Latest news with #RichardHolden
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Former Heads of Google Travel and Tripadvisor Form AI Startup to Head Off Online Travel Agencies
DirectBooker, a startup backed by former Tripadvisor CEO Steve Kaufer and ex-Google Travel head Richard Holden, wants to feed hotel listings directly into AI tools like ChatGPT and Gemini — challenging the role of online travel agencies like 'The default behavior is going to be for the OTAs to win again,' said Sanjay Vakil, a co-founder and the CEO of DirectBooker. 'And I would like to head off that outcome. But it's going to take more than three people to do that, so we're looking to grow a little bit.' Vakil held various product management leadership roles at Google Travel and Tripadvisor. The other two co-founders of DirectBooker are Chief Product Officer Theresa Meyer and Chief Technology Officer George Madrid. The Problem to Solve With increasing numbers of consumers searching for travel on ChatGPT, Perplexity, Anthropic, and Gemini, online travel agencies such as and Tripadvisor are establishing partnerships with them to deliver hotel inventory. Vakil said DirectBooker wants to establish relationships with hotels and deliver more robust and comprehensive hotel data to the LLMs. The would be for hotels to attract direct bookings –bypassing the OTAs. Holden, Kaufer, and Vakil published their thoughts in a post called 'Winning the AI Era: How Hotels Can Break Free From OTA Dependence.' Vakil believes that most travelers want to book directly with hotels, and that they would benefit from more detailed hotel information, lower prices, and additional perks. 'There's this opportunity for hotels to showcase themselves to best advantage that's really been missing,' Vakil said. The startup is calling these 'direct bookings' though travelers would still be going first to LLMs – it's not as direct as going to, say, What Is the Competitive Moat? DirectBooker claims it has a tech advantage. It plans to use Model Context Protocol (MCP) technology, which is an open standard and, it argues, can deliver better data. But the same technology is available to competitors as well. 'There's a world in which the OTAs sort of put an MCP layer on top of that [their feeds] and provide that information to the LLMs,' Vakil said. 'I haven't seen it happen yet, and I can imagine technological mismatches that make that more difficult than it should be. We're building our stuff from the ground up.' DirectBooker Is In Startup Mode DirectBooker is at a very early stage. It received pre-seed backing from venture firm Baukunst, and has raised around $2 million from investors, including Kaufer and Holden. The three co-founders are working on DirectBooker, as well as a half-dozen contractors, Vakil said. The startup doesn't have a product or hotel partnerships yet, although it has been speaking with hotels for about a year. Vakil thinks the startup would probably use traditional CPC and CPA models to get paid, but the business model isn't the focus for now. 'I think the industry has settled on particularly expensive transactions, but they don't need to be that expensive,' Vakil said. 'We should be able to get people to them inexpensively, partly because I get to avoid a bunch of the costs that the OTAs have. I don't need customer service. I don't need to worry about protecting customer data. I'm just handing people directly over to the hotel, who already has to do that.' For now, a consumer website, is just turf to test ideas. The real play would revolve around hotel and LLM partnerships. Get breaking travel news and exclusive hotel, airline, and tourism research and insights at
Skift
6 days ago
- Business
- Skift
Former Heads of Google Travel and Tripadvisor Form AI Startup to Head Off Online Travel Agencies
The idea of hotels partnering with ex-Googlers and DirectBooking trying to undercut OTA-like Tripadvisor's relationships with LLMs is not without its ironies. Still, the concept of hotels working more closely with LLMs and bypassing OTAs is one that could gain traction. DirectBooker, a startup backed by former Tripadvisor CEO Steve Kaufer and ex-Google Travel head Richard Holden, wants to feed hotel listings directly into AI tools like ChatGPT and Gemini — challenging the role of online travel agencies like "The default behavior is going to be for the OTAs to win again," said Sanjay Vakil, a co-founder and the CEO of DirectBooker. "And I would like to head off that outcome. But it's going to take more than three people to do that, so we're looking to grow a little bit." Vakil held various product management leadership roles at Google Travel and Tripadvisor. The other two co-founders of DirectBooker are Chief Product Officer Theresa Meyer and Chief
Daily Mail
12-07-2025
- Business
- Daily Mail
Top civil servants can now earn up to £174,000 without approval from ministers - paving the way for generous taxpayer-funded rises
Mandarins have quietly paved the way for generous taxpayer-funded rises by removing a need for ministers to approve Whitehall salaries over £150,000. Under new Civil Service guidance on 'pay control', only earnings above £174,000 – and bonuses over £25,000 – must be signed off, a hike from £150,000 and £17,500 respectively. Last night Tories called the move a 'grubby deal'. It will affect 260 civil servants who earn £150,000 to £200,000 a year, and 30 making more than £200,000. A further 2,915 staff earn more than £100,000 a year. Pay control measures were introduced by the last Tory regime to exert a grip on the burgeoning public sector wage bill – especially the total getting more than the Prime Minister's £166,786. The number of civil servants has increased by 21 per cent over the past five years – from 445,940 to 541,425 last September – with the wage bill up by a quarter. The median salary for civil servants has increased by 25 per cent from £27,080 in 2019 to £33,980 last year. The number working for the Housing, Communities and Local Government Department, now under Deputy Premier Angela Rayner, rose from 3,120 in 2019 to 4,990 last September, a hike of 60 per cent. Shadow Paymaster General Richard Holden said: 'The state is far too bloated. 'They are a party in hock to public sector pay and trying to sneak out bumper pay deals for mandarins and quangocrats by the back door shows they don't have national interest at heart. 'A grubby deal for their public sector chums achieves nothing.' An HM Treasury spokesman said: 'The previous threshold for senior civil servant's salaries was set in 2017, and since then average pay across the private and public sector has risen.
News18
10-07-2025
- Health
- News18
It's All 'Relative'! Are Cousin Marriages Among British Pakistanis Causing Birth Defects?
Last Updated: The primary driver of this renewed debate is alarming statistics about the increased risk of genetic disorders in children born to consanguineous couples The United Kingdom is currently witnessing in a vigorous debate regarding the legality and cultural implications of marriages between first cousins. While such unions are not explicitly illegal in the UK, unlike in many other countries and some states in the US, they have come under intense scrutiny recently due to concerns over public health and social issues. What studies show The primary driver of this renewed debate is alarming statistics about the increased risk of genetic disorders in children born to consanguineous couples. Studies, notably the 'Born in Bradford" project, which has extensively researched childhood outcomes in a city with a significant British Pakistani population, have highlighted these risks. For example, children of first cousin parents are found to have double the risk of serious birth defects or genetic conditions compared to those born to unrelated parents. While the overall risk for children of unrelated parents is around 2-3%, it rises to approximately 4-6% for children of first cousins. These conditions can include congenital heart problems, blood disorders like thalassaemia, and various metabolic or neurological conditions. Some reports suggest that in certain areas, up to 30% of paediatric referrals are linked to issues arising from cousin marriages. Despite these figures, it's important to note that the vast majority (94-96%) of children born to first cousins are healthy. However, the increased incidence of recessive genetic disorders, where both parents might unknowingly carry the same faulty gene, is a central concern for those advocating for a ban or increased awareness. Reasons for this practice often include strengthening family bonds, preserving family wealth and property, maintaining cultural values, and ensuring a sense of familiarity and support for the bride within her new family. For many, it is seen as an ideal match that fosters close-knit communities. Tory MP sparks debate The debate in the UK Parliament, notably sparked by a Private Members' Bill proposed by Tory MP Richard Holden in late 2024, has been highly contentious. Proponents of a ban, like Holden, argue that the health risks alone warrant prohibition and suggest that the practice can also be linked to issues of freedom and control, implying potential connections to forced marriages or honour-based abuse, though critics dispute this conflation. Opponents of a ban, including some community leaders and experts, argue that criminalising cousin marriage would be culturally insensitive and discriminatory, primarily targeting specific ethnic communities. They emphasise that a ban could stigmatise these groups, drive the practice underground, and deter individuals from seeking essential genetic counselling or healthcare services. Instead, they advocate for public health campaigns focused on education and awareness about genetic risks, coupled with accessible genetic screening and counselling services. They also highlight that other factors, such as parental age, smoking, or alcohol consumption, can also increase the risk of birth defects, yet these are not subject to marriage bans. The nuanced discussion continues, balancing public health concerns with cultural sensitivities and individual reproductive rights. (With agency inputs) view comments Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
The Advertiser
06-07-2025
- Business
- The Advertiser
How one decision could see us shortchanged on billions
The federal budget is under pressure, the global economic outlook is volatile and cost-of-living pressures continue to hammer Australian families. And yet the communications regulator is proposing the federal government adopt a policy that could forgo up to $3.2 billion in revenue. The approach would also reduce competition among telecommunications providers and hamper the introduction of new technologies. It all revolves around how the federal government approaches telecommunications spectrum licenses. Some 69 existing spectrum licenses across seven bands are due to expire between 2028 and 2032, 48 of which are held by three mobile network operators. Spectrum is a valuable public resource. It must be managed carefully to ensure the proper functioning of commercial, government, military and emergency communications - everything from mobile phones, to radios, to televisions, to satellites, to submarines utilise spectrum to communicate. It is the job of the regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), to assign spectrum. However, their approach to this issue is baffling and potentially costly. ACMA plans to renew expiring mobile spectrum licenses without a competitive auction, a decision that risks forfeiting between $2 billion and $3.2 billion in public revenue over the coming years. The cost has been estimated in independent economic analysis by Professor Richard Holden, Scientia Professor of Economics at UNSW Business School and editor of the Journal of Law and Economics. Professor Holden says the failure to hold a competitive auction for spectrum is "based on flawed economic reasoning (and) may significantly undermine public trust, market competition, and the integrity of the regulatory process". In his independent analysis, commissioned by ACCAN, Professor Holden argues that by granting renewed access to existing telcos without testing the market through an auction, ACMA risks entrenching incumbent dominance, limiting opportunities for new entrants, and failing to ensure fair market value for a critical public resource. Remember, this is a public resource that ACMA must manage in the best interest of the Australian people. You don't need to be an expert to understand that if you have an asset that multiple parties want to purchase, it makes sense to have a competitive process for its sale. Many of us act on this logic when we put our homes up for auction or other competitive sales approaches. The failure of the regulator, ACMA, to understand this is bewildering. One can only conclude that ACMA is more concerned about the welfare of the industry rather than the impact this proposal will have on the Australian public. As Professor Holden points out, if this proposed approach proceeds, it will likely be presented as "a textbook case of regulatory capture". Of course, it is not the first time this question as been asked. In January this year, the ABC cast doubt on the independence of ACMA over its practice of sharing press releases in advance of public dissemination with companies about whom it had taken regulatory action after an in-depth investigation. The ABC has also criticised ACMA as a "watch poodle" in regard to its enforcement of decently standards in the Radio Code in a Media Watch segment in 2024. Not only did the chair of ACMA seem unable to provide a straight answer about content suitability in front of the Senate - but the quantum of the fines it doled out was appropriately criticised as a "slap on the wrist". And yet, this is a time when we need a strong regulator to protect the public interest more than ever. Trust in our major telcos is brittle. Our research shows that 41 per cent of consumers have limited faith in their telco to act in their best interest -and almost a third said the coverage they received didn't match what they were told to expect. The latest Morgan Poll placed the telcos just behind the major supermarkets in public trust. This crisis of trust is not helped by news this month that the ACCC has fined Optus $100m, subject to court approval, for unconscionable conduct. Unconscionable conduct is a high bar and one that Optus has spectacularly surpassed, allegedly preying on some of our most vulnerable communities and consumers, including Indigenous communities. The Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman has previously identified poor sales conduct - including misleading and high-pressure tactics - as the most common systemic issue it investigates. These concerns are not academic, they have a real-world impact every day for Australians. And it appears to me that the regulator is protecting Australian telecommunication consumers' interests. We believe a parliamentary inquiry into ACMA's recent decision-making should be initiated to assess the regulator's performance, ensure accountability, and restore public confidence in the regulation of communications in Australia. To safeguard public revenue and promote competition in the telecommunications sector, the government must consider whether ACMA's approach to conducting auctions for expiring spectrum licenses is suitable. Australia must have faith in its telecommunications and an effective regulator is critical to this. We must also have faith that a valuable public asset is delivering full value to taxpayers and will continue to deliver the best and most advanced technologies to consumers at affordable prices well into the future. The federal budget is under pressure, the global economic outlook is volatile and cost-of-living pressures continue to hammer Australian families. And yet the communications regulator is proposing the federal government adopt a policy that could forgo up to $3.2 billion in revenue. The approach would also reduce competition among telecommunications providers and hamper the introduction of new technologies. It all revolves around how the federal government approaches telecommunications spectrum licenses. Some 69 existing spectrum licenses across seven bands are due to expire between 2028 and 2032, 48 of which are held by three mobile network operators. Spectrum is a valuable public resource. It must be managed carefully to ensure the proper functioning of commercial, government, military and emergency communications - everything from mobile phones, to radios, to televisions, to satellites, to submarines utilise spectrum to communicate. It is the job of the regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), to assign spectrum. However, their approach to this issue is baffling and potentially costly. ACMA plans to renew expiring mobile spectrum licenses without a competitive auction, a decision that risks forfeiting between $2 billion and $3.2 billion in public revenue over the coming years. The cost has been estimated in independent economic analysis by Professor Richard Holden, Scientia Professor of Economics at UNSW Business School and editor of the Journal of Law and Economics. Professor Holden says the failure to hold a competitive auction for spectrum is "based on flawed economic reasoning (and) may significantly undermine public trust, market competition, and the integrity of the regulatory process". In his independent analysis, commissioned by ACCAN, Professor Holden argues that by granting renewed access to existing telcos without testing the market through an auction, ACMA risks entrenching incumbent dominance, limiting opportunities for new entrants, and failing to ensure fair market value for a critical public resource. Remember, this is a public resource that ACMA must manage in the best interest of the Australian people. You don't need to be an expert to understand that if you have an asset that multiple parties want to purchase, it makes sense to have a competitive process for its sale. Many of us act on this logic when we put our homes up for auction or other competitive sales approaches. The failure of the regulator, ACMA, to understand this is bewildering. One can only conclude that ACMA is more concerned about the welfare of the industry rather than the impact this proposal will have on the Australian public. As Professor Holden points out, if this proposed approach proceeds, it will likely be presented as "a textbook case of regulatory capture". Of course, it is not the first time this question as been asked. In January this year, the ABC cast doubt on the independence of ACMA over its practice of sharing press releases in advance of public dissemination with companies about whom it had taken regulatory action after an in-depth investigation. The ABC has also criticised ACMA as a "watch poodle" in regard to its enforcement of decently standards in the Radio Code in a Media Watch segment in 2024. Not only did the chair of ACMA seem unable to provide a straight answer about content suitability in front of the Senate - but the quantum of the fines it doled out was appropriately criticised as a "slap on the wrist". And yet, this is a time when we need a strong regulator to protect the public interest more than ever. Trust in our major telcos is brittle. Our research shows that 41 per cent of consumers have limited faith in their telco to act in their best interest -and almost a third said the coverage they received didn't match what they were told to expect. The latest Morgan Poll placed the telcos just behind the major supermarkets in public trust. This crisis of trust is not helped by news this month that the ACCC has fined Optus $100m, subject to court approval, for unconscionable conduct. Unconscionable conduct is a high bar and one that Optus has spectacularly surpassed, allegedly preying on some of our most vulnerable communities and consumers, including Indigenous communities. The Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman has previously identified poor sales conduct - including misleading and high-pressure tactics - as the most common systemic issue it investigates. These concerns are not academic, they have a real-world impact every day for Australians. And it appears to me that the regulator is protecting Australian telecommunication consumers' interests. We believe a parliamentary inquiry into ACMA's recent decision-making should be initiated to assess the regulator's performance, ensure accountability, and restore public confidence in the regulation of communications in Australia. To safeguard public revenue and promote competition in the telecommunications sector, the government must consider whether ACMA's approach to conducting auctions for expiring spectrum licenses is suitable. Australia must have faith in its telecommunications and an effective regulator is critical to this. We must also have faith that a valuable public asset is delivering full value to taxpayers and will continue to deliver the best and most advanced technologies to consumers at affordable prices well into the future. The federal budget is under pressure, the global economic outlook is volatile and cost-of-living pressures continue to hammer Australian families. And yet the communications regulator is proposing the federal government adopt a policy that could forgo up to $3.2 billion in revenue. The approach would also reduce competition among telecommunications providers and hamper the introduction of new technologies. It all revolves around how the federal government approaches telecommunications spectrum licenses. Some 69 existing spectrum licenses across seven bands are due to expire between 2028 and 2032, 48 of which are held by three mobile network operators. Spectrum is a valuable public resource. It must be managed carefully to ensure the proper functioning of commercial, government, military and emergency communications - everything from mobile phones, to radios, to televisions, to satellites, to submarines utilise spectrum to communicate. It is the job of the regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), to assign spectrum. However, their approach to this issue is baffling and potentially costly. ACMA plans to renew expiring mobile spectrum licenses without a competitive auction, a decision that risks forfeiting between $2 billion and $3.2 billion in public revenue over the coming years. The cost has been estimated in independent economic analysis by Professor Richard Holden, Scientia Professor of Economics at UNSW Business School and editor of the Journal of Law and Economics. Professor Holden says the failure to hold a competitive auction for spectrum is "based on flawed economic reasoning (and) may significantly undermine public trust, market competition, and the integrity of the regulatory process". In his independent analysis, commissioned by ACCAN, Professor Holden argues that by granting renewed access to existing telcos without testing the market through an auction, ACMA risks entrenching incumbent dominance, limiting opportunities for new entrants, and failing to ensure fair market value for a critical public resource. Remember, this is a public resource that ACMA must manage in the best interest of the Australian people. You don't need to be an expert to understand that if you have an asset that multiple parties want to purchase, it makes sense to have a competitive process for its sale. Many of us act on this logic when we put our homes up for auction or other competitive sales approaches. The failure of the regulator, ACMA, to understand this is bewildering. One can only conclude that ACMA is more concerned about the welfare of the industry rather than the impact this proposal will have on the Australian public. As Professor Holden points out, if this proposed approach proceeds, it will likely be presented as "a textbook case of regulatory capture". Of course, it is not the first time this question as been asked. In January this year, the ABC cast doubt on the independence of ACMA over its practice of sharing press releases in advance of public dissemination with companies about whom it had taken regulatory action after an in-depth investigation. The ABC has also criticised ACMA as a "watch poodle" in regard to its enforcement of decently standards in the Radio Code in a Media Watch segment in 2024. Not only did the chair of ACMA seem unable to provide a straight answer about content suitability in front of the Senate - but the quantum of the fines it doled out was appropriately criticised as a "slap on the wrist". And yet, this is a time when we need a strong regulator to protect the public interest more than ever. Trust in our major telcos is brittle. Our research shows that 41 per cent of consumers have limited faith in their telco to act in their best interest -and almost a third said the coverage they received didn't match what they were told to expect. The latest Morgan Poll placed the telcos just behind the major supermarkets in public trust. This crisis of trust is not helped by news this month that the ACCC has fined Optus $100m, subject to court approval, for unconscionable conduct. Unconscionable conduct is a high bar and one that Optus has spectacularly surpassed, allegedly preying on some of our most vulnerable communities and consumers, including Indigenous communities. The Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman has previously identified poor sales conduct - including misleading and high-pressure tactics - as the most common systemic issue it investigates. These concerns are not academic, they have a real-world impact every day for Australians. And it appears to me that the regulator is protecting Australian telecommunication consumers' interests. We believe a parliamentary inquiry into ACMA's recent decision-making should be initiated to assess the regulator's performance, ensure accountability, and restore public confidence in the regulation of communications in Australia. To safeguard public revenue and promote competition in the telecommunications sector, the government must consider whether ACMA's approach to conducting auctions for expiring spectrum licenses is suitable. Australia must have faith in its telecommunications and an effective regulator is critical to this. We must also have faith that a valuable public asset is delivering full value to taxpayers and will continue to deliver the best and most advanced technologies to consumers at affordable prices well into the future. The federal budget is under pressure, the global economic outlook is volatile and cost-of-living pressures continue to hammer Australian families. And yet the communications regulator is proposing the federal government adopt a policy that could forgo up to $3.2 billion in revenue. The approach would also reduce competition among telecommunications providers and hamper the introduction of new technologies. It all revolves around how the federal government approaches telecommunications spectrum licenses. Some 69 existing spectrum licenses across seven bands are due to expire between 2028 and 2032, 48 of which are held by three mobile network operators. Spectrum is a valuable public resource. It must be managed carefully to ensure the proper functioning of commercial, government, military and emergency communications - everything from mobile phones, to radios, to televisions, to satellites, to submarines utilise spectrum to communicate. It is the job of the regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), to assign spectrum. However, their approach to this issue is baffling and potentially costly. ACMA plans to renew expiring mobile spectrum licenses without a competitive auction, a decision that risks forfeiting between $2 billion and $3.2 billion in public revenue over the coming years. The cost has been estimated in independent economic analysis by Professor Richard Holden, Scientia Professor of Economics at UNSW Business School and editor of the Journal of Law and Economics. Professor Holden says the failure to hold a competitive auction for spectrum is "based on flawed economic reasoning (and) may significantly undermine public trust, market competition, and the integrity of the regulatory process". In his independent analysis, commissioned by ACCAN, Professor Holden argues that by granting renewed access to existing telcos without testing the market through an auction, ACMA risks entrenching incumbent dominance, limiting opportunities for new entrants, and failing to ensure fair market value for a critical public resource. Remember, this is a public resource that ACMA must manage in the best interest of the Australian people. You don't need to be an expert to understand that if you have an asset that multiple parties want to purchase, it makes sense to have a competitive process for its sale. Many of us act on this logic when we put our homes up for auction or other competitive sales approaches. The failure of the regulator, ACMA, to understand this is bewildering. One can only conclude that ACMA is more concerned about the welfare of the industry rather than the impact this proposal will have on the Australian public. As Professor Holden points out, if this proposed approach proceeds, it will likely be presented as "a textbook case of regulatory capture". Of course, it is not the first time this question as been asked. In January this year, the ABC cast doubt on the independence of ACMA over its practice of sharing press releases in advance of public dissemination with companies about whom it had taken regulatory action after an in-depth investigation. The ABC has also criticised ACMA as a "watch poodle" in regard to its enforcement of decently standards in the Radio Code in a Media Watch segment in 2024. Not only did the chair of ACMA seem unable to provide a straight answer about content suitability in front of the Senate - but the quantum of the fines it doled out was appropriately criticised as a "slap on the wrist". And yet, this is a time when we need a strong regulator to protect the public interest more than ever. Trust in our major telcos is brittle. Our research shows that 41 per cent of consumers have limited faith in their telco to act in their best interest -and almost a third said the coverage they received didn't match what they were told to expect. The latest Morgan Poll placed the telcos just behind the major supermarkets in public trust. This crisis of trust is not helped by news this month that the ACCC has fined Optus $100m, subject to court approval, for unconscionable conduct. Unconscionable conduct is a high bar and one that Optus has spectacularly surpassed, allegedly preying on some of our most vulnerable communities and consumers, including Indigenous communities. The Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman has previously identified poor sales conduct - including misleading and high-pressure tactics - as the most common systemic issue it investigates. These concerns are not academic, they have a real-world impact every day for Australians. And it appears to me that the regulator is protecting Australian telecommunication consumers' interests. We believe a parliamentary inquiry into ACMA's recent decision-making should be initiated to assess the regulator's performance, ensure accountability, and restore public confidence in the regulation of communications in Australia. To safeguard public revenue and promote competition in the telecommunications sector, the government must consider whether ACMA's approach to conducting auctions for expiring spectrum licenses is suitable. Australia must have faith in its telecommunications and an effective regulator is critical to this. We must also have faith that a valuable public asset is delivering full value to taxpayers and will continue to deliver the best and most advanced technologies to consumers at affordable prices well into the future.
