The cinematic experience has been described as the voluntary suspension of disbelief.  Much the same applies to fiction and many art forms.

Now, in the context of current politics, we can see more clearly that this acceptance of everyday ‘realities’ is simply a matter of choice – we choose to be surprised.

We could, for example, choose to be constructively optimistic instead of shouting from the sidelines and seeking barely-concealed satisfaction in signs of decay and dereliction.

What if we chose to not put up with the normal fare on offer?  What if we said what we really desired?  Would we then be accused of ‘advanced wishful thinking’?  I think not.   Because no matter how rooted in their current choice of reality the folks who like to think they are central to the provision of things must also have an agenda that takes them forward.

And who best to drive that agenda?   It seems an unlikely bet that ‘shareholders’ could ever muster sufficient power – they seem incapable of exercising something as basic as pay restraint for fear of losing some notion of competitive advantage!  Not much prospect either that governments or their arms-length regulators can do much that's practical or decisive.

No. It is not investors or regulators that rule this roost.  It is customers.   And the most likely forces for action are those customers (private or public) who are being, or believe they are being, ripped off.

That is why we have at least some technological progress. And that is also why we, in aggregate, seem to have chosen, for now, to favour price rather than quality.

But what if this reality changed? What if we imagined that this was not a battle between quality and price? What if we swapped ‘value’ for the word ‘price’ and realized a wider set of value gains?

Something along these lines seems to be slowly dawning, and not just in in the world of telecoms.  It is as if there is a vast gulf between the confident ‘trust me I’m a doctor’ attitude of those who would seek to reassure the market (that they know what’s good for everybody) and those others who don’t pretend that they understand the way of the world but keep their minds open to any opportunity to innovate and ‘upset the applecart’.

The truth is that the former is entirely defensive and the latter is close to some form of artistic genius; from which we, the customers, must choose.  Sadly, most often we choose the version of reality that seems relatively safe.  Deep down we resist change and are a bit scared of innovation.

This logic seems to hold good for just as long as we believe (we perceive) that we not being ripped off.   The snag comes when it is evident that others are doing much better – sufficiently so that the dis-benefits of not being innovative become unbearable.

The change in these relativities comes about not by some magic overnight conversion or reappraisal of reality.  It happens more often than not through a process that reveals a new technology or business model to be so superior to the old way of doing things that the cracks can no longer be papered over or made to look as they did not exist.

Some societies spot these disruptive opportunities earlier than others.   In the case of broadband provision some are now 6 years ahead of others in their understanding of the beneficial impacts.

But instead of bemoaning our relative ‘trailing-nation’ status and shouting from the sidelines, what if we looked to the positive and became optimistic about the prospects?   What would happen (apart from being decried as hopeless dreamers by the forces of convention) if the customers said, ‘That simply isn’t good enough’?

What you would get is something extraordinarily liberating – not any immediately better connectivity or services but a clear sense that there is a body of opinion that is leading the agenda regardless of practicality or affordability - an agenda that invites innovation – an agenda that should place a very positive pressure on any reluctant incumbent.

Much like basic banking facilities, broadband connectivity - both quality-dependent utilities - really shouldn’t need to rely on the voluntary suspension of disbelief.

If only.

______________________

This editorial was written to encourage debate amongst customers about real needs and aspirations in the context of an enviroment where citizens seem to feel that they are having 'things done to them' rather than 'for them'.

Readers of this editorial also viewed 'This is not an upgrade'.