Technology Futures

There is a lot of confusion about the "right" approach to community broadband, and part of the problem is a lack of clarity about the meaning of "open access" systems. At a high level, open access refers to a network that allows multiple services providers to compete for customers--the right way to do things, as opposed to closed networks typically offered by incumbent telephone and cable companies, who do not want competition (rightly so, from their perspective) on their own infrastructure.

The problem is that there are two common ways of implementing open access systems. The open access "wholesale" model is implemented using Layer 2 network protocols. Using the road analogy, it is as if the community built nice paved high speed roads but did not paint any lines on the roads and did not provide any traffic signals. Each company using the digital road system has to have their software and systems to get packets from their servers to their customers, typically using something called VPNs (Virtual Private Networks). The problem is that lashing up multiple VPNs to a customer (a VPN for phone, a VPN for video/TV, a VPN for Internet access, a VPN for some telehealth service, and so on) creates a lot of overhead and complicates troubleshooting if something is not working. It also raises the cost of service, since each service provider has to provision their own network management system.

An Open Service Provider Network (OSPN) is a different kind of open access system that uses Layer 3 protocols that are managed by the network owner/operator. So every service provider gets to use a single, common network management system. This lowers costs for the service provider (a very good thing), makes it easier for small service providers with new, innovative services to get started (they don't have to have their own network management system), and greatly simplifies troubleshooting.

Everybody wins with an OSPN system because it lowers costs and encourages competition--giving telecom users more choice among providers, more choice of services, and lower prices. When vendors come calling, ask if they support Open Service Provider Networks with full Layer 3 end to end service provisioning. There are two vendors that already do this: Packetfront and WaveTeq. Disclaimer: Design Nine has recommended these vendors to some of our clients.

The Apple iPhone is being widely criticized for having relatively slow data service (about 256 kilobits/second) compared to Verizon's much speedier EVDO data service, which can run two or three times faster. The wireless wars have whipsawed back and forth over the past several years. Four or five years ago, many of us, including me, were enthusiastic about the potential of WiFi winning the wireless connectivity wars. But as the shortcomings of WiFi became clearer, Verizon began deployment of their EVDO wireless technology, which is piggybacked on top of their existing cellular network.

As we know from the famous Betamax vs. VHS war, the best solution does not always win. About a year ago, I began thinking (reluctantly) that perhaps the inferior EVDO system might win the mobile wars. But things are beginning to swing the other way. Verizon, following the Microsoft playbook, has made EVDO data service pricey, and EVDO is not really fast enough to handle all the things we will want to do in just a few years with our wireless devices.

So what does this have to do with the iPhone? At least one expert thinks Apple is smarter than Verizon (I know, that is setting the bar really low). Apple has used the more common and less expensive EDGE data technology in its phone to keep the price down. But it has also built in WiFi support--Verizon, by comparison, usually cripples WiFi in phones it private labels so users are forced to use the more expensive EVDO.

See the pattern? Apple expects that the winner in the wireless wars will be IP based services like WiFi and WiMax. Verizon thinks they can force everyone to purchase their one vendor only EVDO solution. It would be a mistake to bet against Apple: here is an incomplete list of technologies that Apple has pioneered that later became industry standards.

• Ehternet
• Desktop Gigabit Ethernet
• USB
• Firewire
• WiFi (Apple was the first computer company to offer this as a standard component)
• Laser printers
• CD-ROM drives (again, the first company to make it a standard feature)

Apple seems to have a lot of cards it has not yet put on the table when it comes to the iPhone. The next couple of years will be interesting.

The iPhone (picture gallery) utterly changes everything notion we have had about what constitutes a phone/PDA. Like many of Apple's previous design efforts, it will force every other portable device maker to rethink their own designs. But I think Apple has made one mistake that will really limit the potential of the device.

Apple is going to market this as a closed platform, meaning users and developers will not be able to install their own programs and software. There are few forces in the universe more powerful than thousands of nerds writing new applications, and Apple, by trying to control what people are able to do with the iPhone, is making a mistake. The iPhone is pricey, and will certainly be a status device, but a lot of people simply won't bother if they can't adapt such a powerful tool for new uses. As nice as the product is, I'll stick with my Treo, where I can pick and choose what I want to put on it.

The Consumer Electronics Show is in full swing in Las Vegas, so there is a flood of new gadgets. One that caught my eye is iRobot, made the company that produces the very popular Roomba vacuum cleaners and sweepers. iRobot is a round, low mobile base with interfaces that make it easy to add all kinds of, well, robot type stuff. You really need to look at the pictures to get an idea of what is possible.