Church & Clouds
Peter Lane

In the Cloud, or on the ground?  A short History of Cloud Computing.

Posted on by Peter Lane

One hears the term “Cloud Computing” and related phrases a lot these days.  Probably too much – as with a lot of catchy phrases, the marketing machine has picked the phrase up and boldly applied it where no phrase was meant to go.  Quite frankly, “cloud” is now one of the most used and abused terms in the Technology space – much of what is claimed as cloud quite simply isn’t.

So, what is Cloud Computing supposed to be?

The answer is wrapped up in the history of computing development.  Initially, computers were standalone devices without connection to other computing devices – any application you needed had to be physically installed on the computer.  Then in the seventies and eighties, the computer network flourished.  Applications from other computers could now be accessed, at least at the Local Area scale.  A whole generation of special computers were developed – called servers – whose main function was to make applications and data available to other computers- client computers – on a local network.  In the meantime, the Internet developed and became widely accessible.  The basis of the internet was that it was a network that connected local networks according to a set of relatively immutable rules (inexplicably called Request for Comments or RFCs for short).

Consequently, Network Engineers became increasingly focused on what needed to happen at the local part of the equation, so in diagrams of network systems, it became accepted practice to draw the Internet part as a cloud.  The engineers needed to document that the internet existed but didn’t need to concern themselves with the details of how it happened.  Rule of thumb for good system architecture became to provide a good Local Area Network with all the resources it needed – application servers, storage etc.  These could communicate with other Local Networks if needed for coordination and some degree of sharing, but basically, all networks provided all their own resources

However, over time the capabilities of computers, networks, communication links and servers have increased exponentially.  One day, some bright young spark said: “Instead of duplicating all this Application stuff in every local network, why don’t we move it to the cloud and share it between local networks?”  And so, cloud computing was born.

There is one further piece to the puzzle though.  This cloud way of operating was fine if you were a large, enterprise scale entity and could afford the up-front investment in physical infrastructure and make sure that the infrastructure was properly maintained.  If not, you probably still had to do things the old way.  The other piece of the puzzle is a business model initiative rather than a technology change.  Software vendors started making software available in the cloud on a “rental” basis instead of a lump-sum, lifetime license.  In essence, they started renting you the software bundled with the cloud-based server to run it on, the technical support and physical support to keep the server running.  All you needed to do was provide a device and the communication services to access the server.  This model is called Software as a Service (SaaS).  Today, the phrase “cloud computing” usually means some form of software or application delivery from cloud-located servers on a SaaS model.  And it is not limited to commercial software offerings – the church nationally could commission custom applications that use this model.  The recently announced Methodist App is an example of this approach.

Enough History; What does this mean for the church?

There are several important benefits of this approach, but for me, one of the best benefits for a geographically distributed organisation like the church is that it the advantages of large-scale information systems and communication systems can now be relatively easily applied at a congregation level, without needing to rely on locally-based skilled support persons.  While there are still some issues that need consideration, there is now no reason why a congregation of 10 should have any different facilities that a congregation of 1000.  So, get thinking about the innovative things we can do with this resource!

Peter Lane

Radio Spectrum: Accessibility or Entertainment?

Posted on by Peter Lane

Radio Spectrum Management have been circulating a consultation and discussion document, “Preparing for 5G in New Zealand – Technical Consultation”.  The “gotcha” in the fine print is that one option being considered is to move the IMT Band (Industrial & Medical Telemetry Band) as well as make some provision for 5G into the 600MHz Band.

That is the band that most churches who have just bought new wireless microphones will now occupy, having been pushed out of the 700MHz band a couple of years ago.

My company has made the following response to the Radio Spectrum Management discussion document.  It is based on a proforma response originating with WUNZ (Wireless Users NZ), but I hope I have managed to value add the thought that there is more to life, and value, than entertainment and sports events and that some of the people impacted by “minor” tinkering with the spectrum are the ones with least capacity to pay for the consequences, but who provide valuable services to society at large.

The discussion paper can be found here – https://www.rsm.govt.nz/projects-auctions/current-projects/preparing-for-5g-in-new-zealand-technical-consultation

Response: Preparing for 5G in NZ

From System Design & Communication Services.

This response relates particularly to the Discussion Document questions 1, 15 and 16. 

As a current user and supplier of radio microphones and in-ear monitors that operate in the 600MHz band, I would be an affected party if this frequency band is reallocated for IMT/5G usage.

Radio microphone users would lose 76MHz of nationally available spectrum from this 600MHz band. Currently, there are no other spectrum bands that appear to offer this same amount of spectrum as a contiguous available block nationally throughout New Zealand.

As a specialist supplier to the non-profit and religious sector, I would point out that this sector, in particular, is ill-equipped to make another forced “fork-lift upgrade”, and the response of many of my clients will be simply to do without such systems.  The immediate consequence of this will be an immediate degradation of service to the many hearing-impaired and disadvantaged persons to whom my clients provide social welfare services (and in extreme cases may even lead to cessation of service provision entirely). 

At another level, removing capacity to operate relevant equipment in the 600MHz range may cause some of my clients to lose their ability to comply with their obligations under the Building Code and Disabilities Code.  Compliance with these may involve providing Hearing Augmentation systems and the audio source for such systems will be a microphone.  In many cases, the functional and logistic requirements of the service being delivered dictate that this microphone should be a wireless device.  Loss of 600MHz systems may require not only replacement or modification of the microphone but may require replacement and/or modification of the entire Hearing Augmentation system, possibly requiring extensive associated building works.

The benefit of such social and potentially intangible services provided by the non-profit sector is not as easy to quantify as the glamour entertainment sectors of Music, Sport and the Arts.  However, the social and economic benefits of the sector are not inconsequential.

I request on behalf of my non-profit clients, that Radio Spectrum Management adopt the following recommendation as a guiding principle of re-planning NZ spectrum;

  • Ensure that sufficient usable spectrum, preferably in the existing 600MHz band, is preserved for radio microphone and in-ear monitor usage at the community level for educational, health-related and social good purposes by non-profit and religious entities.

I also request that Radio Spectrum Management carefully consider these comments and the following recommendations should you resolve to reallocate the 600MHz band and therefore require current radio microphone and in-ear monitor users to re-acquire or modify existing hardware to alternative frequency bands.

  • Provide monetary compensation to affected users who acquired or modified hardware in direct response to the 700MHz spectrum sell-off.

Ensure that sufficient usable spectrum is preserved for radio microphone and in-ear monitor use at large scale events, such as concerts, festivals, theatre productions, red carpet movie premiers, and sporting events.  This provision should make allowance for the fact that multiple users and/or suppliers are operating concurrently at some of these events types.

Peter Lane

Praising the Lord with microphones and Facebook

Posted on by Peter Lane

“Let’s sing a new song to the Lord!” And if it’s at all a modern new song, that means you might suddenly have a requirement for a bass, 2 guitars, keyboard, drums and 6-vocalists. Oh, my goodness – how do we make all that work. Suddenly, the neat new idea is in the “too hard” basket, and nothing ever happens. And it’s not just music;

Baby speaking into a microphone.
Are we just babies where technology is concerned?
  • “I have seen this really powerful video-clip that would be perfect to play as part of my sermon …”
  • “We have a funeral in a couple of days and the son is stuck in Northern India; he will be devastated …”
  • “Next week I have to attend a meeting in Blenheim – no one has the funding to fly me, but if I drive I won’t get back in time to lead worship …”

I have a job that gives me the opportunity to travel a lot, and as I travel I have been in conversations with people in the Church who are concerned that the way we tend to do things is not in touch with the ways of the world in which we live. We need to find ways to “translate” our message to make ourselves more relevant, particularly to our youth. “Better use of ‘Technology’,” they say, “is one way to do this. But we don’t know how.” Technology is not the be-all-and-end-all to being relevant, but it is useful.

I almost always counsel my secular clients against using Technology for Technology’s sake. I think that it is even more important that Churches adopt this principle. The mission of the Church is to communicate the gospel message, and if this message gets lost in the razzle-dazzle of technology and being relevant, then we have failed in that mission.

This is the first of what is hoped to be a regular column, focusing on practical suggestions, tips and strategies for using audio-visual and ICT technology in the life of the church. We envisage covering a broad range of communication systems, including audio systems, projection, email, productivity & collaboration systems, hearing aid loops, videoconference, streaming and social media. We intend to address many relevant usage scenarios such as worship, church meetings, office work, designing new systems and personal reflection. Some articles may be a simple “how-to” carry out some feature in a software package. Others may offer a strategic or theological reflection. While it currently seems most articles will be written by me, it is also hoped we may have occasional guest contributors.

Our hope is to be an interactive forum so we answer real questions – we invite your questions, suggestions and ideas for articles. These can be submitted either through the editor (if you are reading this on one of the paper incarnations), or by email to dct@sdcs.co.nz. We also plan to operate a website in conjunction with this column – a website focused around building a community of people who are interested in improving the way we can use technology, who can interact by a forum, asking questions or providing answers as they are gifted. The website will host supplementary material to the Touchstone articles – more detailed articles, videos and links to web resources that may not be able to fit in the Touchstone’s space requirement. Everything going well, by the time you read this article www.dct.org.nz will have a working website at the end of the link. (If not, please pray for me and patiently keep retrying till it appears.)

The examples above have been deliberately chosen to be difficult challenges in a mainline church – there are things we can do simply and easily that will make a real difference. They are also chosen to reflect things that have been done, but usually not very well. I look forward to our on-going conversation as we explore how to use our resources to enhance our Message.

Peter Lane is Principal Consultant at System Design & Communication Services and has over 30-years’ experience with Technology systems.  We invite your questions, suggestions and ideas for articles.  These can be submitted either through the editor or by email to dct@dct.org.nz.  We also operate a website focused on building a community of people who are interested in improving the way we can use technology located at www.dct.org.nz.