Take the political polls leading up to the recent US election. Pundits on the left and right each accused various pollsters of bias (it’s only bias when it favors the opposing candidate, of course) and, overall, many of the best-known polling firms produced dismally unreliable forecasts.

Are we now so polarized that even our polls can’t be trusted?

According to Nate Silver, author of The Signal and the Noise, and The FiveThirtyEight model and blog in the New York Times – and now the most famous statistician/math nerd in the country, given his dead-on accuracy in calling the election results – there were multiple flaws in many pollsters’ methodology, many of them a result of not recognizing changes in voters’ use of technology.

Huh? How could technology affect the results of public opinion polls?

Actually, some of the issues seem obvious, when you think about it. Traditional telephone surveys often call only land lines, not cellphones, which means those polls significantly undercounted younger, urban and minority voters, who are more likely to use cellphones exclusively. And all phone surveys, even those that include cellphone users, have a high miss rate. (How many calls did you ignore in the last few weeks?)

In fact, according to Mr. Silver, some of the most accurate results came from firms that conducted their surveys online, where reach and response rates were much higher.

Of course, this is a totally oversimplified view of Mr. Silver’s findings. But why am I even talking about this at all?

At SAPInsider, I did a short interview with Dave Hannon, and one of his questions was about the overall importance of change management as opposed to training alone.

I noted that training is simply one element of change management, then explained why a good change management program is a critical part of creating the broader adoption and enablement environment that enables the customer to achieve long-term goals. And that involves managing – and measuring – change.

But in the workplace, just like in politics, who and how we measure can affect the results we see. And what we “know” may not actually be true or complete or applicable. That’s why just looking at the system is not enough. Are we measuring the relevant things? Are we measuring accurately? Are we interpreting the data correctly? Are we rewarding the right things?

For example, measuring users’ proficiency on tasks or tasks they have been trained for shows only one small part of the picture. You have to understand both how and why users perform their tasks and interact with their tools in the ways that they do.

Taking into account “a day in the life” of the user is the only way to be sure to measure accurately, which is the only way to be able to provide the full spectrum of support that’s needed. As the song says, “and though the holes were rather small, they had to count them all.”

In other words, changing skills and behavior is key to success. (To hear a couple of real-life examples, including how McKesson’s award-winning program led to outstanding operational results – and translated into outstanding financial results – listen to the entire interview at http://bit.ly/11qNEBI.)

Inaccurate results won’t clear a path to improvement. In fact, if politicians are any indicator, inaccurate results don’t even help us come up with good excuses. A good change management program can help you get at the truth.

U.S. Supreme Court | Credit: Commons/Flickr

Americans’ concern with the Patient Protection and Affordable  Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare, is on the ascent. A February poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 42 percent of Americans now oppose the legislation, up from 39 percent in November. Similarly, support for it has dropped from 43 percent in November to 36 percent in the more recent February poll.

Opponents of the legislation originally had hung their hat on an anticipated favorable ruling in the Supreme Court, which they argued would find the legislation’s mandate provisions unconstitutional.  But nearly a year ago, on June 28, 2012, the Court famously yet narrowly upheld the legislation in a five to four ruling.

The Supreme Court victory for Obamacare left its advocates and most of its opponents feeling that its implementation was inevitable.  But all have since learned that a relentless and sophisticated opposition movement is threatening its implementation on multiple fronts.  Opponents are proving increasingly persuasive with the American public, Congress is refusing to implement various provisions of the legislation, and over two dozen states have now rejected its offer of increased funding for expanded Medicaid programs.

Despite passing both the U.S. House and Senate, signed by the President and upheld as constitutional by the highest court in the land, proponents of Obamacare now are on defense and concerned that opposition to it may yet stall its ultimate implementation.

While opposed by a great and growing number of Americans, Obamacare’s intellectual and political opposition has largely been crafted and advanced by a small number of prominent political and industry figures worth watching:

Ed Haislmaier:  A former pharmaceutical director at Pfizer and now The Heritage Foundation’s resident scholar on health care policy, Haislmaier has authored dozens of persuasive white papers and op-eds that have spelled out the case against Obamacare and debunked many of the legislation’s myths.  In “Even Rebranded, Obamacare Exchanges are Still Unworkable”, Haislmaier argued in March that the legislation’s proposed insurance exchanges would prove hugely burdensome to states that implement them.

Karen Harned: A former corporate attorney and Capitol Hill aide in Washington, D.C., Harned now runs the Legal Center at the National Federation of Independent Business, has helped coordinate and support legal challenges to Obamacare and has been a key proponent of the argument that the legislation is ultimately unconstitutional.

John Hoff: A health policy attorney, Hoff is a founding board member of the Galen Institute, a health care-focused public policy institute.  A prolific writer on the flaws of Obamacare, Hoff authored “The Contradictions of Obamacare” for the Washington, D.C.-based American Enterprise Institute, which argued that the Obama administration’s advocacy for extensive waivers to the legislation was a sign that it is unworkable in the marketplace.

Michael Johns:  One of the most eloquent and influential Tea Party leaders on the flaws of Obamacare, Johns has spearheaded the Tea Party movement’s political opposition to the legislation, which has been a key factor in the expanding public opposition to it.  A medical device and health services executive with extensive health care experience, Johns is a former White House speechwriter and Heritage Foundation policy analyst.

Dr. Hal Scherz:  Scherz, a pediatric urologist, is Founder and President of Docs4PatientCare, a new organization that has educated and galvanized physicians against Obamacare.  Scherz leads an organization of clinicians who allege that the legislation will greatly disrupt patient relationships with their physicians, instead transferring important clinical decisions to the federal government.

Will the Obama administration ultimately prevail in installing Obamacare, even as public and health industry opposition to it mount?  The answer to that question may lie in whether these five principle opponents can maintain the political, legal and public momentum they have now amassed against it.

WCAX Channel 3 in Montpelier, Vermont ran a story this past week highlighting a problem with schools and the states 911 system. In a recent interview, Rep. Joan Lenes (D-Shelburne) stated that the House and Senate Committees just recently learned that many of the states schools telephone systems have recently been centralized according to their town or district. When you centralize a telephone system, or flatten, consolidate and extend (FCE), you can create a 911 problem for users on the system.

Today’s 911 network operates off of a very simple principle. A telephone number equals an address. When the 911 system was first built in 1968, that factoid was mostly true. However today, a telephone number is probably the least significant piece of information that equals your location. Just think of your cell phone. It doesn’t matter what town you’re in, or the county, or even the state. Your cellular telephone number is transported with you wherever you go.

The logical question one might ask is “why is this not a problem for cell phones?” The answer to that is the FCC mandated Phase 1 and Phase 2 location reporting functionality built into that network. In simple terms, special p-ANI telephone numbers are associated with each cellular tower antenna, are “borrowed” by the cell phone making a 911 call, and these numbers are able to have their location information dynamically updated by the cell phone carrier. Phase 1 emergency calls provide the cellular tower coordinates to the 911 dispatcher, and within a few seconds after answering the call, the network is queried by the PSAP, and if the specific XY coordinates of the device are available, they are returned to the 911 center in the Phase 2 data.

Similar functionality is available in the Enterprise, however it does bear extra costs in addition to the location discovery automation that’s required in the enterprise network. Because of these extra costs, it is commonly used for remote VPN workers that are very migratory in their locations, and internally within enterprise networks other more cost conscious solutions are available.

But when you examine the map of the US that shows the states that require 911 remediation for MLTS PBX systems, Vermont is clearly marked as a state having legislation. If this is the case, why does this problem exist at the school systems? The answer to that unfortunately is that Vermont has one of the leaner pieces of legislation, and in fact, is a single sentence.

From Act 197 (S.311)
AN ACT RELATING TO
AN ENHANCED 911 EMERGENCY RESPONSE SYSTEM.
ß 7057. PRIVATELY OWNED TELEPHONE SYSTEMS

When an enhanced 911 system is implemented, any privately owned telephone system shall provide to those end users the same level of 911 service that other end users in the area receive and shall provide ANI signaling, station identification data and updates to enhanced 911 data bases under rules adopted by the board, except that the board may waive the provisions of this section for any privately owned telephone system, taking into consideration the costs and the public benefits of compliance, in accordance with standards and procedures adopted by the board by rule.

Although this is light on text, it does have some specific language that I happen to like. “Any privately owned telephone system shall provide to those end-users the same level of 911 service that other end-users in the area receive”. We’ve seen language like that in other states, such as Massachusetts, however regardless of any of this, the important piece that’s missing from this, and most other pieces of legislation, is the penalty for noncompliance.

I CAN’T DRIVE . . . 55
When you drive down the highway, and you exceed the posted speed limit, if you see a state trooper parked on the side of the highway, you intuitively slowdown. Do you do this because you’re reminded of the National Transportation Safety Boards statistics on highway deaths caused by speeding? Probably not. You’re worried about getting a $200 or more speeding ticket, and you’re worried about your insurance premiums that are probably already too high. You see, we are very predictable creatures. And one thing that does motivate most of us, is a potential financial impact.

Going back to the state of Michigan, just the potential threat of a $5000 penalty five years into the future, provoked enterprises to look at their 911 configuration, and do something about it. The state of California heard testimony in their Public Utilities Commission workshop a few years back, and added in penalties for noncompliance in their recommendations. That potential law is circulating through the legislative process as we speak, and there are hopes that it will be presented for a public vote this year.

Rep. Lenes correctly stated that “sometimes it’s not an expensive fix” and that the House committee has requested information from the schools that will be evaluated before they decide how they need to proceed statewide. In alignment with the California Public Utilities Commission estimate that 70% to 80% of PBX systems are not in compliance, she believes the same will be true for schools in Vermont.

Governor Jack Markell signed the bill Tuesday night, overturning the state’s 1996 ban on gay marriage.

Mark Sanford defeated Stephen Colbert’s sister in the S.C. congressional special election, 54 to 45 percent.

The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, or CISPA, passed the House of Representatives a few weeks ago, but it will not go any further. Apparently, the Senate will not be taking up CISPA this spring. Instead, several Senators have said they plan to draft new legislation of their own.

Perhaps that’s for the best, considering President Obama already said he would veto CISPA in its current form.

In case you need a refresher, let me give you some background on CISPA, the latest round in the ongoing efforts to modernize the nation’s cybersecurity laws and practices.

Essentially, CISPA outlines how information would be voluntarily shared between private companies and the government in the event of a cyber attack. As PCMag.com explains, “If the government detects a cyber attack that might take down Facebook or Google, for example, they could notify those companies. At the same time, Facebook or Google could inform the feds if they notice unusual activity on their networks that might suggest a cyber attack.”

That sounds reasonable, doesn’t it? So, why is CISPA causing so much controversy –and more specifically, why does the President oppose it?

Mostly, the objections from the White House center on the protection of privacy, particularly the sharing of customer information between companies and the government. Here’s an excerpt from the Official White House Response to CISPA:

When it comes to information-sharing, there are three key principles we apply to any legislative proposal: Does it (1) sufficiently protect privacy and civil liberties, (2) ensure that a civilian department — not an intelligence agency — is the primary point of entry for cybersecurity information sharing, and (3) provide narrowly tailored liability protections that would allow the private sector to respond to threats (without encouraging reckless behavior). Here’s a bit more detail about each:

1. It’s important that any information shared under a new cybersecurity law must be limited to what’s relevant and necessary for cybersecurity purposes. That also means minimizing information that can be used to identify specific individuals. For example, if a utility company is looking for government assistance to respond to a cyber attack, it is unlikely that it needs to share the personal information of its customers, like contact information or energy-use history, with the government.

2. Cybersecurity legislation needs to preserve the traditional roles for civilian and intelligence agencies that we all understand. Specifically, if legislation authorizes new information sharing between the private sector and the government, then that new information should enter the government through a civilian department rather than an intelligence agency. That doesn’t mean breaking the existing mechanisms that already work. For example, victims of cyber crime ought to continue to report those violations to federal law enforcement agencies and public-private information-sharing relationships that already exist should be preserved.

3. Any new legislation ought to provide legal clarity for companies that follow the rules and appropriately share data with the government. But it should not provide broad immunity for businesses and organizations that act in ways likely to cause damage to third parties or result in the unwarranted disclosure of personal information.

And so the debate is likely to wage on –even though the White House says we urgently need “to modernize our laws and practices relating to cybersecurity, both for national security and the security of our country’s businesses.” There is an extremely delicate line between the privacy we all want and the security we need, and as every marketer knows, finding that balance isn’t easy.

Here’s my advice: While we wait for Congress to act, do your homework, and get your own house in order. With regard to consumer privacy, check out the “Privacy Promise” from the Direct Marketing Association (DMA). It’s an assurance to consumers that US marketers who are DMA members will use customer information in a manner that respects the customers’ wishes.

For more about preventing and reporting cyber attacks, see this cybersecurity tip sheet from the US Department of Homeland Security. Additional information is available from the National Cybersecurity Alliance.

President Obama hasn’t hidden his habit of watching ESPN. Now strategists are suggesting media buys to get issues in front of D.C. insiders.

In version 1 of this document the i3 solution supports end to end IP connectivity with gateways used to accommodate legacy wireline and wireless origination networks that are non-IP. It also introduced the concept of an Emergency Services IP network or ESInet. The ESInet is an IP-based internetwork (network of networks) that is shared by all public safety agencies, and eventually provide coverage coast-to-coast, internationally, and ultimately around the globe.

The value behind the ESInet to public safety, is as great as the Internet was to the general public. It wasn’t that long ago that data was not easily shareable between two points on the planet. Today, with Facebook, Twitter and the thousand other social media outlets, sharing data has become a ubiquitous part of our daily lives.

It only makes sense that social media, and the additional data that it carries, will become part of our public safety networks. Yet another reason that our current legacy E911 infrastructure is unable to perform its required task of connecting the general public with public safety using the forms of communication that are in common use.

This change in the data that we want to communicate with public safety, as well as the mechanisms in which we communicate that information, has created a technology gap between the people who need help, and the people that can provide that help. 2012 saw the emergence of several Personal Emergency Applications or PEAs (pronounced peas) trying to capture the popular App market. Unfortunately for the developers of these applications, they were quickly shunned by the emergency services community, as quite often the developers did not take into consideration the public safety side of the application. One particular application, CrimeWatch, provided users with a simple one touch interface for police, fire, and medical assistance. Not a bad deal for $.99, right? The only problem is, that application had no connectivity to the public safety network, and when a user used it, after entering in all of the pertinent data, it offered to dial 911. This horror story quickly circled the public safety community, and the application got an incredible amount of that press.

In another incident, concerns were raised about letters that were sent by 911 Emergency Assist (911 EA) to many PSAPs advising them of the launch of their product. The letter was worded in such a way that led several 911 administrators to believe this product was more than it actually was, and NENA had to step in and “assist” in addressing PSAPs training and how they are marketing their product.

[Note: A recent Google search on Crime Watch and 911 EA came back with dead links]

As the NENA i3 framework continues to evolve, version 2 of this specification adds in additional functionality and, among other things, the concept of additional data. Additional data about a 911 call can be provided in the form of a SIP URI that the public safety answer point can query for more details about a specific call event. One of the primary challenges of this topology is the sheer number of endpoints where that additional data can exist. To solve this problem, Additional Data Aggregators have emerged that provide common collection points and repositories that the public and public safety can access to store and retrieve additional information data.

One example of an Additional Data Aggregator is Smart911, by Rave Mobile Security. Another, is Safetown by public safety CAD system manufacturer, InterAct.

Although similar in nature, core differences exist between each solution. And with the lack of an industry “standard”, there could be significant operational differences. In examining both solutions, the primary difference is: where the data is stored. Smart911 is made up of two components. The first is a scalable method for public safety to allow citizens to opt in to providing critical information. The second is a scalable and secure method for aggregating data from external sources and displaying it in the proper context during the call taking process. No matter where I travel if the PSAP uses Smart911, my profile will be available.

Safetown, on the other hand is tied to a specific computer aided dispatch or CAD system, and is typically stored locally. Although similar data is provided by both systems, the inherent problem is sharing that data across to regional boundaries or with different CAD systems within a single jurisdiction for example fire and police. Unless agencies share their network and data with each other, my personal profile data, although useful locally, is not available to other agencies outside of my area.

Not an issue for location specific data, as my home and office are fixed points, but my personal data is relevant anywhere I go in the US, or globally for that matter.

The purpose of this blog is not to compare these two companies against each other, or any others that are barking up this new tree of opportunity. The point that I’m bringing out is that additional data is going to become a big part of next generation 911 and that universal guidance on accessing that data is going to become a paramount problem for the 6100 public safety answer points, as well as training for the 200,000 911 call takers in the US alone. There simply is no room for vendor specific applications and processes. The collection, correlation, and presentation of this information needs to be standardized and promulgated throughout the industry.

Ask anyone at NENA or EENA; The emergency network in the US as well as the EU is on the verge of a radical change in technology. For most of us, social media, collaboration, video conferencing, and living in a “connected world” is of no consequence to our daily existence. Public safety on the other hand has been relegated to using 1970s technology for the last 45 years, and needs to play catch-up fairly quickly. Fortunately, the first wave of “connected citizens” are now of age and actively working in this industry. Many of them have even obtained positions in their agencies where their new way of thinking can make a radical change. Just as we saw voice over IP become the new paradigm in communications over the last few decades, next generation emergency services, and the vast amounts of additional data that will be brought along with it, will form the framework of the next paradigm of public safety communications.

How lucky are we to be able to watch its birth, and evolution?

Last week I spoke at the Telecommunications Risk Management Association (TRMA) Spring Conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. My panel focused on TCPA and the audience’s questions ran the gamut: what is considered compliant under TCPA, what should companies be doing to remain compliant, the latest information about pending lawsuits, and finally, what the industry should do in an effort towards modernizing TCPA . The questions were inspired by lots of uncertainty and confusion still remaining in the industry. Despite the uncertainty, below are two things about TCPA that are fairly clear:

Question: Can I dial mobile numbers on an ATDS for informational purposes?
Answer: Informational and other calls that do not involve telemarketing can continue to be made under current rules of consent for calls made to wireless phones. Calls made by a wireless carrier to its own customers, without a charge for the call, remain exempt as well.

Question: Can I dial mobile numbers on an ATDS for sales and marketing purposes?
Answer: There is a Written Consent Requirement which requires callers to obtain prior express written consent from the called party before placing an autodialed or prerecorded telemarketing call to a wireless phone number.

If you are seeking clarity outside of the consent requirements above, or risk-free strategies, I am of the opinion that it does not exist in today’s environment. We are all hyper-focused on the question of “system capacity”. Show me a PBX that does not have the capacity to store telephone numbers or dial them, better yet, show me a smartphone that cannot do the same . . . Is this what is intended under 47 U.S.C. § 227? I think not.

The world was a very different place when the TCPA was passed by congress. A lot has changed since 1991 – communications being a big part of that change as there are more mobile phones in this country than there are people. I believe that although the TCPA is designed with the right purpose in mind – to strike a balance between protecting the rights of consumers and allowing businesses to use technology effectively – it is time to call for the modernization of these laws. It is time to stop calling consumers 1000 times and leaving 100 messages. It is time to make sure you have the right phone number and follow deactivation rules. It is time to allow technological advancements to be used in calling the most commonly contacted numbers on the planet, those belonging to mobile phones. It is time to find a new reality – and get with the times.

Disclaimer – John Tallarico is not an attorney and the views stated above are not intended as legal advice, guidance or opinion.

The incident happened at a time when the state is going to witness elections next month. It didn’t take much time for Malleshwaram to trend on Twitter. The bomb exploded outside the BJP branch located in Malleshwaram, a crowded residential neighbourhood that hosts quite a few temples too. Along with Malleshwaram – #BangaloreBlast, Hebbal, and BJP have started trending and while writing this article, are featuring in the top 10 trends in India.

But what shocked me and others on Twitter was a tweet from Shakeel Ahmad who made an insensitive comment. Shakeel who is a Congress spokesperson with more than 4K followers indicated that the blast will certainly help BJP during the forthcoming elections. The below screen grab highlights the tweet which by now has got more than 200 retweets and has also been criticized and praised by his supporters too.

In the first half of the day, I had highlighted this growing trend of BJP and Congress bashing on Twitter. The tweet is a shameful act from a spokesperson at a time when people have been injured by this act. But I am sure this kind of blame game on social media is going to grow since neither the politicians understand the medium nor their political parties have a will to stop such bashing for gaining public sympathy.

One can debate that it is an open forum and people have the right to express opinions. Freedom of speech should not be used as provoking speech or hate speech. The rule applies for all parties in this country. But when you boldly say that you represent a certain party on Twitter then you are also the face of the party. One tweet of your party can tarnish the online image. However, it is a different matter if the party is not bothered about its online reputation.

Did someone say that social media will have a huge impact on 2014 elections? Forget of impact, 2014 elections will only see bashing of rivals on social media.

Image Courtesy: NDTV

The new measure is controversial since PokerStars was once accused by federal prosecutors of money laundering and fraud.  Additionally, many of the professional players who earned their livelihood playing Texas Hold’em avoided paying any state and federal income taxes.  Several online poker sites have also been hacked by unscrupulous parties who cheated unsuspecting opponents out of millions of dollars.

Illinois is mired in record budget deficits, state debt, and unfunded pension liabilities for its public employees and union members.  Thus, state officials are desperate to generate tax revenues.  In 2014, Illinois is expected to have nearly $2 billion in unpaid bills to vendors.

Senate Bill 1739 is sponsored by state Sen. Terry Link, D-Waukegan would enable PokerStars and Full Tilt to apply for Internet gambling licenses in the state.  Link inserted a technical provision in which sites had to be “convicted” of crimes in order to be disqualified from securing such licenses.

Credit: Commons/Wikimedia

PokerStars settled criminal charges in 2012 for $731 million.  Technically, the popular online poker portal was never convicted of any wrongdoing in the eyes of the law.  The site’s interests is being advanced by lobbyist John Kelly, Jr., president and owner of All-Circo Inc.  Approval of online gambling licenses will likely lead to between $400 million to $1 billion in yearly taxable revenue.  Additionally, states that already have casino and horse track infrastructure such as California, Nevada, Florida, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Louisiana could follow suit in legalizing online gambling.

Last year, Illinois became the first state in the United States to sell lottery tickets online.  The Obama administration and the Justice Department had struggled on whether internet gambling violated federal laws.  Officials at the D.O.J. finally ruled that state-run lotteries could be sold on the Internet – a highly controversial interpretation since federal statues forbid games of chance from being operated online.

The online poker industry totals $33.8 billion worldwide.  However, passage of Internet gambling licenses has implications beyond Texas Hold’em players, according to Casino.org.  It will likely lead to the establishment of Internet-based casinos, horse racing wagers, and sports betting portals.  Opponents argue that such a move would be dangerous since it would effectively establish a virtual casino in every household that has an Internet connection.

Senate Bill 1739 is currently pending in the Illinois legislature.

Government policies could save householders money on energy bills.

New analysis highlights the extent of the potential savings from the efforts, which aim to minimise the impact of global rising gas prices and network costs. These increases have driven bills upwards over recent years, and are likely to continue to do so, but the government policies should cushion the blow.

“Some of the policies will add to household bills, but others offer bigger reductions, so the net result is an overall saving in the coming years,” explains Paul Walker, Managing Director of Electric Radiators Direct.

“It certainly looks like Britons will be better off with these policies than without them.”

In the current climate households are already spending an average £64 less on gas and electricity than if the policies were not in place. By 2020 the net saving compared to the picture if no action was being taken will be an 11% reduction.

In the “Estimated impacts of energy and climate change policies on energy prices and bills” report the government made a commitment to take further action to help those struggling with high energy bills. The policies will help the UK to meet its carbon reduction pledge, commit to a diverse energy mix and ensure that Britain is at the forefront of the global green energy sector.

“We have seen many gas price hikes recently and the increases are putting huge pressure on household finances,” Paul continues.

“Although such rises are beyond government control and experts predict that they will continue, it is welcome news that steps are being taken to offset the increase.”

The government’s focus on moving towards renewable energy sources and encouraging smarter use of energy hopes to help those who need it most to save money. Initiatives, such as the Warm Home Discount, are available, plus there are new regulations on energy firms forcing them to improve energy efficiency.

The government report predicts that, by 2022, around half of UK households will have at least one major insulation measure, and around 12 million gas condensing boilers will be replaced with more efficient versions by 2020.

More stringent efficiency standards for household appliances are also expected to deliver savings, amounting to around £158 per year, and Smart Meters, rolled out to all households by the end of 2019, should allow people to better monitor and change their energy usage.

The history of VoIP, as it relates to the Government, can be traced back to the very first VoIP call. But even before that, the grandfather of VoIP, called the Vocoder, was a voice-altering device that protected voice transmissions against enemy spies in World War 2 by encrypting and decrypting a signal. This is similar in spirit to today’s modern VoIP codecs, which encode and decode voice signals. The Vocoder was developed privately, by Bell Labs in 1928.

The ARPANET was designed to act as protection against nuclear attacks during the Cold War. It was developed starting in 1969, and the concept was to decentralize control, so that if a nuclear bomb wiped out Washington, DC, we could order a retaliation strike from Seattle, Washington. It was in 1974 that a packet switched voice transmission was sent over the ARPANET.

That same year, Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn published a paper entitled “A Protocol for Packet Network Intercommunication,” which outlined a method of transmitting data over a packet-switched network, which later came to be known as “Internet Protocol.”

In the 1980s and 1990s, modems became faster and more powerful, and paved the way for even more more innovation. Being an actual “world wide web” meant that many innovations came from overseas. The first major VoIP program was developed by Israeli telecom equipment provider VocalTec in 1995; Skype was developed in Estonia in 2003.

In 2004, the US Federal Communications Commission made a pivotal decision , declaring that a free VoIP service called “Pulver.com’s Free World Dialup (FWD)” should be considered an information service rather than a telecommunications service. This is one reason why VoIP taxes are lower than cellular and landline taxes. In 2004, The FCC also made other landmark decisions, including making Vonage not subject to the “patchwork” of state regulation. By 2005, The FCC ruled that VoIP providers should be forced to have Enhanced 911 capabilities, which opened up the market for E911 service providers. In 2007, the FCC ruled that consumers should be allowed to port their number to VoIP.

Some innovations came from partnerships with the government. Reverse 911 was developed (and trademarked) by EADS North America, a defense contractor. Reverse 911 was used to order evacuations during the 2011 Japanese earthquake, as well as to alert the public during the Aurora, IL, and Newtown, CT shootings. Reverse 911 is being voluntarily adopted by many counties across the U.S. This is another example of the government working in tandem with the private sector.

And finally, we have seen local and state governments take advantage of the savings that VoIP offers. To name a few, South Bend, MI spent $1 million on a VoIP system in 2012, and expects to save nearly a quarter of a million dollars every year after five years; the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry drastically cut their telephony costs, bringing the costs down from $23 per month per phone line, including voicemail, to a mere 22 cents per month per line.

The world of VoIP is filled with a rich history, as well as fun trivia. VoIP would not be possible without the public sector providing an environment for the private sector to experiment and compete. We can expect that state and federal governments will push for more safety and more accessibility, and that private companies will find unique ways to meet that demand.

It could be that government policies are to blame for this mess. Of the 7.2 million public school teachers in the United States, 2.3 million are tenured. Giving tenue to experienced public school teachers is a great idea, but perhaps more so in theory. A poll revealed that 58 percent of people believe that tenure does not mean that a teacher has worked hard and proved themselves to be very good at what they do. A full 78 percent of people polled seem to think that teachers are just going through the motions. Do you think paying teachers more for strong performance, as opposed to granting tenure, would provide teachers the incentive to do a better job?

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) is another noble piece of the current education system—its aim is to ensure that all students are proficient in math and reading by 2014. However, 100 percent proficiency is a brutally tough standard that has never been met by any country in the world. The sad reality is that teachers and principals are being pressured to inflate scores, which does nothing but hurt students.

Do you think government policies are to blame for America’s academic struggles? Please share your thoughts and check out the infographic below.

Presented by:TopEducationDegrees.org

• The FAA is investigating the recent viral Harlem Shake video, where Colorado college students break into a Harlem Shake 30,000 feet above the ground.
• Joan Rivers of Joan Knows Best learns the only place she can say (bleep) is on a podcast.

Sequestration apparently hasn’t affected the FAA just yet; and, Joan Rivers is just now realizing the Internet exists.

In today’s society – one where our own government throws temper tantrums over spending cuts vs tax breaks – a tantrum that could cripple the Washington, DC, Virginia, and Maryland economies – has decided, yes, lets waste our tax dollars investigating or regulating people dancing on a plane or cussing on the internet.

Perhaps Joan Rivers has a (bleeping) opinion.

Should society protest – whether virtually or in person – to question whether the Government is becoming big brother?

I’m not hear to discuss politics – although I believe some regulation of the public is necessary to ensure society remains stable and ensures our safety – there comes a point where society has to say they’ve had enough.

With regards to the FAA investigating the Harlem Shake on a plane – this video is nothing more than some college kids having fun on a plane.  It’s not worthy of an FAA investigation.  It’s not worthy of even being on the news.

With regards to Joan Rivers – who cares if she wants to say (bleep)?  If you don’t like it – don’t listen to her!  It’s a free country, right?

So what do the Colorado students who did the Harlem shake on a plane have in common with Joan Rivers being able to say (bleep)?

Although two entirely different topics – they both raise the same question…is this the beginning of over regulation of the internet?

My point is – we have bigger problems to fix.  Oh, I don’t know…like…

• Sequestration.

• North Korea.

• The economy.

Even immigration reform is a teensy bit more important than people dancing on a plane or Joan saying (bleep).

This almost feels like the shiny object to distract you from what’s really going on.

As a marketer – this concerns me.  Mostly because I fear this will eventually lead to over regulation of the Internet.  And that this can alter the way we market products or services that could make our efforts less effective.

Sure – our marketing efforts should never be deceptive.  But what if saying (bleep) is appropriate?  What if a company creates a video in a public setting – will the company be sued or fined because it broke some minuscule rule?

What do you think? Do you think the FAA has the right to investigate the Harlem Shake on a plane?  Or cussing on tv, radio etc.?  Are you worried this will lead to the Government over regulating the Internet because of these situations?

Midnight Tonight?

As Chris Good reports for ABC News, “President Obama will be required to order sequestration into effect before midnight Friday night.” That is unless a miracle last-minute deal can be reached by politicians in Washington, the country is facing $85 billion in cuts across the board.

The entire idea of the sequester was put in place to force compromise in Washington. Now it’s looking less and less likely that that will happen. Both parties are in shock that their plan didn’t work. The cuts will hit, as Chris writes “most government programs… including both defense and nondefense spending.”

What Does it Mean for Online Business?

You might be wondering, “what does this mean for me?” Well, it could mean a lot. If the hit to the economy from these cuts is bad, consumers will be pressed even harder than they already are. This could mean consumers spend less on goods and products in the future. Almost every major news source is reporting on how the sequester certainly isn’t good for many public services provided by the government or through the states by government funding.

In fact, Steven C. Johnson and Jason Lange at the Chicago Tribune report that “the International Monetary Fund warns that the cutbacks could knock at least 0.5 percentage points off U.S. economic growth this year and slow the global economy.” That’s no good for anyone, businesses, agencies and consumers alike.

A Possible Silver Lining?

If the cuts do hurt the economy, you can expect businesses and consumers to change their patterns of spending and what they do in their leisure time. I don’t think it’s far-fetched to think that people will be spending more and more time online looking for deals and looking for entertainment or simple communication over social media.

If that happens or not, it’s still going to be just as vital for businesses to keep up a strong marketing campaign online to reach customers and incentivize them to become a part of their brand or (even better) to become paying customers for whatever product you offer.

Online marketing is a lot cheaper and more effective than running traditional advertising and marketing campaigns. It’s a lot more accessible for consumers as well. If consumers and then businesses start tightening their belts, they are going to be looking for the best ways to get the most out of their marketing dollars and they’ll also be looking for the best agencies that can help them.

Hopefully Washington Comes Through

There are still plenty of hours left in the day, and hopefully Washington can come up with a solution to this problem before midnight so that the country can continue its recovery and growth without being tied down. Everyone wants a compromise. Regardless, keep an eye out on Twitter and Facebook for the news throughout the day. It’s going to be an interesting day on social media.

Is your business making plans for the sequester?

Why did the Act come about?

The Act came into force to allow the general public access to information held by public bodies.  The aim was to make the government and public bodies more open, accessible and transparent.  It states that any person can request information from a public body in England, Wales or Northern Ireland, and (in most cases) have that information given to them.

Allowing freedom of information has also enabled news organisations to reveal newsworthy material of public interest that would have otherwise stayed secret.  It has also been of use to campaign groups in fighting for their particular causes.

Which public bodies does the Act include?

As well as central and local government, the Act includes the police, publicly funded museums, state schools, colleges, universities and health authorities including the NHS.  There are also smaller groups and bodies included in the Act as well as government quangos.

In fact, there are more than 100,000 public bodies that are subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

What sort of information can you request?

You can request any type of information held by the public body, whether in written form but also held electronically or on tape.  You can ask for all of the information or just a summary.

How can you make a request and how easy is it?

You’ll need to contact the organisation and give a description of the information you want to receive, together with your contact details.  You should get the information within 20 days.  In most cases, the requests are free, but you may need to pay for photocopies or postage, for example.  It’s a straightforward process, unless your request falls under an exemption.

What are the exemptions to the Act?

There are exemptions to the Act, which means that you won’t get access to certain information.  Exemptions are subject to what is known as a ‘public interest test’.  This means that if the information is deemed better off kept secret for a particular reason, rather than disclosed to the public, then it will be exempt.

Exemptions could, for example, include any type of sensitive information that would prejudice or harm government policy, national security or international relations.

What happens if a request is turned down?

If your request gets turned down, then you should contact the organisation to find out why and to see if they can review their decision.

Aside from exemptions, an organisation may turn your request down if it costs them more £450 to deal with.

If you are not satisfied, you can complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office, but this may be a lengthy process as there is often a backlog of appeal cases that have to be dealt with.

Time Is of the Essence

The intelligence analysts keep the consumer trends in front. The consumers of these services have ample data, facts and related information up their sleeves. What they require is the timely intelligence analysis. Keeping this in front, the analysts offer the consumers efficient and quick services they can rely. Gathering facts is not the main issue for the consumers, but the effectiveness of the results acquired by that data is important. This is where the services of intelligence analysts come handy. Execution is the real deal in case of the analysts, and they ensure they ease the nerves of the customers’ big time.

Background Notes and Briefings are Essential

When it comes to the intelligence analysis, having background notes is the name of the game. Whether it be an internal security issue or one related to business intelligence, background notes and briefings help immensely. With this, the analysts can carry out the mission with thorough and comprehensive detail, leading towards accurate and reliable results. The intelligence analysts offer the customer with effective services, without them having to worry about the corporate issues they are faced with. Furthermore, the results put forward by the analysts are always supported by arguments and sufficient evidence.

Kaleem Shah, CEO of CALNET and whose company provides intelligence analysis to U.S. Army and other military installments, knows how intelligence analysis “has enhanced insight and understanding of the global interdependent economy as well as indicative and representative of true masters in each of their respective industries.”

Credibility of the Intelligence Analysis

The credibility and effectiveness of the intelligence analysis are undeniable. The commitment of the analysts towards their clients paves the way towards credible results. The analysts have years of experience behind their back. The intelligence analysis experts work for various companies, both in the public and private sector, offering services to worldwide clients. The analysts always strive for excellence, so with such intelligence analysis, America is certainly on the right track. In the UK, Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) is also relying on the intelligence analysis to handle the security issues with ease.

Wide Range of Services

When you speak of the intelligence analysts, wide range of services is there for the taking. Apart from gathering the information and analyzing the facts, the intelligence analysts also possess the skills required to plan, manage and execute several tasks. When it comes to the security services, the analysts can turn out to be the real deal. Whether it be the aviation services including the airport operations, civil aviation planning and aviation safety or the services such as aircraft security or the ground handling, the intelligence analysts do it all, and keep America Moving.

Securing Guns – Gun Control That Could Work

A recent Wall Street Journal article does an excellent job at explaining “gun culture” to those that don’t have guns. Even though I carried various firearms as a soldier I’ve never owned a gun. The article goes on to make some reasonable suggestions on how America could actually improve the situation in ways that gun owners ought to support. The basis of the argument – guns used by young adults aren’t obtained at gun shows or gun stores. Young adults often get guns that are not well secured by adults. Mandating guns be locked and stored separate from ammunition would keep them safe from kids. In fact, 27 states already have such laws on the books. Many/most gun owners are already painstaking careful with their guns and keep their guns safe. Gun owners should accept, perhaps begrudgingly, laws that require safe gun storage. They’re certainly less invasive than other legislation being considered such as a ban on assault rifles.

Not storing guns safely needs to become socially unacceptable in the same way as smoking in another persons house and making lewd comments in public are. Legislature requiring safe storage is both achievable and provides meaningful results by keeping them away from troubled youngsters.

Which brings me to my second point. It won’t work.

The “Gun Problem” Is Intractable

When we step away from the partisan rhetoric and take a practical view of an economist, we see that the “gun problem” won’t be solved and in fact we’re better off spending our efforts on issues where we can make progress.

Some points from Steve Levitt, co-author of Freakonomics:

• When considering the number of guns in America, it’s surprising there aren’t more gun related deaths.
• Guns are non-perishable. If you’re not willing to take away the millions of guns away from Americans, you’re left with passing legislation on new guns only. This obviously does nothing for the hundreds of millions of guns already in America. Therefore little change can be made.
• Efforts to date, such as gun buy back programs do little to make communities more safe.
• Guns are not a deterrent to violence (as gun owners suggest).
• The minimalist gun control policies being considered will not have a significant impact on the issue of gun violence.

Levitt suggests that our efforts are better spent on opportunities where we can make measurable improvement. Like swimming pools. A swimming pool is 100 times more likely to kill a child than a gun.

So What Can We Do?

Where does this leave us? Gun culture is big part of American life and that is not going to change. Perhaps the best we can do is work with gun owners and keep guns away from kids. It’s a terribly frustrating situation.

Here are the pieces if you want to read them in full:

1. Wall Street Journal – Why Our Gun Debate Is Off Target
2. Freakonomics – How to Think About Guns

Important!

Are you picking up what I’m laying down? Sign up to receive updates automatically:

• Subscribe via RSS
• Subscribe via email

Photo Credit: David Kasnic for the Wall Street Journal

Surprise: There’s no wait! After Obama’s win in November, we’ve learned they already did this. The president won reelection with the help of the science of mass persuasion, a very particular, advanced use of predictive analytics, which is technology that produces a prediction for each individual customer, patient, or voter.

This is the first story ever of a presidential campaign performing and proving the effectiveness of mass scientific persuasion.

The technology’s purpose is to predict for each individual, and act on each prediction. But you may be surprised to know what the Obama Campaign analytics team predicted. In this persuasion project, they did not predict:

• Who would vote Obama
• Who would vote Romney
• Who would turn out to vote at all

. . . and they didn’t even predict:

• Who was “undecided“

Instead, they predicted persuasion:

• Who would be convinced to vote Obama if (and only if) contacted

This is the new microcosmic battleground of political campaigns — significantly more refined than the ill-defined concept of “swing voter”.

Put another way, they predicted for which voters campaign contact would make a difference. Who is influenceable, susceptible to appeal? If a constituent were already destined to vote for Obama, contact would be a waste. If an individual was predicted as more likely swayed towards Obama by contact than not swayed at all, they were added to the “to-contact” list. Finally, to top it off, if the voter was predicted to be negatively influenced by a knock on the door — a backfired attempt to convince — he or she was removed from the campaign volunteers’ contact list: “Do-not-disturb!”

I interviewed in detail Rayid Ghani, Chief Data Scientist of Obama for America — who will be keynoting on this work at Predictive Analytics World in San Francisco (April 14-19) and Chicago (June 10-13) — for my book Predictive Analytics: The Power to Predict Who Will Click, Buy, Lie, or Die.

To make this possible, team Obama first collected data on how campaign contact (door knocks, calls, direct mail) faired across voters within swing states. Of course, such contact normally helps more than it hurts. But, since the number of volunteers to pound the pavements and dial phones is limited, targeting their efforts where it counts — where contact actually makes a difference — meant more Obama votes. The same army of Obama activists was suddenly much stronger, simply by issuing more intelligent command.

Therefore, they used the collected data not just to measure the overall effectiveness of campaigning, but to predict the persuadability of individual swing state constituents. Each person got a score, and the scores drove the army of volunteers’ every move.

Persuasion modeling (aka uplift modeling or net lift modeling) has been honed in recent years for use in marketing. It’s the same principle as for political campaigning, guiding calls and direct mail just the same (although marketing more rarely employs door knocks) — but selling a product rather than a president.

I’ve extensively covered this technology, which is more advanced than “regular” predictive analytics. Normally, you predict human behavior like click, buy, lie, or die. In this case, you predict the ability to influence said behavior.

If consumer advocates consider mass marketing a form of manipulation, they may find in this work even more to complain about. Was the election Moneyballed? As mere mortals are we consumers, patients, and voter too susceptible to the invisible powers of advanced mathematics? Will privacy proponents whip out their favorite adjective-of-concern, creepy? Shouldn’t elections be about policies, not number-crunching?

No question, the power of persuasion prediction is poignant. Industries are salivating and pouncing.

Sometimes this kind of work truly helps the world. Less paper is consumed when direct mail is more focus and consumers receive fewer “junk mail” items. Patients receive predictively improved healthcare. Police patrol more effectively by way of crime prediction. Fraud is similarly detected, several times more effectively. Movie and music recommendations improve.

How can this power be harnessed without doing harm? And how is “harm” to be defined in this arena?

Lawmakers consider liability insurance a solution to the gun control issue

Gun control has been a very hot topic in the U.S. The country has seen a spate of violent crimes associated with guns in recent months, some of which have sparked public outcry for stricter measures to control the availability of various types of firearms throughout the country. The issue has become controversial due to the second amendment of the U.S. constitution. Federal lawmakers have been struggling with the issue since public outcry for gun control has begun, and some legislators believe that liability insurance may be the answer.

Legislative action sparked by recent crimes

Federal lawmakers have introduced a new legislation that would make it mandatory for all American firearm owners to carry liability insurance for their weapons. The legislation is linked to the December 14 shooting at a school in Newton, Connecticut, in which 20 children lost their lives. Lawmakers believe that some form of liability insurance would help introduce more control over certain market forces and provide a gun control solution that may be more appeasing to the general public.

Liability insurance could be a viable form of gun control

Proponents of the legislation suggest that liability insurance coverage is a viable form of gun control. The federal government already requires such insurance coverage for vehicles throughout the country. Lawmakers expect nationwide liability insurance requirements for guns would become equally accepted among consumers as auto insurance requirements have become. Liability insurance regulations for guns have been introduced in California, Massachusetts, Maryland, and Connecticut in recent months.

Legislative measure likely to see resistance on constitutional grounds

No state has ever approved of a gun liability insurance legislation in the history of the U.S. Over the past decade, several such legislations have been rejected throughout the country, 15 of which coming from New York. Opponents of such measures suggest that liability insurance would limit people’s constitutional rights by imposing financial pressure on those that choose to own guns. Another issue is that insurance companies cannot be forced to offer gun liability insurance companies, thus further limiting people’s ability to purchase and own firearms.

There were a lot of people that were not pleased with President Obama’s last term in office and were upset that he is president for the next four years. There was a crowd of about 700,000 people which is a significant decline from the 1.8 million who were there for Obama’s first inauguration. The crowd was less than half of what it was for his first swearing-in.

President Obama’s inaugural address lasted almost twenty minutes. During his speech, he talked of gay rights and the climate which are hot issues in the country today. This year’s inauguration speech was the first one in the history of the United States that mentioned gay rights for Americans. While talking about gay writes, President Barack Obama talked of equality and fair treatment for every woman and man of America. He also discussed the climate change and the necessity of sustainability. Obama also addressed some other issues he wanted to focus on during his next term and talked of Martin Luther King Jr. and how his inauguration on a day dedicated to Dr. King is extremely symbolic. President Obama took his oath with his hand on two Bibles: One for King and one for Abraham Lincoln.

Today President Barack Obama became inaugurated for the second time. Whether you voted for him or not, he is once again, the President of the United States. The inauguration was an all-day event for Barack Obama with some parties in the evening. The nation will be waiting to see what Obama will do during the next four years.

Image Credit

Formed following the tragedy at Sandy Hook, One Million Moms for Gun Control was created by Indiana mom Shannon Watts. And in less than month, 75 branches of 1MM4GC have sprung up across the country, all driving home the same messages that gun laws have to change now.

The simple graffiti, signed with ‘Moms Demand Action’ and a heart, is an example of what is making this Movement so successful. A heart…the word ‘Mom’….it’s an emotional reminder that in Newtown that day, as has happened in too many other places before (Sandy Hook was the 16th mass shooting to occur in 2012), Moms lost sons and daughters.

Using social media to bring Moms together, united in their aim for action on gun control legislation, is what’s made the 1MM4GC campaign so successful. The momentum of the campaign is gathering pace, as supporters swell to tens of thousands, growing daily.

Not only is the 1MM4GC graffiti appearing in public places, Moms across the country are changing on-mass their Facebook profile picture to that of the 1MM4GC logo, inviting 26 friends to join the Facebook page in memory of the 26 victims of Sandy Hook, and to tweet using specific hashtags related to the Movement. Supporters can even directly petition lawmakers through an online advocacy campaign tool.

Before social media, the very organization and rapid growth of a group such as 1MM4GC would have seemed impossible. But thanks to the power of the internet and the use of social media in uniting people who believe in a common cause, bringing about change really could be only a click away.

Whether you’re for or against gun control, you likely don’t want to see people get killed. Yet, even though we have this one common ground, it will still prove difficult to get any legislation around gun control. Why? Because some people will see any legislation on guns as a tipping point to further controls.

So rather than continue to debate the issue, why don’t we use one of the principles from my book Flash Foresight, and that is to take the problem and skip it. In other words, instead of trying to ban certain types of weapons and ammunition, let’s put that to the side for now and in its place let’s focus on a strategy that doesn’t ban anything. And that strategy could be to require a trigger lock on all weapons.

For those who aren’t familiar with a trigger lock, it’s a small device that fits on a gun’s trigger. When the lock is in place, you can’t fire the weapon without unlocking the trigger lock with a special key. A trigger lock can fit on any weapon, from a handgun to an assault rifle. And it’s very inexpensive, usually under $10.

Anyone who hunts or has guns shouldn’t be offended by having to use trigger locks, because no one is saying you can’t use your gun. No one is saying you can’t have a gun or two or twenty. No one is saying you can’t buy more guns. This measure simply says that if you have a gun, you have to put a trigger lock on it so your kids or other unauthorized people can’t fire the gun (accidentally or intentionally). Additionally, if someone breaks into your home and steals your gun, they can’t use the weapon because they won’t have the key to unlock the trigger lock.

Of course, with that legislation could be some penalties for non-compliance that escalate depending on the type of weapon. For example, if you didn’t get a trigger lock for your gun after the law was passed, and your gun was stolen and used in a crime, then you’d face a penalty for not having the lock. If it were a semi-automatic weapon that didn’t have a trigger lock on it and it was used in a crime, the penalty would be quite high compared to not having the lock on a shotgun.

Additionally, when any weapon is sold, not only by a gun store but also at gun shows and other places where gun enthusiasts buy and sell guns, all of them would have to have a trigger lock as part of the sale. Would this raise the price of a gun? Probably not. In fact, if this measure was law, the cost of trigger locks would likely drop from today’s $10 to as low as $3. Some communities and organizations would even give the trigger locks away for free just to ensure all guns have them.

This simple measure does not infringe on anyone’s second amendment rights, yet it can provide a powerful and immediate barrier to a curious kid, a thief, or someone who needs a little time to cool off.

By skipping the problem of banning certain types of weapons and ammunition and instead focusing on something that can make a difference without a lot of time and effort, perhaps we can all learn to work together to solve problems in a new way—a way that focuses on finding common ground rather than dwelling on all the things we disagree on. Of course, trigger locks won’t stop all mass shootings, but they will make a difference. Perhaps we can even see this as a single step toward working together to find a better way of identifying and helping people with the types of mental illnesses that lead to mass shootings.

The Deal

Reuters reported that “The United States averted economic calamity on Tuesday when lawmakers approved a deal” avoiding the worst of the fiscal cliff: tax hikes and cuts to spending. While the term calamity may be a bit of an exaggeration (the analogy of the “cliff” is a little exaggerated as well), it’s certainly better for all of us that a deal was made.

If you’re curious, the White House provides a great summary of the major points of the deal. Some of the most important inclusions are permanent extensions on certain tax cuts aimed at the middle class, an extension of emergency unemployment insurance, extensions of tax cuts helping families and students, extensions of incentives for business to use renewable energy, and raising taxes on the wealthiest earners, estates, and capital gains to 1990s levels.

Why 2013 Looks to be Better than 2012

As agencies and small businesses make plans and set achievable goals for 2013, it’s important to consider the economic environment they will be operating in. Now that a deal has been passed to remove the largest block of uncertainty in the US economy, many analysts predict that these goals are likely to become true. At minimum, the deal means that the majority of consumers will have more money in their pockets to spend and stimulate the economy.

Most experts believe that the US economy will continue to grow in 2013. The growth will not be immense, but things are looking positive. There are predictions for a hiring boom, which David Francis wrote about for US News & World Report. What’s even more exciting is that David quotes Philip Noftsinger saying the only thing possibly preventing 2013 from turning out to be an “accelerating positive year” for jobs was the fiscal cliff. Now that an agreement has been made, we can expect 2013 to be a hopeful year.

Chris Reese reported for Reuters writing that “borrowing by small U.S. businesses rose marginally in November … in the face of economic and government fiscal uncertainty.” Now that much of the government side of this uncertainty is gone, we might see borrowing increase as small businesses feel more comfortable growing their enterprises. That’s good news for agencies in all markets.

Things Looking Positive, but Not Booming Yet

This positive economic environment means people are going to continue spending, and so are businesses. Marketing and advertising, social media campaigns, and other strategies are going to be even more important in 2013 than they were in 2012. It would be ridiculous to claim that 2013 will be the year everything becomes all peachy and nice. But it’s nice to believe that there are signs showing that 2013 will be a better year than 2012 for the US economy and the businesses and consumers that make it work.