Image source: jcrew.com
It’s 90 degrees in New York. All week, I’ve been receiving catalogs showing off sweaters, flannel shirts and wool pants. Just looking at them, makes me sweat.
I get the catalogs because I shop online, which then puts me on mailing lists. Of course, the ironic angle of receiving these paper catalogs is that part of the reason I shop online is that it reduces resources.
I’ve been posting a lot on the massiveness of the attempts to re-direct telecom infrastructure in positive ways. The macro problem is basically how to tackle large scale problems and change conventional ways of thinking, which led to the question, why do I rarely finish tasks early? Is it just human nature?
Along the same lines, I got to thinking how the world was able to for the most part fix the Y2K bug (remember that?) Yet in most other cases, impending disasters, like our dependence on oil, failing infrastructure and unsustainable spending, all go unheeded.
I came up with two reasons, one is that the world had a deadline. Come January 1, 2000, we were all scared that the lights would go off, our bank accounts would evaporate, nuclear power plants would explode, sewage would flood into our drinking water system, and our computers would explode. I knew a lot of people in IT who certainly were not going to party like it was 1999 on that New Year’s Eve. (On the smaller scale, my personal tasks tend to get completed when I have set deadlines.)
Are we just lazy and short sighted without deadlines and structure? Maybe, maybe not.
The second reason is that the direct costs of fixing the bug to most people were minimal. It was a one-off project, and no government or company was going to be known as the one that blew it. Coding systems to switch from two digit years to four digit years was complex, but it was containable. Further, it didn’t require much sacrifice on the individual level.
Where as in the case of moving off our dependence on oil, the transition is going to demand direct lifestyle changes and loss of freedoms to most people. Of course, starting early will make the transition easier, but that is unlikely to happen. Further, large scale social problems rarely has concise, real deadlines, which makes Y2K an interesting, albeit special case.
Back to the drawing board.
Images source: upgrade:travelbetter.com
With all this Google and spectrum talk swirling the internet and news media, I keep coming back to Wi-Fi as a good way to contextualizing the importance of having open networks and services, as well as open applications and devices. There are of course, many differences which I’ll identify, but the similarities are important and insightful.
Wi-Fi has exploded in the past few years. As with many overnight success stories, this one was twenty-five years in the making. In 1985, FCC opened several bands of high frequency wireless spectrum for unregulated use. This move allowed people to transmit over these frequencies without a license, as you would for radio or television. The spectrum 900MHz, 2.4GHz and 5.8GHz was (in hindsight) amusingly named “garbage bands.” Because they were used by medical equipment and home appliances including microwave ovens, they were considered to have limited telecommunications value.
In 1997, the turning point of Wi-Fi was the adoption of IEEE 802.11 standard by the Institute Electrical and Electronics Engineers, which was nearly ten years in the making. With a standard in place, developers could make devices and applications that were interoperable with each other. Developers chose the 80211b flavor in the first wave of products, because it was least expensive, albeit slow. Faster flavors of the standard, such as 802.11g and 802.11n, are now being developed and brought to market. The early application of 802.11b shows that the agreement on of a standard is just as important as what is agreed upon. As commercial products began rolling out, “Wi-Fi” was settled upon as a term for this new technology, because “IEEE 802.11b compliant” wasn’t as sexy.
Two points to take away from the spread of Wi-Fi concern standards and the open spectrum. First, the adoption of the IEEE 802.11 standard allowed for interoperability. Because products could easily to talk to each other, the chances for wide-spread use increased. Second, providing open spectrum expanded development, because
anyone from the size of Cisco and to the individual members of the Toronto Wireless Users Groups to develop and experiment with Wi-Fi. As well, it vastly expanded its usage by people. (Imagine if everyone who wanted to set up a Wi-Fi network needed to apply and pay for a broadcasting license.)
Wi-Fi will soon face competition from other wireless alternatives, like the results of the 700 MHz auction or WiMax, which is faster and has roughly 100 times wider range. These telecommunications technologies require towers and infrastructure, which have price tags that run in the billions of dollars to implement in the US. Big upfront costs means that big entities are involved like telecoms, industry disruptors like Google or Apple, or governments. Even if the FCC mandated open networks and services (which it did not,) standards and truly fair pricing would remain challenges to seeing levels of innovation and adoption on par with Wi-Fi.
Some good, accessible readings on the topic:
A Brief History of Wi-Fi, Economist, June 10th, 2004. (subscription required)
The site was in stealth for a long time, and friends kept on finding it… so… I guess it’s live. Putting it in technorati seems to be the next, if not final step.
Just a quick post on the upcoming 700MHz spectrum. Yesterday, FCC released guidelines on the auction. Google was pressing for 4 points on its policy blog:
* Open applications: consumers should be able to download and utilize any software applications, content, or services they desire;
* Open devices: consumers should be able to utilize a handheld communications device with whatever wireless network they prefer;
* Open services: third parties (resellers) should be able to acquire wireless services from a 700 MHz licensee on a wholesale basis, based on reasonably nondiscriminatory commercial terms; and
* Open networks: third parties (like internet service providers) should be able to interconnect at a technically feasible point in a 700 MHz licensee’s wireless network.
FCC is gone along with the first two, which is important because outside developers can innovative as we have seen on the Internet, but less so on mobile phones. However, it appears that the winners of the spectrum will not be forced to keep their services and networks open.
I still getting my head wrapped around that FCC actually said. Google hasn’t say yet if they are going to bid in the auction. But they are more likely now that given the FCC’s guidelines. Along similar lines, even if the FCC implemented open networks and open services in the auction guidelines, openness is ultimately all about execution. Defining and overseeing “nondiscriminatory” pricing is crucial. As seen, in the attempts to open wirelines, the task is tricky and can be gamed. Inflated prices make it economically impossible for third parties to profitably lease pipes and services, similar to the experience of third-party broadband ISPs.
I went to another fine event tonight put up by the fine folks at Mobile Monday New York, “Beyond Scores. Sports Brands & Their Mobile Game Plan.”
The panel discussion was packed with good representatives from the content side as well as infrastructure. The line up included:
– Oke Okaro, ESPN
– Bhavesh Patel, NBA
– Lincoln Hochberg, MLB
– Rich LaBarca, Clearspring
– Moderator: Evan Neufeld, VP and senior analyst, M:Metrics
I appreciated that candor and openness to the responses from the panelists. The discussion lived up to its name and covered more than reading scores in an SMS message. Topics ranged from integrated marketing (an industry standard), carrier support (still a bottleneck), interface standardizations (still impeding mobile growth), and working with OEMs (they can only do so much). I’m a bit tired today, so I’ll keep it short with the best take aways.
On successful mobile initiatives:
“Boredom is a key driver.” – Lincoln Hochberg, MLB
On the mobile killer app:
“It may not be tv on your mobile… I can see things like breaking news video alerts [being the killer app]…” – Lincoln Hochberg, MLB
On mobile experimentation:
“Stick with what you know.” – Oke Okaro, ESPN
On the iPhone:
“But, it’s a closed system.” (several times) – Rich LaBarca
And the best line came from the moderator….
“… and now comes the part where we complain about the carriers…”
image source: flickr
Sprint is partnering up with Google in a national rollout of WiMax. WiMax is a wireless broadband technology that is similar to the popular WiFi networks, except that that it has a range of miles versus hundreds of feet. The power of WiMax lies in the fact that a carrier does not need to install the “last mile” to each home, which is the most expensive part of implementing a new. Sprint would provide the WiMax technology, while Google would provide search, e-mail, IM, a calender and other applications.
This partnership is part of Sprint’s US$3 billion investment over the next two years to build out their WiMax network. The logic being that once the network is place, people will need Google’s applications to encourage the adoption of their standard. The successful widespread adoption of WiMax is still far from being certain, however this news will certainly help.
Sprint investment is the next generation of broadband technology is important because they are looking to expand outside of the mobile voice, by introducing other services on their own data pipes. As Atish Gude, Sprint’s senior vice president for mobile broadband operations notes, “We have tried to articulate over the last number of months . . . that this is not a cellular model.”
This announcement highlights a trend that should be watched with care. We are already seeing VoIP services being combined with cable and Internet access, with so-called “triple play” services by cable companies. WiMax provides a window to the coming “quadruple play” of phone, cable, Internet and mobile. While “quad play” does ease bill paying and account management, it does force people to rely on one data pipe for all their telecommunication and information services. If service is interrupted, all four media go down. On a normal day, being completely disconnected is not such a big deal… go home early, read a book, or spend time with your family. In an emergency, an ill-timed service outage is devastating.
I feel much more confident in a move towards redundant systems. Sprint and Google’s announcement comes right after T-Mobile’s WiFi phone service launch. In the US, T-Mobile is known for having limited coverage among the four major mobile carriers. Their new service “HotSpots@Home” allows people to place calls using their home WiFi broadband service. When GSM coverage drops, the phones can seamless transfer to WiFi without losing the call. This move allows T-Mobile to extend their coverage with building new towers. While the general discussion of this services focus on the mutually exclusive areas of GSM and WiFi coverage, the overlap is just as important. The overlap exists because people can use this service on any broadband service provider. Now, people have access to two different sets of pipes to maintain service. This model of making services over multiple pipes is crucial and underappreciated, but should be encouraged and even demanded.
image source: marcelstvmuseum
I admit that I watch very little television on a traditional set. Most of my viewing is on my laptop, via WebTV or DVD. However, millions of people in the US do watch on traditional sets. On February 17, 2009, analog television signal will be turned off, and over the air television signals will be strictly digital, and analog televisions will go black. The impending switch over to digital makes this study by the American of Public Television Stations on the public awareness of transition more than a little disturbing.
Although it was study was done in last January, it seems to be getting attention from the media and government only now. Groups including the AARP, National Hispanic Media Coalition and the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights presented their case last week.
22 million US households still get this television signals over the air. Of these households, a ghastly 66% or 14.5 million households are not aware of the switch over. Unfortunately, people who do not know tend to be marginalized groups, such as those respondents aged over 65. Of this group, 24% of them received this programming over tha air (versus 19% of younger households.) Further, of those 65+ aged viewers, only 17% of them owned a digital television.
A huge push to education the country needs to be done in the next 18 months. I hope that broadcasters and government agencies comprehend the magnitude of the problem.
Dtv.gov has information coverage the transition, however, the obvious problem is that you need to know to go there. It does have information on program which runs from Jan. 1, 2008, to March 31, 2009, where U.S. households can request up to two coupons, worth $40 each,to buy digital-to-analog converter boxes.
images source: ClaireOnline.com
I liked Sen. Clair McCaskill (D-Mo.) response to John Kneuer of the Commerce Department and Cathy Seidel of the FCC:
“They’re not going to call you. They’re going to call me, and they’re going to be mad. When people start calling in, I’m giving them your numbers.”
Omma is offering a new telephone service, that will challenge both traditional telcos and VoIP upstarts. After buying their $399 handset, all domestic telephone calls are free. Revenue will come from hardware sales and international calls. (Of course, customers will also have to broadband access.) The initial rollout is by invitation only.
The range VoIP services are still very much in flux. Vonage still facing some potentially devastating legal battles. VoIP startups, like SunRocket, are going under all the time, as their low rates, increasing competition from cable and traditional telcos, and high legal fees have not panned out as viable business models.
Google says that it is considering to bid in the upcoming auction of 700 MHz spectrum, which will be free when television switches over to a digital in 2009.
It could all just be posturing to get the FCC to keep the pipes open, and allow Goggle the ability to sell access in real time, in a way that is similar to their Adsense model.
Once again, Susan Crawford as a good description of what’s at play.
