice as much as an equivalent offer is limited to the national market? It is a political vision, a relevant goal, an understandable goal and defers to the industry to solve them practical applications. And the industry would need to resolve implementation!

Then: We must realize that this market has clear oligopolistic features, allowing the natural competition can not really happen but it needs to be regulation that curbs oligopoly side effects.

The basic problem is the margins of the visit the Internet is completely over the top, and the regulation therefore needs to push in on the root of the problem. An operator has no loyalty to another carrier customers. Within the standard telephone voice so apply LRIC (Long Range Incremental Cost) model for the definition of a regulated charge for the speech. LRIC model results in a maximum amount that incumbents may charge the interconnection.

We need a model that defines what is a reasonable cost for a MB of roaming operators, in the same manner as for termination. This regulation needs to be as long as the market is basically an oligopoly.

There is an obvious risk that the mobile operators, when you lose your income on its wholesale move over so that they charge their customers. I would actually suggest that it has rules on the allowable surcharge applied for mobile data.

Thus;

Goal:

Put the policy objective of data roaming in the EU27 by 2014 should be possible for a maximum of double the national rate.

The funds needed are:

Data roaming

1) Put a cap on data rates between operators that are radically lower than the current regulation. Not € 5/MB but rather € 5/GB is more relevant for wholesale billing.

2) Put a cap on retail charges that apply during a transitional period of one year. After this period, the market will stabilize at a new level and the regulation is no longer needed.

Competition

1) Prohibit the SIM lock on foreign SIM cards - everyone is entitled to use their mobile phone with a foreign SIM card.

Signed starting actively seriously look for alternatives to sell my skills to the speculators who have 17 years of extensive telecommunications experience at all levels of the value chain, 1500 contacts with law degrees. Looks like you for telling those you think might be interested and share your link!

http://berg.to/blog/sR

Now Juholt knocked down himself ...

Merry Christmas

and

Happy New Year

family want to Berg

For those who wish to take advantage of our escapades during the year, you are welcome to look at our Christmas Letter below:

Family's Christmas Letter 2011

I agree with Jocke's vision of the digital and physical reality is a reality that only takes two different forms. Social media is not a computer game, a virtual game that is decoupled from the physical reality, but simply a variety of digital communication channels.

For me, the discussion a mixture of etiquette in combination with a discussion of work-related stress.

Stress may be the turbo of the technology means that many can work everywhere and there are fewer and fewer "protected space" where you do not even need to explain why they were not inter / re / act. The cell phone will be a good working tool for most tasks, coverage with good speed are basically everywhere, mobile services for air is introduced continuously, which means that the person is unable to say stop having fewer opportunities to relax due to the forced stop.

I also think it's interesting communication etiquette and priorities.
- You sit on-one and talking and ringing. What are you doing? Do the direct (phone always goes first), do not respond (biased Never remove the physically), looks at the number and then determine who to prioritize.
- You sit in a meeting and it rings. What are you doing? It can not happen - the phone is switched off at the meeting, you have it on silent, depending on who it is, go from the room and takes the call, you answer and talk far and wide in space [1]
- You sit in the cinema and it rings. What are you doing? It can not happen - you have the phone turned off to the movies, you have it on silent, depending on who it is, go from the room and takes the call, you answer and talk extensively in theater

Then replace the one phone call to email, twitter, facebook status update, and what those might be. When is it OK to give priority to people at a distance in front of those who endeavored to meet you face to face? When is it disrespectful, unpleasant and ouppfostrat to choose the absent rather than present? Note: it currently is rarely part of the conversation with the absent but the case of a pure off prioritization in the normal case.

So the question is what you want, is the concern for twittraren for him not to burn out or is it an annoyance than a totally cool to be socially out priority of the man endeavored to meet face to face? The arguments for the two scenarios are quite different and it gets pretty messy if you can not keep them apart.

[1] There are cultural differences here. I get myself COMPLETELY BONKERS on Italians who - in my eyes totally disrespectful - in language happily responds and babbles on, thereby sabotaging the physical meeting they participate in. Not just prioritize them off meeting they participate in - they also make it impossible for this meeting the others.

?

Test Androidklienten ........

Read more ...