Exploring the impact of broadband and technology on our lives, our businesses, and our communities.
Google World Domination, Part 3
Internet discussion forums and techie news sites are filled with talk about Google's latest attempt to take over the world. The search company has launched an instant messenger service (Google Talk) that is interoperable with other common IM systems like Apple's iChat, and AOL's system.
But most of the speculation centers around the voice capabilities of the software. Like Apple's iChat, the software lets you talk to the other party, but although the text messaging works with other software, the voice service does not, even though it would have been simple to do so. Apple's iChat uses standard (SIP) protocols, as one example.
The prevailing conspiracy theory is that Google plans to kill all the other VoIP services by using the company's immense pile of cash to finance better software than anyone else can afford, and give the software away for free longer. Skype, one of the best known free/fee VoIP services, lets users talk to other Skype users for free, but charges a fee if you want to place a voice call to someone on the old phone network.
Google has bundled the new service to their GMail email service: you have to register for a Google email account in order to use Google Talk. I've written before about the problem I have with GMail, in which Google gives you a free email account but reserves the right to search, index, and classify every email you send or receive.
Google is using the Microsoft model, which is to buy its way into markets, and crushing the competition by cross-linking products (e.g Google search and Google email), and by providing only limited interoperability with other software and systems.
The biggest loser, potentially, could be Microsoft. Several years ago, Microsoft announced big plans to capture online transactions with services like .Net and Passport. Neither has performed well, and Google, as it offers more and more net-centric services rather than desktop/Windows-centric services, may capture some of Microsoft's marketshare.
But I'm not betting big on Google to win. They've already stumbled several times with new service rollouts, showing that a lot of money does not necessarily produce great marketing or services. If there is a bright side to Google's attempt at world domination, it is that at least we now have two giants battling, rather than just one. It evens the playing field a little.
Technology News:
Another WiMax delay
The Register reports on more delays certifying WiMax equipment. New wireless equipment has to be tested to ensure that it meets the specifications of the 802.16 standard before it can be sold.
It is just one more sign of the danger of spending too much, too fast on wireless "solutions" if you don't have a technology master plan in place. An example of this is Philadelphia's plan to cover most of the city in a WiFi blanket.
A thoughtful plan would roll this out very slowly, mainly to understand market demand, before spending millions on a technology that has several more capable competitors waiting in the wings.
What's wrong with WiFi? We have several years experience using wireless systems, and what is emerging as a wireless marketplace is NOT fixed wireless, which is what WiFi (802.11) was designed for. WiFi is a coffeeshop solution; you take your laptop somewhere, sit down, and connect to the Internet.
What people really want is mobile wireless, which has two components: true mobile connectivity, as in, "riding down the interstate while connected to the Internet." Notice I said "riding," not "driving." Hopefully, someone else is doing the driving while you are Web surfing.
The second kind of mobile wireless is the ability to connect from virtually anywhere, but not necessarily in a moving vehicle. This requires different radio spectrum than WiFi, that can travel farther and that uses fewer hotspots. As I've previously noted, cellular-based systems like EVDO and Flash-OFDM may eclipse WiMax because the products have already been tested and are in deployment.
Planning is essential if you are thinking about community investments in wireless. You need to identify who will use it, under what conditions, and how you will cover the cost of maintenance and operations. And do not take the word of vendors that their "solution" will solve all your broadband problems.
Technology News:
WiMax vs. EVDO: Who will win?
WiMac boosters like Intel think the new wireless technology is just the thing to solve everyone's broadband connectivity problems. Of course, the firm makes WiMax equipment, so you have to take their marketing hype with a grain of salt.
But WiMax and it's little brother, WiFi, offer a unified wireless model that says, "Let's use the Internet to transport everything, including voice phone calls (via VoIP)."
On the other side of the ring, we have the cellular companies, who know that VoIP and wireless have the potential to make their old-fashioned wireless systems obsolete.
The Internet crowd have technological superiority and simplicity on their side. The wireless Internet model is just a better way of doing things. The problem is that virtually no infrastructure is in place to offer those services, and it will cost billions to get enough service in enough places to create markets of paying customers.
The cellular companies are rolling out enhanced data services like EVDO that are not really as good as a pure Internet model, but the big advantage is that the cellphone firms already have lots of infrastructure in place and a large group of paying customers, some of whom are ready today to pay extra for broadband access.
Who's going to win? This looks like a replay of Betamax and VHS.
If the phone companies get enough early adopters to use their enhanced data services, it will make it even harder for new wireless Internet ventures to gain marketshare. If the phone companies are greedy and overprice data service just because competition is currently limited, many customers will jump ship if more affordable Internet wireless becomes available.
It is too early to tell how this will shake out. WiMax equipment is just now beginning to hit the shelves, but there is a lot of pent up demand for better wireless Internet alternatives. It may take six months to a year to see who is winning. In the meantime, don't spend more on Internet wireless than you have a clear need for in the next six months.
Technology News:
Is Iowa the telecom battleground?
Iowa may be the new battleground for broadband. Successful projects like the Cedar Falls fiber system and the statewide Opportunity Iowa project has shifted the battle from Louisiana, where the phone and cable companies lost a battle against the city of Lafayette.
The most interesting thing in the article is the arrogant attitude of the president of Quest:
Max Phillips, Iowa president of Qwest Communications International Inc., said the interests pushing the community fiber programs are misguided because people should focus on the speed and quality of service, not the medium that carries it.
"They propose building a four-lane highway to every home in town," Phillips said, "when what they really need is a sidewalk."
Actually, towns and cities should be focused on the medium, and let the private sector offer a variety of services with varying levels of quality and service. By providing a communitywide transport medium, Qwest's monopoly status is broken, and that's what Qwest really hates.
Even more telling is the remark that citizens deserve nothing more than sidewalks. That's a nice sound bite, but the communities of Iowa are in an economic development battle with whole countries that are building "four lane highways" to homes and businesses.
What Qwest has decided is that the communities of Iowa should have sub-standard, noncompetitive broadband services so that Qwest can preserve its monopoly status. Let's hope the citizens of Iowa educate their lawmakers about the wrongheadedness of this approach.
Technology News:
Community news and projects:
Say good-bye to cable franchise fees
Communities that rely on cable franchise fees to finance local government initiatives like a public access TV channel may have to find other ways to pay for those services.
As the FCC continues to level the playing field for telecom services, cable franchise fee revenues will likely disappear.
Communities will have to reposition this as a right of way fee, instead of a tax on the cable franchise but not on other right of way users. It can't just be regarded as easy money from a single company.
They also have to do a better job of tying the fees to the actual cost of managing right of way. Communities have to catalogue and track what is in public right of ways, and then begin to track how much public works and planning money is spent on managing private uses of public right of way--otherwise there is no way to justify a right of way fee. The old way of just pulling a number out of the air ("We'd like $50K to support our public access station") is not going to work anymore.
It's more a land use issue than a technology issue. And they aren't making more right of way, so it is perfectly appropriate for communities to have an active right of way management program--that's one key role of government--management of scarce resources on behalf of the entire community.
What happens to public access TV? One option is to go all digital and deliver the content via IP TV, rather than the old-fashioned cable system. It could end up costing less, and the public would benefit since the public access "channel" would no longer have any restrictions on the amount of content available. Communities would just put all the programming on a server, and it would be available all the time.
For communities that already have some form of broadband, this is quite doable today. For communities that do not have affordable broadband, it is one more reason to start doing something about the problem.
Technology News:
Freakonomic analysis of the energy "crisis"
Much has been made in the past week or two of the rising oil prices, with much prognosticating about inflation, not being able to afford to drive to Walmart (the New York Times), and other mostly negative economic impacts.
For a different view of the situation, the authors of the book Freakonomics, a popular bestseller that deconstructs the economics of a lot of different phenomenona, see no "the sky is falling" scenarios, and in fact, forecast lots of opportunities.
One of the things the authors point out is what I have been saying, which is that as oil prices go up, alternative fuel and energy systems and sources become more attractive--meaning business opportunities and new economic development alternatives. Nobody likes to pay more for gas, but the higher cost of oil is one sign that the Energy Economy is kicking into a higher gear. Is your region factoring that into its economic development plans?
Technology News:
Public roads, private roads
Imagine if there were no public roads. We would have to pay a private company to drive to and from work, probably in the form of tolls and/or a monthly fee. We might not be able to get certain kinds of goods and services delivered to our homes and businesses because the toll fees made uneconomical for a company to provide delivery services in some areas. In many rural areas, there would be no paved roads, only dirt lanes, as no private road company could make enough money to cover the cost of paving.
What's worse, some essential public services would be limited or unavailable. Residents in rural areas would be without public safety or fire protection whenever the dirt lanes were blocked by snow or muddy from spring rains--no private company could afford to plow the snow or put gravel down.
With the recent FCC decisions that give the cable and telephone companies complete control over their own systems, that's what we have--private digital roads.
What the FCC has missed completely is that there is a deeper issue involved. In principle, I agree with the approach the FCC has taken with these private companies--they should not have to share their own systems with competitors. It's like telling UPS they have to let FedEx use UPS trucks.
As I said, I agree in principle. In practice, what the FCC has missed is that affordable broadband goes beyond just being a nice private sector service to have. It's essential public infrastructure, and so the question becomes, "What is the FCC doing to ensure that communities can build and manage their own infrastructure, and do so in a way that actually supports and promote private sector investments?"
Right now, I'd have to say, "Nothing."
Technology News:
Could telecom be the "new pork?"
This Newsweek article by technology writer Stephen Levy ought to be printed out and mailed to every rural legislator in the country.
The choice of the word "sticks" is unfortunate, but Levy hits the nail on the head. He compares the possibility of getting $500 million from the USF for rural telecom to the huge roads bill ($286 billion), and this gross disparity highlights the lack of understanding that legislators have of the issues facing rural communities.
It's not really a broadband crisis. And I've said so many times before, money has nothing to do with it. It's a leadership crisis. We're spending $286 billion of our tax dollars on roads--20th century transport systems. What is wrong with this picture? Why are our legislators so woefully misinformed about the issues?
Maybe the solution is to present broadband as the "new pork?" I'm joking, sort of, but if the Federal government has $286 billion to spend on 20th century road systems, what *would* it take to get legislators to spend a little on 21st century road systems?
Technology News:
TV is dead, part 3
USA Today has an interesting article about telco giant SBC and the company's plans to deploy IP TV to 18 million households.
In the article, SBC COO Randall Stephenson shrugs off the $4 billion cost of the effort as "not much money for us to burn." That statement ought to make FCC officials sit up and take notice, since recent FCC decisions, we are told, have been designed to help the telcos fight off competition.
If SBC can blithely shrug off a $4 billion gamble, I would say the company does not have enough competition, rather than too much.
But don't be mislead by the article. SBC's IP TV is not the kind of freewheeling and open IP TV envisioned by groups like Participatory Culture are already rolling out.
Instead, it's a completely closed system closer in concept and execution to today's cable TV. You'll need a special set top box designed by Microsoft and available only from SBC, and you'll only get to watch what SBC offers--just like current cable TV.
If relying on Microsoft to make it work doesn't give you a big, queasy knot in your stomach (can you spell "virus," "malware," and "Internet worms?"), how about relying on the phone company for service?
SBC's vision of the future is one in which the Internet access they provide is a "walled garden," where they control everything we see or do.
There are two meta-issues at play with the future of TV.
One is control of the distribution network. If you buy your Internet access from SBC or one of the cable companies, they can control the way data flows over their network to discourage accessing free or alternative video content from sources outside the company. It is critically important for communities and regions to build telecom infrastructure so that citizens and businesses have choice in Internet services.
The second meta-issue is content development. The SBC model, which they are disingenuously calling IPTV, is really the old cable/satellite TV distribution model, using a more efficient transport system. What's already in play are systems like Bit Torrent, RSS, and software from groups like Participatory Culture that enable any individual, group, or company to get into the content creation and distribution business.
SBC's model is evolutionary; it uses new technology to increase the efficiency of a fifty year old business model. The Open Source systems are revolutionary; they are using new technology to enable entirely new business models.
It's easy to throw rocks at the FCC, but recent rulings have clarified the lines of battle. It's the economic future of communities against the telecom cartel. It need not be a long or ugly battle; communities that choose to invest in the future will force the cartel to play fair and offer competitive services.
Communities that don't invest are giving their future away, and may shut out economic development.
Technology News:
More thinking different
While the music industry plays the fiddle as their 20th century distribution model burns down, some bands are not waiting around. A band called Sexohol from Los Angeles has come up with some pretty interesting ideas.
If you go to their Web site, you can buy an Apple iPod Shuffle for just $10 more than what Apple charges. It comes pre-loaded with an album of songs from the band that you can load right into iTunes (Mac and Windows) or into other digital music systems.
Want to hear what the band sounds like before buying? You can download a free Dashboard widget for Macs that streams one of the band songs right onto your computer. This is especially clever because the widget (just a small piece of software) allows the band to distribute a "click to play" version of their song without actually distributing the song itself (because it is streamed from a server).
Technology News:
Knowledge Democracy:
Pages
