Next Gen Communications

Let's get back to business.

2008-04-16T17:58:00.001-05:00

After roughly a year and a half break I believe the time has come to take up the keyboard again.

After too long a pause, we're back!

2008-04-14T18:46:00.002-05:00

For a multitude of reasons that I won't bother to bore you with, there has been a gap in this blog.
I am happy to report that we will now resume where we left off with all of the irreverence you've come to expect.

The Muni Network Administrator's Paradox.

2006-11-25T10:18:00.001-05:00

We have all heard that every journey begins with a single step but in the search to define what are the “best practices” in the Municipal Broadband Network industry the universal answer is, “We don't know”.

The fact is there are no citywide network models that have been functioning for any long period of time that we could look to as examples of how other networks should be built and managed. We do know of many cities that are struggling to figure out how to construct a business model that will work in a sustainable manner over the long term, how to design such a project to take advantage of the this field's ever-evolving technology and how this type of infrastructure can best benefit all of the different segments of their population.

As a real world example, I would like to introduce you to Adam Heller, the IT director for Bridgeport, CT as he attempts to gather as much information as he can over a three day period during the recent Muni Wireless event in Minneapolis. In this case, I am acting as a careful observer of this process with additional commentary provided by several of the knowledgeable people Adam met and interacted with at the show.

From Adam's perspective, Bridgeport is in need of an overall WAN upgrade. Bridgeport's connectivity between its various municipal facilities is substandard and as more enterprise applications are being implemented the WAN is not able to maintain consistent quality or throughput. As a result, Adam has begun to document what the city's current infrastructure consists of and what alternatives exist to alleviate the extreme difficulties of accessing network resources.

In order to define this process Adam inventoried his current application environment paying particular attention as to how to go about upgrading them and inevitably, had to consider what impact future growth was going to have on the picture. In doing so, he framed the situation using the following questions:

What will be our future needs?

What applications are not currently being used that will be after an upgrade?

Are Public Safety needs being met?

Are we going to choose to add voice to this upgraded environment?

What is the city environment like? Is there a "public need" to be able to access municipal resources?

After careful examination of these questions Adam came to the conclusion that a network consisting of a solely wired solution is not a viable option. As the city develops with more construction occurring within the city, public safety communications is also becoming an issue. For some specific examples, traffic congestion is increasing as seen at most stop lights and access to parking is becoming increasingly difficult. Another area that needs to be improved is the need to streamline the building inspections and the building permit process so as to make the entire process more efficient. Additionally, there is also the very real need for mobile access to the Internet for the business community as well as providing for the communities at the lowest end of the economic scale, many of which do not have access to the Internet at all. This is all part of the myriad of issues that arise when we look closely at the future needs of our city's network that as of today cannot meet our present requirements.

The question now becomes, if the city has the need for all of these extra resources, what technologies are available to meet these demands? This is what brings Adam to the MuniWireless event allowing him the opportunity to research the municipal wireless industry. Being in the unique position of planning an overall infrastructure upgrade, Adam felt that now is the time to explore what a municipal wireless network is and how it could be designed so as to incorporate an eventual deployment into Bridgeport's plans, as well as avoid potential pitfalls as the city moves forward.

The first task is to define what a municipal wireless network is - specifically to their city. Is it the "wave of the future" or is it going to be yet another maintenance nightmare? What is the purpose of deployment? Is it going to serve the needs of the community as a whole? If not, what segments of the population will it serve? If so, what priorities will Adam have to set on deployment? Does Bridgeport go with an exclusively wireless network or do we go with a hybrid wireless/wired combination? What security issues will we face and are we opening ourselves up to a host of issues in that respect?

After deliberating all of these issues Adam has defined his concept for Bridgeport's Municipal Wireless Network as follows:

A municipally owned and operated network that will provide access to municipal resources as well as providing Internet access to the community including those that may not currently have access. In addition, this network will provide for new services to enhance public safety and enhance the experience of everyone living or working in our city while encouraging community and economic development.

With that being said, how would one accomplish this task? The first thing to do is to find out what other communities are following this same route. The second thing to do is find a way to speak to industry experts to see how they define the criteria which should provide an explanation as to what they have experienced. As opportunity does seem to favor the prepared, it was at this time when Adam discovered that there is a conference designed to provide him with an opportunity to discuss municipal wireless with his peers, as well as to discuss these issues with people in the industry.

Adam's first session was hosted by Dewayne Hendricks (Dandin Group) and focused on bandwidth. One of the fundamental decisions that needs to be addressed in any municipal deployment is how much throughout will the network deliver to the user. This is one of the more hotly debated questions and the fact is there really is no one right answer. This is a specification that each city must make a determination based on what they believe is right for their situation.

Dewayne Hendricks believes that “Life Begins at 100Mbps” and is now in the process of deploying just such a network in Sandoval County, New Mexico to demonstrate that concept. For Dewayne, the very idea that the United States is near the bottom of the world's industrialized nations as far as broadband speeds is abhorrent – especially since the issue isn't a technological limitation but instead caused by a combination of failed policy and an artificial scarcity of bandwidth created by the incumbents.

While showing that the technology exists and more importantly, at an acceptable price, Dewayne is also working towards lowering the wholesale cost of bandwidth. If we look at the cost of bandwidth in San Francisco versus the cost for the same amount of bandwidth in just about every small town or city in the US, it is easy to see why high speed broadband service has such a wide disparity from location to location. If you want to carry that comparison further one only need look to Asia where wholesale broadband costs significantly less making exceptionally high speed broadband service substantially less expensive to the end user. For a specific example, in Tokyo the cost of a 100Mbps connection is on par with a 3Mbps DSL connection in New York City and one can easily understand how this disparity will have a detrimental effect on any business that is broadband based or heavily depends on connectivity.

Attending the same session but taking a somewhat different view is Damien Fox (Wireless Nomad) who became interested in broadband deployment as a way of equalizing opportunity among his neighbors. As someone who never thought he would be interested in broadband technologies Damien was attracted to this industry when he realized that the digital divide had a very real effect on a person's ability to get ahead.

As an example, let's look at two children, perhaps classmates at the same school, who are given a history assignment on D-Day. The child on the dialup connection would be relegated to waiting for his computer to connect, then wait for a search engine page to load (taking the better part of a minute) clicking on a link (again, taking another minute for that page to load) and if we assume that this page has the necessary information the child was looking for this child's entire educational experience would be reading a page of text with a grainy picture or two to illustrate the subject.

Conversely, the child on broadband would immediately see the search engine page load, would be able to quickly browse through several different sites and then could participate in a rich multimedia experience which might include actual footage taken at the battle or audio recordings of interviews from veterans who participated in this event.

The stark reality is that one child is going to have far better educational opportunities than the other with the tragedy being that the real cost to provide this resource to both children is negligible - but only if we chose to do so.

One point Damien did emphasize in the follow up conversation was that there's no such thing as a free network and one should not underestimate the cost of providing real access to information resources rather than just total up the cost of a monthly DSL line and an obsolete computer. It is important to keep in mind that despite all the costs of bridging the digital divide, the cost of not doing so is far greater, in the long term and the bottom line is that to a child that has a dialup connection (or no connection at all) even a 1Mbps broadband connection is a godsend.

As you can see, for Adam, this is exactly the conversation he was hoping to become part of when he decided to book this trip.

In a subsequent conversation that took place later that evening, the subject of what should be the minimum connection throughput a municipal network should provide again was again brought up. Jay Barnell (Barnell Technology Services) submitted this observation for consideration, “What we really need to continually do is hold ourselves up to the international community for comparison as opposed to each community looking at the neighboring city up the interstate to gage of how we are all doing.” This reinforces the point that Dewayne is making that we need to be setting our goals high enough to make sure we are relevant as we move forward, even though there is no arguing that if the financial resources are the overall constraint, providing something is always better than nothing.

As the discussion continued the next day, an informal, ad hoc group formed to address some of the other questions that make up the foundation of a Municipal project were also tackled. Drew Lentz (Meshtek) hammered the point home that the three most important things to remember was “Design, design, design.” Over the years Drew has repeatedly run across instances of network deployments where the builder pushed the equipment's specifications beyond where it should be realistically expected to go. As one would expect, this inevitably leads to a network that cannot live up to its expectations.

The other side of this issue is where the network's specifications were not clearly spelled out or explained properly, creating the same scenario of failure where the network does not live up to the buyer's (or the end user's) expectations. One such issue is any type of promise which tries to specify what percentage of end users will be able to connect without the need of additional equipment. (CPE) In dense residential areas where buildings made of wood, brick, stone as well as stucco the individual user experience will vary in ways that is impossible to predict with any accuracy. Unless the entire user base is provided with a well organized educational campaign there will surely be some people who will feel slighted as they will need to spend a significant amount of money to get connected where their neighbor will not.

To complicate matters further, there may also be an eventual failure that may not manifest itself immediately as there will always be a considerable lag from the network launch and the time when the critical mass of users become part of the network. Couple that with the knowledge that the services end users are now demanding will require more bandwidth, as in the case of YouTube, and you have a disaster just waiting to happen.

Perhaps the most insidious subject to come up in the conversation was that of dealing with network security. Ash Dyer, a recent graduate of MIT and now part of the Cambridge Public Internet project, brought up several very important points that many Municipal Network managers might not even be aware of. While many of the security issues wireless networks face are also problems on wired networks, they are exacerbated by the omnidirectional nature of wireless. Incredibly, something as simple as a rogue access point added to the network without proper protection could potentially compromise thousands of people's data. Drew Lentz added that off-the-shelf programs widely available as a free download (Ethereal as an example) could allow anyone to intercept anything from regular user account
information (including passwords) to credit card numbers and banking information. Ash responded that when the potential for compromising sensitive municipal data is also likely in these cases a well-publicized security breach on one of these networks could have serious ramifications across the entire industry.

For someone like Adam, this is the stuff that nightmares are made of. However, if we accept that knowledge is the best prevention in staving off these types of failures, Adam will tell you that the best three days he could have spent learning what he needed to know was at the MuniWireless event and I don't think it would be presumptuous to expect we will be seeing him at the Dallas show in March.

The Muni Network Administrator's Paradox.

2006-11-25T10:18:00.000-05:00

What will be our future needs?

What applications are not currently being used that will be after an upgrade?

Are Public Safety needs being met?

Are we going to choose to add voice to this upgraded environment?

What is the city environment like? Is there a "public need" to be able to access municipal resources?

A municipally owned and operated network that will provide access to municipal resources as well as providing Internet access to the community including those that may not currently have access. In addition, this network will provide for new services to enhance public safety and enhance the experience of everyone living or working in our city while encouraging community and economic development.

The race begins for the real assets in this industry.

2006-09-21T05:16:00.000-05:00

Without going into specifics, a number of interesting discussions have crossed my desk in the last few weeks which have forced me to look a little deeper into what is going on in this industry.

Let's look back for a minute and check out one of the parallels that we can point to for a glimpse of what is really going on here.

Back in the early 1980s, IBM introduced their Personal Computer and within a matter of months the industry grew to a point where the was a severe shortage of technicians to build, install and service these computers. This was a problem for several years moving forward as more of these systems sold and the ability to train people could not keep pace. Were there problems because of this? Absolutely! In one case a furniture retailer went out of business (and we all know that never happens!) and when the autopsy was complete it turned out that their accounting system had a "bug" that mistakenly showed more money in the bank than was actually there. One can see where that might become a problem very quickly. Had there been one sharp network engineer in the company, he might have caught the glitch and saved the company.

You know, for want of a nail...

What has happened in our industry now seems to be taking a parallel course as we now have municipalities and extremely large deployments planned yet the people who should be employed to design and build these networks are not participating in this work. In the last three months I have listened to some pretty serious examples of what would be considered malpractice if it was a medical case as the details of failed deployments are relayed to me, usually asking if I can fix them – as though a wave of a magic wand could fix designs that should have been questioned before a decision to purchase the equipment was made, let alone the full deployment built out.

Where this gets to be interesting is that this shows a complete failure of the entire process, from design through final approval. Of course, one would have to ask what good the review board is if they have little to no functional experience in this field - heck, many of these people have never even heard the term WISP before. I can't tell you have many times I have run into committees made up of a few ex-telecom employees (downsized out of a job) complimented by the office computer expert with some "networking" expert (I haven't quite figured out what the qualifications for that position are yet) thrown in to round out the experience. As best I can figure they probably should have invited a protologist to completely round out their combined skill sets.

Whether we are talking about “designers” that believed one could engineer a network where over a dozen 400Kbps video streams could reliably be pushed down a 5.5Mbps WiFi connection or multipath would somehow not be a factor in their deployments many of the mistakes being made are the same mistakes that some of the early WISPs learned the hard way. I was one of those people having made nearly all of the mistakes one could make – or so I would like to think. Yet, this process repeats itself and in this iteration we see the fingers being pointed in every direction except where they should be right back at the designers.

The reality is that designing a wireless infrastructure isn't as easy as deploying radios every X feet and then turning them on. Incredibly, this is the mindset of some of these “project engineers” who have extensive experience in setting up Linksys boxes in their homes to share an Internet connection with two notebooks or so one might think. Where some of these bigger metropolitan networks ever thought they were going to be rolling out adequate bandwidth based on a 512Kbps connection to even a 1Mbps connection to the end user shows a level of comprehension as to how the Internet actually works on par with Senator Stevens [R-Clogged Tubes]

We all know there is a widening gap in broadband happening in the industrialized world as many countries have outstripped the US in connecting their communities and I have heard all the excuses. If we dismiss all the excuses as nothing more than, well, excuses the bottom line is that we are not providing adequate connectivity for our businesses and individuals to effectively compete with the rest of the world – even though we are well ahead of many developing countries. GO TEAM!

Well, where is the real problem? That answer is actually easier to come by than we might want to believe. It is time for the people who made this industry to step forward and be employed in this endeavor. As I look back over the better part of the last decade I have seen many people struggle to learn how the pieces of this all fit together. Many dove in as complete novices, built networks while teaching themselves everything from RF theory through marketing and business management. There were some spectacular failures as we all know that one person companies are not going to be successful at being all things to all people. But that doesn't mean the lessons learned by many of these people aren't valuable – actually to anyone trying to build one of these networks out it should be invaluable.

Instead, I see large companies investing in people that have zero knowledge aside from what they read in an owners manual or what a manufacturer taught them in a two day class – with results that equal the effort and investment made.

If you really want to know where the value is in this industry, it is the people, many of them the original WISPs or more likely hobbyists who first started experimenting with this technology that is where everyone should be looking – not at the rocket surgeons that claim they have a clue. The funny thing is that there really aren't a large number of these people and out of that number many of them never actually “got it” in any kind of real way. This is where the near future is going to get very interesting – if you consider massive failures with blame being pointed at the technology or anything else that can be found to complete the CYA mandate as being interesting.

So, where are the assets in this industry?

The people.

Until then I will keep answering the phone and answering the same questions. Whether it is the large corporations or the municipal network people I keep hearing the same things asked of me and to be honest with you, if you have to ask where the ignition key goes you probably shouldn't be driving a car.

Validation?

2006-07-01T06:34:00.000-05:00

For the last three years I have sat in this chair, read voraciously and tried to predict what the near term future of this convoluted industry might look like two or three years out. Having no fear of publicly making an idiot out of myself, I have published these projections here and elsewhere for all to read knowing full well that if I am wrong, I will hear about it – and I have been wrong more than once.

That's why when I read something that seems to corroborate what I believe from a credible source I tend to react with a small bit of pride along with a healthy dose of trepidation knowing that whatever source I have found could also be just as wrong as I have been at times.

Perhaps this is nothing more than the old adage that misery loves company...

Yesterday was a red letter day for me in this regard as two different credible sources seem to have backed up what I have been saying for quite some time now! If we were to take either of these reports separately they would show some pretty interesting trends which might indicate some serious changes are coming down the pike but when read together the real impact of what this wireless revolution is about to wreak on our society.

As you've heard me say before, VoWiFi is going to cause the Cell Providers some discomfort. This article from Cellular News paints a mixed picture as it discusses how the cell phone industry might be able to leverage the License Exempt wireless infrastructure.

"This trend is likely to occur globally as operators seek to increase roaming usage as a boost to declining voice revenues. Visiongain believes that price reductions by operators will succeed in driving usage, allowing operators to tap into the 95% of subscribers who currently do not use roaming services whilst abroad.

VoIP through Wi-Fi will become an increasingly attractive alternative to mobile voice calls whilst roaming due to the disparity in price. Visiongain found that a typical voice call whilst roaming over Wi-Fi costs $0.02 per minute, compared with a typical cost of $1.25 per minute through mobile.

The increase in Wi-Fi hotspots world-wide is creating more opportunity for travelers to utilize VoIP services, therefore threatening mobile roaming revenues. In addition, visiongain believes that Nokia's entry into the Wi-Fi market with its converged GSM / Wi-Fi handset, the 6136, is significant because it legitimizes the technology's entry into the mobile handset market."

Now, you do need to understand that this article is written with a European perspective in mind so there is certainly a differential in pricing to be taken into consideration. However, the message is the same, cell phone providers are going to have to modify their pricing structure and this is being driven by the UMA (unlicensed mobile access) end of the industry.

I also found this short article that provides a little more information about the Nokia 6136 courtesy of Engadget.

While we are looking at the pioneers taking their first steps into this new field, the ramifications of what this will do to an industry that cannot withstand an onslaught like this, financially speaking, is going to be pretty interesting to watch unfold.

Well, where might this push the cell phone industry to pick up new revenue? There is the move to deliver “LiveTV” to mobile users as I wrote about here. But there is also the newest wrinkle being used in Japan dubbed the “Mobile Wallet” which may also help the cell phone providers – if they don't get beaten out by the WiFi industry first.

Okay, one down and one more very powerful one to go.

Next week, there is going to be a study released by Broadband Advisory Services (Pike and Ficher) that states, “City-run broadband networks could eventually cut into commercial service provider revenues by as much as 48%” which no matter how you look at it is going to change the landscape dramatically."

This report can be purchased here.

The question remains, what happens when large corporations that do not have 33% profit margins see a significant decrease in their revenues? Even more to the point, what happens when the cash cow (as defined by the densely populated areas of our country) migrate away from their very expensive services due to the introduction of less expensive equivalent services? At what point does their business model suffer? More importantly, at what point does their business model cease to be able to sustain itself?

I guess well find out.

Hang in there, the opportunities are coming at us faster than we can recognize and react to them.

MuniWireless-Silicon Valley – It just keeps getting better.

2006-06-29T06:27:00.000-05:00

For three days last week (June 19th through the 21st) the MuniWireless organization held their show in Santa Clara California. Attendance was (once again) up from their previous show in Atlanta and there is a reason for that – a well produced show, excellent topics and a list of great speakers that I was proud to be a part of.

By focusing in on the specific niche that this show targets it is possible to entice an interesting mix of attendees that span the spectrum from free community wireless groups, non-profit organizations trying to better the world like Green-WiFi and to some of the largest corporations in the world, like IBM, Northrop Grumman and General Dynamics as well as representative of some of the larger cities that are considering building municipal networks.

It is exactly this mix of people that makes for the kind of cross-educational exchange that many of us find so valuable. While the sessions covered a wide range of interesting topics most of my time was spent networking with people outside of the sessions. It is really difficult to fully take in any exceptionally well put together show so we are all forced to make decisions as to what we will participate in and what we will have for forgo in order to get what we believe will deliver the best experience for us on an individual basis. In this particular case, I made the decision to not attend many excellent sessions that I am sure I would have learned an incredible amount in so I could interact with people, quite literally, from all over the world. In all honesty, if the show had been scheduled for an entire week I am not sure I would have had enough time to take in everything that was offered.

This show also had a larger selection of vendors than the previous show. While many of the names that were there are well known to us all, there were a few interesting additions that I had not seen before. I am hoping to do a dedicated piece on a few of these manufacturers like Netistix and Wavion in the near future as both of these companies offer products that are outside of the norm.

There is a deeper issue that I would like to bring up, one that should be discussed more often but is often overlooked when we discuss an event like MuniWireless, one that has a benefit that I am not sure many people in attendance understand is what kind of alliances are formed, what kind of ideas are spawned and can we really even begin to understand what dramatic effects a gathering of minds like this show creates has on the longer term benefit to society. In different discussions that I was part of I heard plans to help connect people in India, plans to integrate automobiles into the communications platforms as well as serious concepts at fixing communications after disasters. The diverse brain power coupled with an incredible energy that resonated at this show was unmistakable. One very important point was made clear, individuals, businesses both small as well as huge, organizations and governments are looking at problems – real problems – and doing something about them.

If we amplify this thought, we see that no longer is profit solely the motivator in this case, many of the people there were representing non-profit organizations. What we are seeing is a melding of business and private groups coming together to address problems so as to provide solutions that the majority can accept. We see the Electronic Frontier Foundation discussing privacy issues with Google in an attempt to find a way that both sides can live with. We get introduced to organizations such as Wireless Harlem presenting their vision along with groups like Seakay working to find the right mix of partnership to make their corner of the world a better place. Perhaps, most of all, in the center of this all, is one woman, Esme Vos whose vision, energy and determination has driven this once unheard of slice of the wireless industry straight into the public spotlight and we can now all clearly see what she has know for quite some time now, that this is only a start.

The best is yet to come.

The hidden impact of ubiquitous video distribution.

2006-06-24T08:40:00.000-05:00

Over the last week a couple of news articles caught my eye with respect to the distribution of video across the Internet. In the past few articles I have written I have primarily focused on the aspect of what the network operators might be looking at as a real impact due to video becoming a dominant use of the connectivity infrastructure.

Take, for a specific example, the cell phone providers as they struggle to build out/upgrade the necessary infrastructure so they can supply LiveTV to their users as just one way we can see the push to accommodate user demand for this application.

The same holds true for cable or DSL as we move towards an all HDTV video standard and the user does not want to wait for ...Buffering...Buffering...Buffering...Buffering... content to be viewable or have their viewing experience interrupted as they are just starting to enjoy themselves – not that it has ever happened to me or anything.

While all of that is certainly true and important to our discussions there is a slightly deeper impact that seems to be crawling out into the light, one that is going to profoundly impact the way our society moves forward, one that will change the way we learn and communicate. There is a time in the not too distant future where we will no longer have to settle for average.

What do I specifically mean when I say that we will no longer have to settle for average?

If we were to look at any given profession we would find that the overwhelming majority of time we are dealing with the average performance – as they say DUH, that is the definition of average. However, what happens when we have a communications based society where only the very best see the mass distribution of their work. I am not talking about the very best in the sense of people, even thought that will undoubtedly have an impact but rather only the cream of the crop ever making the mainstream distribution channels. What happens to this society when only the most inspired lectures be granted the right to be distributed across the Internet? Even more important, how do we define the best? Will there be a user feedback section where if 99% of the viewers leave excellent ratings will the next group of people only view that one particular video out of all the choices?

If we were to use the example of an on-line class on any given subject we could envision a scenario where many professors would record their course and release it for viewing. I would suggest that as time progresses the students that watched the course would then rate the content for ease of understanding, charisma and organization among other criteria. Even though we would have several excellent people all trying to present this course material the one or perhaps two that were most effective (as rated by the students) would eventually become the “standard” until someone else managed to produce a “better” video assuming they could overcome the momentum built up from several thousands positive feedback ratings on the standard.

The implication is that professionally produced content with an eye toward capturing the audience's attention and conveying the message will at some point displace the rest of the people in the field that are involved in providing the same subject material. At that point there will be only one option left for the content providers that are deemed less than the best of category and that would be for them to release their material into the public domain. This also creates an interesting problem because if there is a parity in the quality of the material the viewing audience will almost always gravitate toward the free content (or advertising supported content, as long as it doesn't degrade from the viewing experience) leaving less of a paying audience for the previous provider.

What does this say if we apply this scenario to the education industry? Are we moving towards a society that doesn't need hundreds of thousands of educators? Will we at some point reach a time where only a few very professional content producers will manufacturer every lecture we will need to see to continually keep up with our education? Will we reach a point where teachers will be reduced to content writers and the face on the screen will only read the content possibly without even fully comprehending what is being said?

Even more important, what will be the overall effect on a society that only sees one perspective or one presentation of any given subject? Could this happen in such a technological future as we might possibly foresee or will this very mechanism allow for the rapid distribution of content and since we now have an almost instantaneous communications infrastructure to get the message across we will now have the ability to comment and produce even better content to displace the previous content?

To be honest with you, I don't know. At the same time I do see a time in the not too distant future where the mechanism of how we learn (or exchange our information, news and entertainment) will morph into a very different stream. As TV shows like The Daily Show start to displace the Evening News one has to wonder if education, entertainment and news will all become one as we move forward.

I do know that no longer will we have to settle for an average day by the average speaker as being acceptable and I, for one, welcome that change.

Handwriting on the wall...

2006-06-16T13:43:00.000-05:00

Some interesting opinions and information delivered to me courtesy of the Internet has driven me to take a stab at where we might be headed and what impact we may see in the coming years.

First off, Cringley released an interesting perspective that discusses where TV (if you can even call it that) might be headed. Whether you think these opinions are off base or right on the money probably depends on your perspective. At the same time, it is pretty evident to everyone (with the possible exception of the Incumbents) that video entertainment has evolved past the channel/time selection process.

One thing I can say for sure is the list of video on demand sites has grown substantially over the last year or two. Heck, even the definition of video on demand has changed. There was a time when VoD was defined as being able to choose whatever TV show or movie you wanted to view being able to be delivered to you on your schedule - not necessarily when the television station, movie theater or distributor said you could watch it.

Whether we look at sites like YouTube, Google Video, IFilm, Sputnik7 or many of the sites that cover that other kind of video that we won't mention, video is now becoming one of the main forms of entertainment Internet surfers are going after.

But that is only looking at the content download side of the equation, where does this content come from? Strangely, from the general public - and this trend is about to really take off as the combination of inexpensive digital video cameras combines with video editing software to allow anyone with the time, money and desire to produce video content.

I see this trend as putting a stake right through the heart of the traditional distribution avenues. Let's face it, Napster forever changed the way music is not only distributed but allowed to find its way into the mainstream. It is now possible for bands that have never been signed to have listeners all over the globe without ever once seeing the inside of a Music Industry controlled studio. And now the same is about to happen to the TV and movie industry.

This also has ramifications all the way down the line. It isn't just the television and movie studios that will see serious changes, it is the video rental stores, music stores as well as cable and satellite TV distribution networks. The same holds true for radio stations as well as local TV stations - except for this last group who will now see new opportunities open up for them based solely on talent and content.

Instead of some plastic Barbie doll talking head being the star of the hour, now we actually might seen people from God knows where being piped into our homes across IPTV or Internet radio stations that we choose based solely on content and talent. Imagine, I can now get rid of the bimbo and have someone with brains and a sense of humor deliver me my news! There is also the very real chance (as Cringley mentioned) that this could be the rebirth of local content. You might recall that I wrote about a gentleman I met from Montreal who was using off-the-shelf SANS storage boxes in conjunction with hot spot locations to distribute local content very inexpensively. It is this kind of innovation that will create the necessary capsizing of these entrenched industries and allow for the innovation we really need to see to happen.

Where the handwriting seems to be pointing is somewhere deliberate - somewhere we cannot undo or shy away from, a place where the status quo will not remain but instead evolve into something unrecognizable.

It will also be a very different world, one very foreign to people who aren't keeping track of the changes.

On a somewhat related note, let's take a look at this study about teenagers and their Net usage patterns.

If what is being documented in this study is correct, our kids (early adopters of technology that they are) will have several streams of media coming at them concurrently and "ubertask" until the break of dawn.

There's a fourteen year old that lives in this house, one that I get to watch. At any given moment he has a half dozen chat windows open, a forum where he is casually posting to, a voxel editor open designing bits and pieces for game modding as well as watching a video at different times. When he gets bored of that he'll open up a game and attach to a server where he will play with other people from all over the world while chatting with them at the same time.

One the other hand, I have finally learned that doing two things at the same time for me is the definition of half-assed.

But I watch very well, I learn and I try to bring you all here what I pick up.

Good luck keeping up with it all, forewarned is prepared only if you take notice and do something about it.

The complete loss of control.

2006-05-08T06:24:00.000-05:00

For those of you who read these writings regularly, understanding the running theme that sovereign nations' physical borders are very quickly becoming meaningless is a regular subject here. Whether we choose to understand that the Internet is changing our lives in ways we really can't begin to fathom or acknowledge that almost everything we do in our lives is being influenced by this new communications platform makes little difference, the “net effect” is there nonetheless.

If you need a few concrete examples, some of the laws proposed by well-intentioned but clueless members of the United States Congress with respect to copyrighted materials or even pornography would be a good place to start. But other, less publicized stories are probably showing the impact of technology, oftentimes done by only a few people in a dark basement are making major changes in the way this infrastructure will influence the future.

Take these three gentlemen, the creators of Psiphon, which is a incredibly disruptive technology designed to skirt censorship in countries like China, Iran and Saudi Arabia among others. This latest version of the pick that opens the newest lock is another push in the direction of loss of control by a sovereign nation as to what is acceptable use for their citizens to use the Internet.

If we look to the examples I used earlier that the US Congress is trying to enact, we can see a corollary between the US government's enforcement of morality and the Chinese government's enforcement of “acceptable information” and how neither country is really fully capable of any kind of real control.

In the case of the United States, we have the somewhat difficult regulation which allows the local community to set their own standards as to what is considered to be obscene. The “I know it when I see it.” law (clearly detailed here) is now becoming almost unintelligible as the entire world becomes our local community.

When the US Congress wanted to make hosting pornography more difficult, the “Adult Entertainment industry” simply moved their hosting business offshore to countries that have no such regulations. The net effect to the subscribers of this service? In all reality, none.

What is happening here is a migration from what control a government actually has over their citizens. While there is certainly the implied understanding that is someone is caught violating local law they can and probably will be dealt with the other side of the discussion must include how much longer it will be possible for local governments to even be able to monitor their citizens or control their activity.

The ramifications of this is nothing short of staggering.

What happens when a government loses control over many of the aspects they used to believe they had the right to control? Do they mandate that we will have to comply? And if they do and too many people refuse to listen? Would this lead to a situation like what happened with Prohibition where prosecutors were unable to get convictions and the law was overturned? How about the “war on drugs” and how successfully that is being waged? We have the highest percentage of population of any industrialized country in the world incarcerated in “for profit” prisons and drug use still hasn't declined in any real measurable way.

Are we looking at a fundamental breakdown in how our system works? If more and more laws are passed to prevent the free exchange of material (yes, even objectionable materials) how long before we reach a state where very few people are actually complying with these laws? How long before we come to the conclusion that government is no longer serving the majority of the people? But most importantly, at what point does the local government secede control to the greater world since it can no longer filter what can and cannot be exchanged?

It appears that the next revolution will be carried live on the Internet. The strange thing is that I don't think a fair number of people understand that it is happening right now, as you read this and it is gaining momentum very, very quickly.

We all know change is coming. If history has taught us anything (and that is still up for debate) change has been one constant and no matter how much we try to fight it change will continue to happen. The real question that needs to be addressed is can we shape this change or should we learn to graciously accept it?

My concerns are that we will refuse to acknowledge it and fight harder against it. Where the real problem comes in is the rate change is occurring. Technology has passed the point of innovation happening at breakneck speed and has now become so pervasive that it has reached the point of overwhelming for the majority of us.

And that is where the real contention lies.
We will learn to adapt or cease to be relevant.
Thankfully, there are some truths that never change.

The Community-Centric Network.

2006-04-29T06:57:00.000-05:00

Okay, I get it!

I admit, I completely missed the point and I missed it for years but I do get it now.

What am I talking about?

The mindset in which a communications infrastructure needs to be planned around. For the longest time I focused in on the "business model" (something we all know is critical in sustainability) as well as the diversity of services that can/should be carried on the network. I have had incredible arguments with people over what a realistic ROI should look like and why grant money (read my tax dollars) being used against local businesses (like my business) was a self-defeating concept. At the same time I saw the total benefit of these networks as being centered on Broadband as well as providing different services all the while totally missing the point - all of it, every bit of it, is meaningless unless the community - every last member of the community - is getting benefit from the deployment.

What does this mean? I mean what does this really mean?

The fallacy is that a communications platform should be a business first is wrong - very wrong. A communications network is a benefit to the community, one that when properly implemented serves the community but does so in a way unlike other utilities. This may be the very first instance where we will see a real dramatic drop in real costs to any given area while increasing a myriad of services - but only if the design, build and most importantly the implementation is executed right from the conception to the actual launch with the community foremost in the designer's mind.

Why is this different?

Let's look at how the typical sales cycle would work in a fictitious network sale.

The salesperson contacts "Mr. Interested Party" and starts to explain all of the benefits of their product and what it will mean to "Mr. Interested Party's" captive audience. As with every good salesperson, only the features will be touted leaving any unpleasant details out of the conversation because, after all, who likes to bring up unpleasantries?

Remember, "Mr. Interested Party" isn't usually a highly trained technical guy, he is the man given the questionable task of gathering all the details, learning as he goes, and trying to make sense of it all in a three page report to "The Governing Body" who will eventually be charged with making a decision. Occasionally, "The Governing Body" will appoint "A Committee" which is another group of well intentioned people who have the function of interfacing with "Mr. Interested Party" and trying to learn as they go but really the only function "A Committee" serves is to help spread the blame around in case everything goes badly.

What needs to be kept in mind is that "Mr. Interested Party" is depending on salespeople to provide him with everything he needs to know so he can then regurgitate all of these facts back to "A Committee" allowing them to make an educated choice. And, as we all know (including "Mr. Interested Party") salespeople are always a reliable source of unbiased information.

Eventually, this entire process comes to an end and a vote is taken allowing one or another salesperson to get a huge commission. Where the story goes from there is really up in the air. Based on my experience there is never a time when everyone (I mean like every single one of the people being governed by "The Governing Body") is satisfied but that is human nature and we probably shouldn't take that too seriously.

But this is how it works, what should we be doing differently?

Stated in its most basic form, we should be working from the bottom up, not the salesperson down.

What? What the heck does that mean?

This is a very simple process, one that takes the entire community's perspective into account and aims to make sure that as big a percentage as possible not only takes part in the process but sets the boundaries for the process.

I see this process as taking on another tact when the decision comes to attack this problem. First, there needs to be a survey as to what the community needs. This survey should be centered on several things including first and foremost how this network will save the community money - real money. Once that issue has been addressed we then need to ask the community what services the community feels is important to them. Broadband might be one service but what about things like access to government services or reducing the time it takes to get answers out of their government? Will this network allow for interaction between more people and their government? If so, how?

Next up, but every bit as important, how will this network benefit ME? Seriously, we live in a society that is only really concerned about "ME" so let's look at how this infrastructure will make MY life better - and I don't mean indirectly. If I have an accident will this network improve the response time from the police department, fire department and the ambulance squad if I need one? Will I be getting better treatment while I am being transported to the hospital because of the network? Will traffic be routed around the accident scene and will the tow truck be dispatched any faster so that my neighbors will not be stuck in line (ah, never mind, that's not really important to me - forget them, I might have been hurt and after all, who is important to ME?)

How about senior citizens, how will this improve their quality of life? Will they be able to live in their homes longer while having a safer life? Will the kids in our community also be benefited directly because of this network? Will a gaming server be set up so they can utilize this type of entertainment? Will there be a chat board set up, hopefully one with enough foresight to be multi-generational - not that adults or senior citizens don't already have enough interaction with our kids, right?

How about education? No, not that education, I mean real, quality continuing education. We all know the Internet has become the largest inactive library on the planet allowing anyone to learn just about anything they might want. Will this new infrastructure allow for local information to be stored there for retrieval? Will WWII veterans be able to share their history with many of the kids who have an interest in that black and white war? How about the retelling of what it was like to live through the Depression? These stories could be gathered locally and be made available for posterity - because if there is anything we can all agree on, posterity needs this.

Education? EDUCATION? Forget that, I want entertainment. Let's face it, we could all have the Smithsonian in our backyards and a sizable portion of the residents wouldn't even walk out back to see what it was. So, in addressing these people (hey, they're part of the community too!) we need to explain how this network will benefit them also.

But probably the single most important question out there is how will this network help me financially? Will it allow me to make more money by working less hours? Certainly, there are a ton of nice people in Nigeria that want to reach out and touch someone but what about all those foreign lotteries I keep hearing about? Hey, I hear there's online gambling that will certainly help me pay my bills - as long as you own that online casino.

Seriously, how does this network help me in my career? Can I now get a job that allows me to work from the comfort of my home? Will this network allow me to telecommute, not only saving me time and money but allowing me a choice - a real choice - on where I choose to live? Will video conferencing be a reality as well as real LAN connections to the corporate office from my home so I can get my work done? Will this help lower my company's total cost of operation so I will get a pay raise based on there being more money in the company's bank? (Okay, I admit, that's not going to happen.)

How does this process happen?

The answer is amazingly simple, change the current perception of how we think the process should be handled.

No kidding. Sometimes the most complex situations have the simplest answers.

Get ready, you're about to be screwed – again.

2006-04-28T06:56:00.000-05:00

It has been a busy week in Washington, one with a lot of ramifications. I especially enjoy the slight of hand tricks that we are sometimes treated to when we are told watch what's in my right hand as the left hand holds the key.

What was this week's distraction? Net Neutrality!

But wait, you say, Net Neutrality is important and you would be right – except that while you were watching the right hand the left hand was really setting you up for the fall. I suppose some accolades are in order for the people (and I use that term with all the artistic license I can muster) who “engineered” this bill, they managed a coup that will cost this country in immeasurable ways for decades to come.

What we have been handed is not only a loss on Net Neutrality but also one on “anti-redlining” something that if you live in an underserved or unserved area, you have just been condemned to a second class citizenhood for the foreseeable future.

As quoted from this article,

“An anti-redlining amendment offered by Baldwin, D-Wis., lost 20-28 and was one of several such efforts to fail.

The committee did approve an amendment offered by chairman Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, that set it up so that refusal to serve homes based on income could cost a phone company up to $50,000 per day in fines until a remedy had been enacted.

However, Orton said that amendment names the Federal Communications Commission as the governing authority, rather than the local franchising body.”

What does this mean? Well, if the larger broadband providers do not feel your neighborhood will generate enough profit to justify a buildout of next generation services (read fiber) you are simply screwed. While it would still be illegal for these providers to refuse service to homes based on income there is nothing that says they would have to provide service in these neighborhoods.

To put that in perspective, if your community does not justify a multimillion dollar FTTH deployment you can quite literally expect to see economic development as well as any kind of next generation services (HDTV over fiber, Telecommuting, etc) to just not be available to you or anyone else in your community. I would think it wouldn't take a lot of brains to understand that you and your community will not be competitive with other communities if you cannot utilize the inexpensive services (relatively speaking) they have at their disposal. In other words, this might be a good time for you to consider getting into the plywood business, it will only be a matter of time before your town is the 21rst century equivalent of a gold mining town when the gold ran out.

From my viewpoint, we could compare this to the US having allowed telephone and electricity to only be deployed in those wealthy neighborhoods on this country. How wealthy a nation would we be now had we made those choices back then? What if we had decided to only pave roads in those same neighborhoods or connected interstate highways from wealthy area to wealthy area?

Naturally, we wouldn't have done that. If we had there would have been no way for food and other agricultural goods as well as the manufactured products to be transported inexpensively to the wealthy. And we all know the wealthy do not what slaughterhouses and manufacturing plants in close proximity to their homes.

Funny, the same thing holds true today but instead of agricultural goods as well as manufactured items we will now see a large portion of our “intellectual capacity” being left without the necessary virtual transportation infrastructure to bring their products/services to market.

If there is one thing I believe we can learn from history, it is the total population of our country that adds to the greater good – not just the wealthy. As we move forward into this new millennium, one where we are really not sure what the currency of the day will be, we need to understand that should we choose to leave a significant portion of our population out of the greater economy we also leave what might be some of our next generation's economic powerhouses out of the loop.

The ironic thing is that these corporations need to have an aggregate population that will provide all of the incredible diversity and richness the web has become for without it there really isn't anything to do on the web, now is there? Remember, it was the idea of an Ebay, started quietly out of the public view as well as multitudes of other incredible ideas that has made the net what it is today. Take away the ability for these ideas to hatch out of whatever off the beaten path they come from and we all lose.

But don't worry, everything is fine, there aren't any problems we should be concerned about and American Idol will be on in a few minutes.

High Definition Web - the oncoming onslaught.

2006-04-23T10:56:00.000-05:00

It is no secret that surfing the net has taken on a very different dimension since the early days when many of us started. There was a time when dialup over a 2400 baud modem was “adequate” and one could view just about anything they wanted if they had a modicum of patience. The compromise was a very stark web where color was used but graphics were kept to an absolute minimum. According to this site web pages have become static in size at somewhere around 60K being the optimal size. I found several other sites that also provided pretty much the same measurement but I need you to understand all of these sites were dated and used a 20 second benchmark time for load over a 56K dialup connection. Google has an amazing total size of 12K which is why many people use it as their homepage.

It's no secret that a written message (email, forum posting, etc) does not carry the same weight in understanding of nuance as someone actually speaking “face to face” with you. This is a well known problem that has lead to the use of those annoying emoticons we see all over the place. As we all also know the inclusion of a picture (or pictures) will assist in getting the message accurately across but even though engineers have understood this process for centuries we still have a fair amount of miscommunication. With the decrease in time communication now takes (realistically approaching instantaneous) coupled with knowing that the wrongly interpreted message has at one time or another caused a war to break out, it doesn't take a genius to realize we need to improve communications in every way we can.

Where are we headed?

Well, courtesy of Slashdot, I was directed to this article that talks about where web pages are more than likely headed. Let's face it, broadband has redefined what we can do with the web and as we cross the point where the majority of users here in the US now have broadband this limit that has been imposed by dialup is now going to be abandoned.

Enter a new medium rich with high definition graphics as well as multimedia applications. We will see the texture of the web change dramatically, one where dialup will now be relegated to the dust bin of technical museums much like the trusty 300 baud modems of yesteryear.

How soon will this happen?

I am not sure anyone can correctly address the date when the entire web will be converted to high definition browsing but I can say that once it gets started history has shown that a better quality application (music, television, whatever) usually becomes adopted very quickly once the price point drops to where it is easily affordable. If we apply this supposition to the adoption by audiophiles to the best quality audio equipment available or the rapid adoption of High Definition TV we can rapidly see that once someone has been exposed to or acquired a taste for excellent quality audio/video experiences they will rarely opt to return to “AM radio” quality. I wonder if the adoption of “Cell Phone Quality” voice communications will one day be replaced with full fidelity voice communications. I know that we are willing to accept the miserable quality of cell phone conversations in order to have the capability to receive calls just about everywhere but I am sure nobody is overly pleased with it. I believe the same holds true with WebCams. We will tolerate 3-5 frames per second at a very low resolution but this would easily be replaced if 30 FPS at high definition levels were to become available.

So, what does this mean?

We will now start to see web locations that will be able to take advantage of the maximum definition of this latest generation of monitors. Imagine how beautiful an 8 Megapixel background image on a web site would look. At the same time there are applications for this technology in many developing nations where the illiteracy rates are through the roof. Conversely, the problem we all can see coming is that these nations are the last to be able to afford this technology even though I see them as possibly being the ones that will change that.

As we all know the scale of economics is the underlying basis for the cost of most equipment. If GigE radios were produced at a rate of 10 million per month the cost per unit would probably fall into the range of WiFi. If this technology were to be specifically designed for the outdoor deployment of communications and the necessary bandwidth were to be allocated this transformation could easily happen in the next decade. The benefit to all would be staggering.

This also supports the IPTV model as well as many other platforms that we can see coming but we are not quite sure how we will deliver them. Add to that the unknown business model that makes this service a reality and there is a lot of work to be done before we will see anything like a worldwide adoption of this communications platform. At some point, we will see radio, television, voice, data, video conferencing as well as just about everything else that can be converted to a digital bitstream be carried over this new infrastructure. At the same time this will free up wide swaths of spectrum from the cell phone providers, the licensed microwave users, radio, television and a myriad of other spectrum users that will now be able to share this common pipe we are discussing.

What will be the driving force behind this transformation?

My guess is desperation, desperation by a country that has little or no choice in the matter. As a matter of fact I could see this as also being instituted in a disaster zone like what was created in the wake of the tsunami or after Katrina. In both cases the length of time and overall expense necessary to put everything back to where it was cannot and should not be justified. This is a “greenfield” opportunity to strive for something better, experiment with new ways of doing things and move forward. Of course, we all know that instituting a change like this on a massive scale is going to cause some consternation among those who stand to lose – especially if they stand to lose big. If we look at which companies are in a position to lose their control over their markets we find a uniform pattern that closely matches up with the same group that are already losing control of their markets. IP Radio is huge and it is just getting started. IPTV, the promise is there however the infrastructure isn't ready for it quite yet. Telecommunication and advanced data services? Please, they should shut off the lights and just go home.

This isn't about disruptive technologies any more, it is now an all out open warfare based on the best business model. The day of tying stuff to petrified sticks stuck in the ground is now rapidly coming to a close. This is closely followed by the 1930s mentality that each operator needs to have their own slice of spectrum to provide its service even if this means that huge areas have zero utilization of this band.

There was a time when the WISP field seemed like David and Goliath. Those days have ended and a new era has begun. This is the time when the horseless carriage will have to do what it can to prevent the automobile from dominating the field. There are case studies where one industry has overcome another, street cars were almost completely replaced in California at one point but eventually even that tactic dies off. California is now rebuilding the mass transit system to alleviate the congestion on their roads as well as providing choice for their residents. Ironically, even as this progression continues the communications industry is now working to reduce the need for transportation as we usher in a time of telecommuting.

Look out, this is going to come in fast. As usual, the aware among us will get it and the rest will be taken by surprise. It will be those who adapt that will prosper and the rest will curse their luck.

Remember, luck is 99% perspiration and 1% inspiration. I would like to add that (channeling Yogi Berra) the other half is researching understanding good, solid information.

It's the public's perceived value that justifies the network.

2006-04-06T08:13:00.000-05:00

Every once in a while even an “expert” like myself has one of those humbling experiences that drives home the point that I really don't know anything at all. While I welcome those instances, as they usually are times when I learn a lot, I will also willingly admit that these occurrences tend to be more than a little unnerving to someone who has always believed that I knew everything there was to know.

As they say, pride goeth before a fall...

I had the pleasure of attending the Wireless Summit in St. Charles, MO last week/weekend. While I would be the first to tell you that one never knows what any trade show, conference or event will turn out like, this one was very different from what I was expecting.

The Pre-Conference show on Friday featured many of the speakers that I had seen at the MuniWireless show in Atlanta a few weeks back so there was a repetition of information in many ways for me – even though it was all excellent information. Among others, Jonathan Baltuch of MRI and Jeff King of Northrop Grumman presented pretty much the same information they did in Atlanta – but sometimes the second time I hear something different points resonate with me. In this case Jonathan really hit home and I believe it was the fact that much of what he said became intertwined with other messages during this weekend.

Let me also take a moment to mention that Sascha Meinrath managed to bring together a very wide range of people with very varied backgrounds to come together and exchange differing viewpoints – something which is not only difficult to do but also to orchestrate. Let me clearly state that it is people of vision that can understand the value of events like this and Sascha definitely meets that criteria.

Okay, on to the meat (or soy, for those of you who would prefer) of the matter...

This industry is evolving (DUH) and as soon as there appears one model that “revolutionizes” the way we look at these networks someone else comes along and adds to that model. For whatever reason, I try to keep track of these changes, document this evolution (perhaps punctuated equilibrium might be a more apt term) and package it for everyone to follow along with. I suggested the term “punctuated equilibrium“ as opposed to “evolution” because I see it as a better fit. We don't slowly evolve in a steady process but rather make leaps forward. As a specific example the term Municipal Wireless became part of our vocabulary as few years back and now that term (or the shortened MuniWireless) is used by everything from city officials to the main stream media. So too is the term Community Wireless even though it is not as popular – yet.

What I find amazing is the fact we are seeing a fragmentation happening in this field and an artificial fragmentation at that. Is there really a need for the term Community Wireless or have Municipalities now stopped being communities? Where this distinction was made last weekend seemed to be in the ownership of the network, did the Municipality (meaning the government) own this infrastructure or should the Community own the actual network? Can we trust the local government to own and operate this infrastructure or must control be maintained by the entire community (or as many people who wish to assume responsibility for this communications platform) be given the responsibility to run it. I would suggest that there is no one absolute solution which should work in every case and the flexibility to create whatever the community itself wants needs to be allowed for the maximum amount of freedom to be encouraged.

I would submit that each model has its advantages and corresponding flaws. While the Municipality has more resources and the ability to leverage these resources in significantly more ways they also tend to move very slowly and in a field that changes by the minute this could be a serious drawback. There is always the concern about free speech and censorship – something that each ownership scenario has to deal with. Regardless of whether the network is owned by the Municipality or the residents can lead to local control and perhaps the outright banning of content that the powers that be find offensive. For a clear definition of what I mean, think of a town that decides that only “approved content” will be allowed on “their” network. As an aside, I have seen ISPs make the statement that they do not want “obscene content” traveling over “their” networks which kind of defeats the entire concept of a “free” Internet. Ah well, I'll leave that discussion for another day.

This does bring up the point that what are these networks real purpose in our society? To my way of thinking, the answer to that question would be, to bring the greatest good to the most people – as they themselves define what is good for themself. This is the key to this discussion and something that needs to be explored further.

What started off as being a discussion directly concerning the Internet really needs to be reshaped into an entirely different discussion.

How so? I'm glad I asked.

One of my recent disagreements with many in this community has been to try to educate people that a WiFi cloud over a community should only be a small part of the entire package – a very small part. If we look at what the CONXX (yes, the company I work for) has managed to supply in the way of useful services to a community we find a multitude of very valuable services being employed on a 24 hour a day basis with zero WiFi involved – even though we are now looking at adding WiFi into the mix.

What we need to be looking at here is the need for the full range of services that can and must be part of just about any Municipal Network as well as included in any Community Network. Jeff King gave his presentation about how much money AMR (Automatic Meter Reading) saves the City of Corpus Christi, TX. This is a real application that utilizes the wireless cloud in a way that provides not only measurable saving to the community but also removes a very real risk to the city workers that used to perform that job. The same holds true with Public Safety utilizing the network or the very real saving that can be realized for government in the form of cost avoidance through utilizing the services a high quality wireless infrastructure can provide as opposed to paying the traditional telecommunications industry for voice and advanced data services. This isn't small amounts of money we are talking about here, it can be quite substantial and that translates into very real savings directly to the taxpayer. This is an indirect value these networks bring to an area and there are quite literally hundreds more.

Even better, what I learned this weekend is that there are innovations that when allowed to flourish will bring even greater value to any given network. I met an very interesting gentleman from Montreal (I am sorry, I didn't catch his name) who is rolling out a pretty spectacular multimedia platform and an inexpensive one at that. What he is doing is using SAN boxes like this one to roll out a “local content” service in his city.

How this concept works is very simple, he takes one of these boxes, fills it up with all kinds of local content from the area's best bands, independent film makers, amateur news reporters as well as photographs from local photographers and deploys these boxes in the city's various hot spots. This allows the people of Montreal to go to their favorite coffee shop, grab an espresso, open up their laptop computers and browse through a half a gig's worth of constantly changing content. The content is rotated during non-business hours over the establishment's Internet connection and is ready for the next day's audience.

The artists that contribute content get exposure to the public as well as being able to include advertising for their schedule and the same holds true for the artists in any digital medium carried on these boxes. This is a win/win/win for the establishment that hosts the boxes as it provides an incentive for customers to stop in at their place, helps the local artists get exposure as well as the establishments that are also featuring the artists – and all for a few hundred dollars of hardware as well as some dedicated effort.

This was only one of the many excellent ideas that were presented at the Wireless Summit. While I like to think I stay on top of things it is nice to sometimes get that reality check and be taken down a peg.

Where this all ties back into the network is the most important point - It is the cumulation of all of these services that brings about the real and total value of these networks. It is not just about WiFi access to the Internet, it is about everything we do to leverage the use of this platform that justifies the expenditure. To say it another way, it is not all the "gee whiz" technology we employ, it is the enhancement to daily life where the real effect is made.

No one is arguing that these networks are not expensive – when they are built correctly they are very expensive. What we are saying is that based on the measurable improvements in the quality of life we are now documenting the investment (regardless of how hefty it may be perceived to be) provides a very solid return to a wider segment of the population than perhaps a skateboard park or a basketball court would. While I have nothing against either basketball courts or skateboard parks in a world with finite resources we need to make sure the majority of resources provide the best value to the majority of people.

Forget Disruptive Technology - How about Disruptive Regulation?

2006-03-22T08:06:00.000-05:00

In the last few days we have been treated to exactly how powerful a change in the regulations that govern the telecommunications industry can be.

Take, for example, the new dynamic that faces any of the ILECs legitimate competitors if they depend on the "ILEC's network" to deliver services. As of yesterday, Verizon has been granted Forbearance, a term that basically means that Verizon now has almost complete control over "their" network and can make it difficult for anyone to either buy transport on their network (should they choose to do so) and now the big prize is whether they even have to provide service to any competitor.

This morning I read that AT&T is filing "Me Too" paperwork to ensure they now have the same basic rights as their competition in this respect.

Check out this quote from this article,

One analyst said that AT&T and other incumbent telephone carriers could be at a disadvantage when competing against Verizon for business customers if the FCC delayed acting on requests for similar regulatory relief.

"It's certainly possible they will gain similar deregulation, at least eventually; but if there is a delay, Verizon could gain a temporary regulatory advantage, which could be particularly important in the traditional enterprise competition between AT&T and Verizon in the latter's region," said Blair Levin, an analyst with Stifel, Nicolaus & Co.

It goes without saying that we can't have one side of Ma Bell having an advantage over the other side - even if that advantage is okay over the rest of their competition.

There is also the ongoing debate as to whether or not any of the ILECs need to ensure QoS of anyone's traffic when it crosses their network (Net Neutrality) which translates into the stark reality that should this be allowed any competitor's traffic might be slowed down to the point of unusable all the while providing the larger carriers the ability to charge a "tariff" to carry traffic from high demand sites (like Google) even if these sites already pay to connect to the net.

So, here's an interesting question...

Why aren't we (we, as in municipalities) looking at using legislation to level the playing field? One piece of legislation that comes to mind is the relatively recent ruling by the Supreme Court clarifying the use of Eminent Domain.

The following quotes as confirmed in the article (linked above) presents both sides of the issue.

"Promoting economic development is a traditional and long-accepted function of government," - Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority

"The court today significantly expands the meaning of public use," O'Connor wrote. "It holds that the sovereign may take private property currently put to ordinary private use, and give it over for new, ordinary private use." - Justice Sandra Day O'Connor

I guess the question is, can we consider a strand of fiber to be property and if so, can it be "taken" under Eminent Domain for use by either a municipality or a private party as long as it can be shown that the overall benefit is for the common good? I would further argue that Economic Development has long been considered "common good" and that there is adequate proof that affordable broadband does stimulate Economic Development.

It seems to me the next step would be for us to set in motion the mechanism to "take" the necessary fiber strands that would allow broadband to be brought into many of the unserved or underserved areas and begining deploying broadband for the public good.

Without question, it can be shown that waiting for the big companies to deliver ubiquitous and inexpensive broadband has been nothing but an exercise in frustration and has cost many communities a lot of public good.

Have at it.

The Digital Divide is dead! - Long live the Digital Divide!

2006-03-21T07:51:00.000-05:00

I ran across this organization yesterday who published this report warning pfd file which states that,

"This evidence is encouraging, since it demonstrates that the benefits of these new services are not leaving behind most large segments of the population. To the extent that historical reports have identified a digital divide, this study provides evidence that that much of the divide has narrowed in most cases to statistical insignificance.

Well, I for one am glad that problem was taken care of.

I did find this quote (taken from the same report) that has me wondering.

The exception, however, is that rural consumers appear to use more dial-up services and less broadband services, either because reasonably priced broadband services are still not available in some rural communities, or that rural consumers have less demand for broadband services.

If "rural consumers appear to use more dial-up services and less broadband services" how can we say that rural consumers have overcome the "Digital Divide" unless what we are looking at here is an issue with semantics. Maybe, I need to understand that the term "Digital Divide" was originally coined to differentiate between those who had Internet access and those who didn't. Naturally, dialup is still Internet access - even if it is next to unusable in today's world. In the past I have used the term "Digital Divide 2.0" to describe this new phenomenon and I think that term is apt.

For example...

In this article we can see that CBS made the decision to broadcast the NCAA March Madness college basketball tournament over the Internet free of charge, something that everyone who has dialup didn't have any chance of taking advantage of. In striving to break the irony meter, Verizon just announced they had signed a deal with CBS to carry CBS's content over their Fios service.

We also learn from this study that VoIP is catching on - with a higher percentage of low income households adopting the technology.

VoIP use is growing, and has been used in over 10% of households. VoIP services are more apt to be used in low-income households (22% of households earning less than $25,000), non-Caucasian and non-African American households (18% of Hispanic, Asian and other races), and younger households (18% aged 29 or under)

But, in rural areas with their higher percentage of dialup users, this technology is not available to them. (DUH) I am sure that a case can be made that many rural areas confidentially have a high level of lower income residents, which would lead me to suspect that the adoption rate for VoIP would be hinger in these areas - if broadband were available at a reasonable price.

Here's the problem as I see it. Maybe the Digital Divide has been taken care of but the Communication Infrastructure Divide is alive and thriving. What I don't understand is why this is the case. Didn't both presidential candidates promise we would all have broadband coverage by the end of 2007? What is happening to the billions of dollars in USF funds that we all pay into every year? Why is Verizon rolling out Fios in the neighborhoods that can afford to make them a profit while ignoring these rural areas? Even more to the point, if the ILECs don't want to service these areas, why are they putting up such a fight to prevent these communities from establishing their own broadband networks?

What I don't have is a real answer for any of these problems. I don't believe there is any one answer. I do believe there are any number of things we are doing that is hurting the deployment of broadband into many areas.

Let's look at two.

We have the PA-183 law (commonly known as the Verizon law)

In another well written article by Muni Wireless we can see how feverishly Verizon is working to make the deployment of broadband easier in Pennsylvania.

To bring things into perspective, this article was linked to and I thought I would share the following snippet from it.

As for other towns, they will have to first get the local phone company to sign off before they can offer the same service to their residents.

For now, Verizon is leaving open the question of whether it will say yes to such requests. The company is already offering broadband Internet service over its FiOS-brand high-speed fiber optic network in many areas and is busy expanding the network.

The law — Act 183 — requires phone companies to offer broadband throughout the state by 2015. But it also requires municipalities that want to offer broadband Internet service to first ask their local telephone company if that company plans to offer broadband in the area.

The phone company has 40 days to answer yes, in which case it then has 12 months to start offering broadband. If the answer is no, the municipality is free to start offering its own service.

For its part, Verizon declined to give municipalities a blanket green light to offer wireless Internet service.

“Any proposals Verizon would receive from a municipality would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis in accordance with Act 183,” said Verizon Pennsylvania spokeswoman Sharon Shaffer.

Verizon is widely seen as the driving force behind Act 183, which in earlier forms prohibited local governments from offering any form of telecommunications service.

“It was clearly an anti-municipality statute,” Upper Dublin's Leonard said.

But Verizon vehemently denies that. The company's official line is that Act 183 was a law requiring it to roll broadband service out faster, rather than a ban on municipal or “community” networks.

Okay, it is nice to see Verizon did give something back in their promise to provide broadband to the entire state of Pennsylvania by 2015! Considering the misunderstanding that Pennsylvania had with Bell Atlantic (Verizon - before they were Verizon) I would feel comfortable entering into another agreement with them.

And here is the decision many of us knew was coming on the subject of forbearance that Verizon petitioned the FCC for.

As quoted from the article,

"The No. 2 U.S. telecommunications carrier petitioned the FCC seeking relief from requirements that included making connections to competing networks and negotiating just and reasonable terms for its services."

I mean, after all, why would anyone want to have laws that had such Draconian language as to mandate, "negotiating just and reasonable terms for its services." That's just simply unfair.

Next Up - The Cell Phone Industry.

2006-03-19T07:16:00.000-05:00

Looking back over the last five years we can easily remember a time when VoIP and Fixed Wireless technologies seemed more like a hobby that might have some potential somewhere down the line. If we look back to the last millennium (just over six years ago) I remember the enthusiasm that was being generated by the WISP community as to how this technology might be able to capture a piece of the Internet delivery market from the traditional telecommunications giants. At the same time, I do not remember anyone seriously discussing how this technology might disrupt the voice market and specifically the Cell Phone industry - even though looking back on the subject from this vantage point I am not sure how we missed this very real potential.

If we move forward in our timeline, looking to three years ago, VoIP was now something that was being discussed but the level of discussion was more toward PC to PC calls including Skype and even though PC to Phone was a reality the only people who really seemed interested in that technology were the "early adopters" sometimes known as the "Geeks" of the world.

What we missed was that there was a quiet revolution happening, one that even the people in this field weren't paying too much attention to, a looming disruption that was becoming viable because of the combination to two very different technologies being independently introduced - the real, ubiquitous, mobile telecommunications now available over Licensed Exempt wireless infrastructure.

During the 2004 WiFi Planet show, (what a serious loss to this community losing that show was) I attended a discussion about VoIP being implemented as a communication medium in hospitals. As you probably know, hospitals have adopted wireless technologies in many applications from medication dispensing, tracking patient care and even voice communications. At the show the discussion turned to the Symbol Technologies's Netvision Phone.

This WiFi based portable phone was an interesting wrinkle in the Fixed Wireless field but seemed to only be seen as a curiosity as opposed to the earth-shaking, disruptive technology this kind of handheld would evolve into.

Even more unique was the Vocera Communications System, a Star Trek like communications badge that allowed for voice activated, hand's free, wireless communication over WiFi networks!

Looking at today's landscape we can see a number of WiFi/Cell phones now coming on the market. This move by the mainstream Cell Phone manufacturers seems to indicate that they understand and accept that WiFi is not only here to stay but needs to be adopted. But this leads to the question why?

Well, Cingular Wireless is launching a new video service that would allow paid subscribers to view the Cartoon Network (Fox News, NBC are also mentioned) and if you really like this service for an additional fee you can have access to short clips ("The Sopranos" is specifically mentioned) which bring an entirely new level to the phrase "a vast wasteland" something more true now that when FCC Chairman Newton N. Minow coined the phrase in 1961. Why anyone would want to watch the Cartoon Network on their Cell Phone is beyond me - let alone paying extra money to do so. I can reliably tell you the demand has outstripped most of the projections the Cell Phone industry made 18 months ago and this is causing some serious problems for them.

If you look at what impact delivering video over a network designed for very low bandwidth voice calls might create it is pretty easy to understand why this might be a problem. Any WISP can easily relate to what happens when their customers start demanding more bandwidth than their network can reliably deliver. This is exactly what the Cell Phone industry is looking at facing should the demand for video continue to take off on the current path it seems to be headed on. And like the standard WISP, there is only so much spectrum they can expand into - and they pay for spectrum unlike most WISP models currently in use.

Where does this leave the Cell Phone industry? Well, to answer the call for more bandwidth (as well as demand for Cell Phone service) the industry will be building a lot more infrastructure this year. As you can see from this link the telecommunications industry is once again spending money for equipment to increase both their capacity as well as their services. Verizon and Qualcomm are moving forward with their MediaFlo technology in hopes of meeting the demand by the end of 2007.

At the same time there is a different set of dynamics taking place in this industry. One has to wonder what the real impact on this industry will be due to the portable Vo-WiFi technology once citywide WiFi clouds become a reality. It seems reasonable to speculate that the cell phone providers aren't going to benefit from these large scale deployments. In fact, we can speculate that a decline in their overall revenues, loss of metropolitan customer base and a challenge to their monopoly in the mobility communications market will be occurring.

It should also be pointed out that the Cell Phone industry depends on the higher population density areas to generate enough revenue to subsidize their rural installations. If every large city deploys a WiFi cloud and these Vo-WiFi phones catch on the expected impact on the Cell Phone industry will be substantial. How much? Well, nobody really knows or can accurately project but I believe it is safe to say that this industry is not wealthy enough to take a 25% hit in their gross revenues without feeling significant pain. How much pain can they tolerate? I guess we'll find out.

Here's the newest wrinkle, courtesy of DLink, to enter this field.

Please note - this is a very different design from the inexpensive WiFi phones that can be bought in Asia or either the Vonage Phone or the Netgear Skype Phone. The DLink phone allows for the use of anyone's service instead of being tied to one name brand service or the other. The DLink phone also allows for the support of domain names - think about what that means as far as merged services

While that seems enticing you might want to know how you get service on this thing. TelTel offers service that can be used on the DLink phone and the TelTel web site offers a lot more information.

During the MuniWireless show, I spoke to a gentleman (I'm sorry, I can't reveal either his name or his company as they are not public yet) that offers WiFi phones with RFID chips built inside. Not only will his phones allow you to utilize WiFi networks to make voice calls (using his VoIP service or not) but will also allow you to pay for goods and services with the handheld device. Even better, he is in the process of finalizing the details to allow for advertising supported VoIP service for those of you willing to put up with advertising. How this service will work is that as you walk through a mall advertisers that are part of his network will feed ads to your phone. Naturally, these stores will offer incentives for you to walk in whether it is special pricing or simply the fact that they accept payment from your phone. And, for putting up with the annoyance you get VoIP service for free!

For those of you that are unaware, it is an accepted practice to pay for goods and services in Japan using your cell phone. In fact, on a recent trip I noticed a tourist who was somewhat dismayed that American airports didn't accept payment in this fashion. Judging by his demeanor he seemed to be somewhat surprised at how backwards we are here. This is something I am beginning to understand as our definition of broadband is barely more usable than dialup and many of the advanced services some parts of the world take for granted are simply not available here - yet.

I guess the real question is, why is all of this important? According to this article the US telecommunications industry (alone) was worth "an estimated $856.9 billion industry in 2005, is projected to reach $1.2 trillion in 2009" and no matter how you look at that, we are talking a lot of money here.

It's the Route 66 story but a brand new challenge.

2006-03-15T08:07:00.000-05:00

For those of us old enough to remember, the only way to cross the country from shore to shore used to be the new legendary Route 66.

But something happened to Route 66, something that was cataclysmic, something that remove it from its position as being "the" route. Much like cities and towns that were obsoleted when the stagecoach route gave way to the railroads and the cities and towns that grew up around the railroads had to give way to the decimation caused by rise of the automobile Route 66 lost its attraction when the Interstate highway system was finished. Towns that had been vibrant almost overnight became boarded up, closed down as the traffic that used to supply their local economy with a steady flow of people traveling in both directions who needed meals or gasoline along the way.

Today we face a new highway that is going to continue this evolution and this time it won't be as clearly defined by an arbitrary geographical line drawn by politicians that decided who would benefit as well as who would lose. No, this time it will be up to each of us to choose what kind of infrastructure will run in and out of our locations. At the same time this shift will not bring many of the challenges we have traditionally seen in the past. There won't be a problem with noise as the trains or perhaps the tractor trailer trucks generate, decreasing the quality of life for some but not for others usually clearly defined by economic lines in a community. Nor will there be a very visible change to our homes as happened as huge concrete beltways were erected in neighborhoods where families had once lived. No, this time we will be building virtual highways of differing qualities and putting them to all kinds of uses.

What needs to be closely looked at is how we set this type of infrastructure in place, whether it will be built with an eye towards the future and how the most people can benefit for the lowest overall cost. One challenge I see is how our poorer communities will be able to match (or even beat) the locations that have the economic clout to deploy the state-of-the-art networks that will enable this country to succeed in this new millennium.

The challenge is just as much about the business model, the applications as well as the technology that will be employed even more than what the dollars necessary to build mean to the quality of the results we will enjoy. This is an opportunity for innovation to trump economics as we look at many of the options that are now available as well as the ones that will present themselves. This is the key point to remember, how we envision and then execute our plans will be what determine which location will be the showplace of the future.

One point I am constantly reminded of is that fact that this new challenge is one that will provide some of the areas in this country a distinct advantage over others. We will be building virtual locations, places where geography will not be as important as it once was. Think of it like now a city in the middle of the Rocky Mountains will now have the capacity to be a new "seaport" or a transportation hub but for information this time around. There are areas in this country that have incredible lifestyles to offer but because of their location or proximity to what used to be important advantages may now become the choicest places to live as they can now offer this incredible quality of life at costs that make them the better choice of a place to live because one can live there without drowning in debt. As this new dynamic becomes known I see a shift in what will become the "best" places to live and an equal shift in the value of real estate in many locations as geographic location no longer dictates what kind of job one can have.

The same holds true to where many companies will base their locations. As the ability to live in close proximity to the office becomes less important, many companies will choose to relocate to areas where the cost to keep their physical address will be more dependent on the cost of real estate as well as the local tax rate - as long as there is good, reliable and inexpensive connectivity.

This will be the challenge of our generation - connectivity.

The great unknown as we look from today's perspective is what is the correct business model and technology for each case we try to apply these facts to will be the best. In fact, the question of is there really a "best" needs to be looked at. The "best" is not what is the only right way to do something as so many things seem to be today, it is more of a case that the "best" means what is best for the local community.

Is it better to build a network that needs to be paid for over a 20 year period or should this be a effort that will start off with a very modest investment and be continually rework as newer technologies become available? Is there a need to connectivity everywhere or will a line to each home suffice? What kinds of speeds and capacities should we be looking at putting in place? There is no "right" answer and that's really the rub. There is only the answer that is right for your community.

Last week I had the distinct pleasure of attending the MuniWireless Show in Atlanta where many of these issues were taken on from all perspectives. Whether you are in charge of a large project like Los Angeles or Philadelphia you have many of the same issue as your counterpart in any small city in the world. I'm sure you know that the infrastructure will be put in place in your community or you will eventually live in this millennium's equivalent of Route 66 - and let's face it, nobody wants to be the mayor of a city that's only claim to fame is using more plywood to board up their windows than anywhere else.

Thankfully there is another show that will help people get the necessary information they need so they can make this decisions intelligently. In case you were unaware, there is what promises to be another great show for those of you that would find a Midwest location convenient. The First National Summit for Community Wireless Networks will be from March 31-April 2, 2006 in St. Charles, MO. This is undoubtedly going to be a very good resource for anyone who is either trying to understand this very complicated field or just needs to network with people in this field. The cost of this event is very reasonable and in the interest of full disclosure I have been invited to speak at this event - however, it should be noted I will be speaking about the company I work for, CONXX, not as a representative for this show.

Muni Wireless - Atlanta - What a show!

2006-03-10T08:31:00.000-05:00

I have to admit that from my experience I have found that whenever I set my expectations too high I usually disappoint myself. From the moment I made arrangements to attend the recent Muni Wireless Event in Atlanta the excitement continued to build to a point where I was sure the show could never live up to all I was expecting.

And was I ever wrong.

One can never guess what combination of circumstances will cause any event to go from good to outstanding. While the list of speakers was as good as it can get and the sessions were also among the best I have ever attended the reality is it was the attendees that Esme (and crew) attracted that sent this show over the top. I can't remember any time that I have met such a diverse group from all over the world that shared so much information for the benefit of us all. In particular the session hosted by Sascha Meinrath and Dewayne Hendricks about the issues facing the Joburg project with the cost of bandwidth being so high that it is literally cheaper to fly to Singapore with a 1GB thumb drive, download a gig of data and fly back to South Africa than to download it locally made a lasting impression on everyone who attended.

One a more personal note, if I were to ever be appointed ruler of the known universe I would make that kind of monopoly abuse a serious crime.

But there was far more going on behind the scenes. I got to hang out with the Motorola engineers by showing up an hour early for the show. (By the way, that is a really good technique for anyone interested in having some candid discussions with people working the show.) As they were setting up the Mesh equipment I got to watch how it all fits together and got a serious demonstration of their 4.9GHz camera - and what a camera.

From inside a room, behind some lightly tinted glass we remotely controlled the camera directing it to zoom in on a magazine that someone was reading down a level in the lobby and perhaps 200 feet away. The clarity was so good I would read the print on the magazine without my glasses - something I can't do when it's right in from of me. Even better, the camera does this is 30FPS!

While this demonstration was going on I was introduced to Mitchell Weinzetl, Chief of Police for Buffalo, MN. Mitch has a Motorola Mesh installed that he has leveraged along with a custom designed application to make his department significantly more efficient. I was fascinated to hear what real and measurable changes this infrastructure has brought to his department and his community. As an easily understood improvement we can all relate to Mitch tells me that when his department was using the paper method for issuing tickets the average time to write out the ticket used to run about eight minutes. Mitch assures me that time is accurate as over the years he has personally written out thousands of tickets and he has timed them on many occasions. Now, with the help of his network an officer can call up the application on their mobile computer, enters the information (most fields are now drop down boxes) save and prints out the citation - total time, four minutes!

But that is not where the savings ends. In the olden days (you know, like last year) the handwritten ticket would then be handed over to a data entry clerk who would type in the data into the police department's computer. Then the citation would be sent over to the court so someone else could have the pleasure of typing in the same information all over again. Even then this piece of paper had to then travel over to the prosecuting attorney's office for yet another round of data entry and at each step there was yet another opportunity for something to be incorrectly entered.

I won't even go into all the other functions Mitch has automated but I will say this is the kind of innovation we all need to get behind. If you are interested, here's a short article that provides a little more data on how using a wireless network is saving time for our police as well as making things a lot safer in an already too dangerous field.

Mitch, awesome job, I commend you.

Tough to outdo that but it seems the city of Corpus Christi, Texas did something amazing by automating their meter readings. Jeffrey King (Northrop Grumman) gave a talk describing how this came to be. It seems there was a near deadly attack by three pit bulls on a meter reader a few years back and the city made a determination that they needed to find a way of getting their employees out of harm's way.

Enter Northrop Grumman and their AMR (Automated Meter Reading) technology. What had been done up to this point was for RF transmitters to be installed on to the meters which would allow for the meter to be read from the front of the house instead of having to walk around back. While this certainly reduced both time and risk it still meant that a truck and a person would have to be sent out to every neighborhood once a month to collect the data. When you look at this from the broader perspective it is not only expensive but it also is inefficient. If you are on a monthly schedule issues like a leak might not be discovered for as long as six weeks in some cases. The problem is that if Corpus Christi decided to put in a fixed collection network for these meter reading radios while they would be able to collect the data at will they would only receive that benefit from the deployment.

After some research an idea was formulated to deploy a WiFi based network that would allow for not only the collection of data at will but also provide connectivity to the entire community. Even better, a case was built showing that the investment in the WiFi network could be 100% justified by the money saved from automating the meter readings. I would suggest we really need to hand it to Corpus Christi and Northrup Grumman for using a combination of innovative thinking and technical knowhow to make this outcome. And to give you an idea of what a meter reader goes through doing their job just imagine how much fun it is to dodge a rattlesnake when you're trying to get the number off of a water meter in someone's backyard that is buried in a pit. I wonder what the turnover rate for a job like that is.

Way to go Corpus Christi.

Incredibly, I haven't even covered the very first session fully - let alone all the other fantastic sessions that were offered. I know it's hard to believe but the two situations I related to you above all happened within the first hour or two of the very first day and it got better as the show went on.

What really needs to be brought out for your examination is the near unbelievable networking that happened with all the attendees. I picked up over four dozen business cards from people literally all over the world. I had coffee with Mark Wolf (Assistant General Manager and Chief Technology Officer for the City of Los Angeles) as well as lunch with people from the Philadelphia Project. After the sessions were over there were still networking receptions to attend.

Excellent speakers, solid information, intelligent people and good food, what's not to love?

The breaking point.

2006-02-26T08:44:00.000-05:00

My apologies for being away for so long, the new job accompanied by tons of responsibilities take up just about all of my time even leaning in on my family time.

However, the last two weeks have been nothing short of a full scale assault on the traditional telecommunications industry and I felt I had to comment on this all - especially for any of you that might have missed any or all of this news. As usual, it is the cumulative effect of all the news stories and press releases along with the analysis that tells the entire story - not just one or two news stories at a time.

Let's start off with the 800lb gorilla in the room that nobody seems willing to discuss at any great length.

In Barcelona, Spain the 3GSM conference recently completed. Steve Ballmer (Microsoft) delivered a keynote address that quietly contained one of the most disruptive announcements that I can ever remember. To add to the beauty of this announcement, Mr. Ballmer chose a show that focuses more on the Cell Phone industry than anything else to announce that Microsoft would be releasing a product that was going to become the Cell Phone Providers' biggest challenge to date.

"Ballmer announced the upcoming availability of Office Communicator Mobile, a package that provides offers workers with mobile device capabilities that "go beyond just simple voice services."

Microsoft describes Communicator Mobile as a "unified communications client" that combines voice services, security-enhanced instant messaging (IM), presence awareness, and VoIP telephony. The client is said to offer a consistent experience across both PCs and smart mobile devices."

The entire story can be located here:

Office Communicator Mobile is going to turn the standard hand help PC into a more versatile tool that the usual off-the-shelf cell phone? Hmm, I wonder what application people will find to use that color LCD screen for?

As quoted from this news story,

"Nokia Corp. and Motorola Inc., the world’s biggest branded handset makers, both unveiled phones at a trade show here last week that switch between cellular coverage outdoors and cheap wireless Internet calling inside – all on a single phone number."

Well now, we know that Nokia and Motorola are incorporating WiFi into their phones, I wonder why. Oh right, this is so when you walk into a building your phone will automatically associate with your WiFi network and switch over to your VoIP account - and that is exactly what they are expected to say to any Cell Phone Provider that asks while keeping a straight face.

Of course, should you find yourself in a place that has ubiquitous WiFi coverage (like Philadelphia eventually may) your phone might not know it wasn't inside a building.

Now, if you live in just such a place (actually, I can't think of a city in the US right now that isn't planning some kind of WiFi roll out) and you never leave, maybe you don't even need a phone that does both Cell service and WiFi.

Well then, how about a WiFi phone?

"The NETGEAR WiFi phone will make mobile Internet telephony a reality for Skype users. Unlike other devices that must connect with a PC, NETGEAR's Skype WiFi phone will work wherever a consumer is connected to a wireless Internet access point -- be that in a home, office, cafe, open public hotspot, or any open municipal wireless access point being deployed worldwide. The Skype experience remains the same, in that users can make free domestic and international calls, as well as host conference calls and chat, with other Skype users anywhere in the world, and to non-Skype users for a small fee. With this device, headphones or USB phones plugged into a laptop or PC are not required."

Ah well, I can't see this being much of a problem. Heck, most of the Cell Phone Providers are part of the resident ILECs anyway and they have landline revenues that will continue to rake in the money. I mean it's not like anyone is going to deploy a completely new telecommunications network any time in the near future, right?

"Strix Systems, the leader in high-performance wireless mesh networking, today announced that Accatel, Inc., an international carrier based in New York, has partnered with Nextel Telecom (Bangladesh) to deploy a citywide wireless mesh network in Chittagong, Bangladesh. The network is based on Strix's Access/One Network Outdoor Wireless System (OWS), a multi-radio, multi-channel, and multi-RF mesh solution that delivers the highest-capacity mesh system available today. The Strix network will provide phone and Internet service to residential and business customers in Chittagong.

Accatel is now installing 90 Strix OWS nodes for the initial network deployment, which will support 10,000 voice subscriber lines in an eight-square-mile area of Chittagong, a port city of 3.5 million people that is the commercial capital of Bangladesh."

Wait a minute! Something like this must cost a fortune, right?

Let's define "a fortune" as best we can.

Turning to Google I quickly found out that Strix pricing is not readily available on the Strix web site. I did manage to find a review on Strix's products dating from October 2005 that mentions pricing but I am assuming based on the article that the equipment reviewed was intended for indoor use. At that time the reviewer quoted pricing as ranging from $600 to $1,000 and I would assume this is in small quantities, again, for the indoor units.

If we were to double the price of the most expensive unit to account for the outdoor, hardened case and antennas (I have no way of knowing if this is accurate) and if we assume that at $2K/node price is at the quantity price, we can guess that the 90 nodes that are to be deployed in Bangladesh cost somewhere in the range of $200,000.

But wait, there's more!

We need to look at the cost of installing this infrastructure, connecting the equipment to power (in the case of Bangladesh there would need to be an allowance for alternative energy equipment added in) and there is a need for CPE (we'll let the customer pay for CPE, hey they pay for telephones, right?) we can realistically assume that this network could supply an eight mile section of an entire city (and approximately 10,000 telephone lines) for maybe $500,000!

Okay, so that's voice, so what? Most of the ILECs here are going after the "Triple Play" because they know that's where the money is.

In fact, this story is predicting that many of the traditional ISPs are going to have a tough time meeting the demand for large enough pipes to supply customers with video. Cell Phone companies are also scrambling to build out capacity on their networks so that their customers can surf the net on their cell phones not to mention watch TV on them.

Verizon is convinced that the triple play is why Fios is the way to go and is busily negotiating television rights for their Fios networks. Verizon is also building out Fios networks as fast as they can even though they are now clearly saying that they have no intention of building out the Fios network in many areas and may "prune" their network by roughly half in the future.

"Layered on top of the high-speed service is Verizonâ€™s nascent FiOs TV service, which kicked off in Keller, TX last year. In Keller, FiOs TV has quickly obtained 20% penetration and Verizon will shortly launch FiOs TV in California, New York and Massachusetts, Seidenberg said.

The fiber-based network passes around three million homes today, and will pass an additional three million homes this year, and each following year, until Verizon hits 15 to 20 million homes passed, which will make the telco the third largest broadband provider behind Comcast and Time Warner. Seidenberg is more confident than ever that FiOs is the right strategy, and the internal numbers seem to back him up.

“All of our metrics are getting closer to our long-term targets. We’re very bullish about the fact that as we build this out we will get to a business model that works,” he said. (In terms of the 10 to 15 million homes in Verizon’s territory that aren’t projected to ever have FTTP available, Seidenberg said that by 2010, “we could make some judgments to prune [our] portfolio of access lines,” meaning that these territories are ripe for sale to another company.)"

I'm thinking that's got to hurt the guy who has the job of trying to convince investors that the traditional telephone, TV over Fios and cell phone networks are the place to invest in. Of course, as usual, I could be wrong.

The upcoming battle of the standards.

2005-12-02T06:27:00.000-05:00

In a world driven by technology and innovation the never-ending battle to design forward thinking integration into our infrastructure is one that can only be measured in terms of what is in the very near future. There is almost no indication that this will slow down, in fact, the pace that obsolescence is running at seems to be steadily increasing. This creates some very interesting dynamics in the telecommunications industry because of the massive amounts of time and money it takes to revamp their networks.

However, it is not only the technology that needs to constantly be reassessed but also the business model. This is a very foreign mindset in an industry that not that long ago believed in planning construction projects that required decades from conception to completion. If we are willing to accept that the technology needs to be replaced on a much faster timetable than any time in the past, what does this mean to the business model? How can a business model plan a project over an extended time period if by the time the project is operational the technology has been obsoleted?

I believe the only honest answer to those questions are, "we don't know."

The response we are seeing is the uniform adoption of standardization by the big players on as many things as they can find. Whether you choose to highlight WiMAX as an example or Ethernet the thinking seems to be that once a standard in put in place we will all follow it and everything will continue on smoothly from there. To my way of thinking this flies in the face of what we have recently observed and considered to be a universal truth, technology will continue to innovate faster than it can be understood and adopted in any large scale. So, if any company chooses to follow a standard wouldn't that leave them open to a competitor adopting a "better" technology?

Let's look at IMS (Internet Protocol for Multimedia Subsystems) as an example. This is going to allow the ILECs/Cell Providers to "unify" their networks allowing for the convergence of not only all of the existing telecommunications services but also those which will be rolled out in the future - a future that nobody in their right mind seems willing to define.

Great, this means that cell phones will be able to talk to POTS lines without any type of conversion. Text messages will flow freely, "push-to-talk" and "push-to-photo" will work hand in hand along with your soon to be available ability to watch television on your cell phone - something I know that most Americans can't live without. Even better, we will now have the ability to retrieve programming information at will. I know when I'm driving to work, I like many Americans, need to know exactly what time Reg and Kelly are on and I'll be damned if I'm going to wait. And, as if things couldn't get any more exciting than that, Sprint is now looking at providing me access to my home digital video recorder so I can program it as necessary from afar! That's right, as God is my witness, we are going to cure that device from endlessly flashing 12:00 in our lifetime! This is big, no, this is huge.

If you look at what this massive investment means to Sprint's business model we can all see the vision Sprint has laid out for their company. We also have Verizon rolling out their Fiber To The Home program (Fios) and taking heat for favoring the wealthier neighborhoods in their deployments. Redlining, as the practice is labeled, is illegal and I believe Verizon when they say that they aren't redlining but rather they are deploying in areas that meet their critieria.

Company officials say they make decisions on where to deploy the technology based on a number of factors, including how easy construction will be in an area, how quickly they think they'll be able to get local approvals and what percentage of households and businesses are likely to want the service.

This reminds me of the old John Lennon quote, "It's not so much that we're staying away from Liverpool, it's just that we aren't going there."

Now, I'm not an expert in this entire FTTH thing but as a layperson I am going to go out on a limb here and speculate that wealthier communities will probably adopt the newest and most expensive technologies faster than the one that are economically devastated. I do readily admit that I have no firm data to back this up so please feel free to dismiss my assertions.

Yet Verizon is boldly going after delivering television programming. Techdirt has a great opinion about this foray. Why is it that whenever any of these large companies decide to roll out a new service it is largely the same as everyone's else's service? Is there some kind of quiet safety in delivering the same product that everyone else does? Is this mindset a simple grab for market share without any regard for innovation? More importantly, do these geniuses read what's happening in this world? I mean, I hate to break this to Verizon but it seems like television programming is going to be delivered over the net! In other words, you guys are investing tons of money into a product that will eventually be provided over your service and it looks like the content will be supported by advertising - leaving you out of the revenue stream completely. Funny, it is a pretty good guess that voice is going to do pretty much the same thing. While it may not be free you can bet your bottom dollar the revenue you used to be able to collect from us (regular price increases included) is going away - and I can't even say I'm sorry.

How is that voice revenue doing? Well, according to this article the total dollar amount handed to you for voice services over your POTS lines decreased by 10% this year alone. But, hey, what's $50 Billion between friends? The reality is people are getting off of the gravy train and switching to VoIP or cell service. In fact, according to this article by 2010 a full 30% of POTS users will have switched to VoIP or Cell service. That's still workable for you because you are in the business of providing cell phone service, right? What happens when the combination of WiFi (or WiMAX) and VoIP become a mobile equivalent of cell service?

I guess the question I have for the telecommunications industry is, how much tolerance for pain do you have? How many customers can you afford to lose before than business plan starts to fail. How fast can you change directions and based on the products and services we are hearing about you introducing, how well do you think the general public will receive them?

From my perspective, I see a real problematic time coming for you all in the very near future. This isn't caused by external influences as much as the distinct lack of vision that is being uniformly shown at every opportunity. Add to that the incredible distaste most consumers have for the phone company and even a series of name changes won't wash that out of people's memories.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to grab my cell phone and get my fill of what to think today. It's a new day and that attractive woman on the TV is trying to tell me something - as long as I don't get distracted.

The rise of the Subnet.

2005-11-17T08:17:00.000-05:00

One of the things I thank we are going to see become more common are a new form of private network I dubbed subnets. We know they already exist and are commonly used for gaming between relatively close neighbors among many other purposes. This is commonly done with off-the-shelf WiFi equipment as a means of setting up a network that can be used for whatever purposes these groups of people choose.

This becomes particularly interesting as more creative uses get applied. While everyone who hasn't spent the last five years in a cave knows that file sharing is illegal it is perfectly legal for me to share a music CD or a movie DVD with friend or relative. It is also legal for me to make a backup copy of either of those works and I can save that copy in any format I choose. If you apply that line of reasoning to a private network there is every assurance that we could legally loan any member of this group of friends each other's copyrighted works at will. As your the network is only populated by friends and relatives my neighbor can join, his brother can become a friend of mine, and his best friend can become introduced to the group.

What we are going to see are these private "subnets" start popping up which are really little, tiny parallel Internets of their own. As these "clubs" grow bigger and more of them come into creation the "traditional" Internet become less of the focus as most of the content you look for mat be available independent of the net. Of course, individual members could cross over to the mainstream Internet whenever they wished and as long as the private network was not open to the public Internet I think it would remain in the realm of legal.

Let's take a look at what might happen if this trend becomes not only popular but also flourishes. If we were to look at a metropolitan area where it could be very likely that hundreds (if not thousands) of these independent subnets exist, what happens when someone starts to keep a record of them all, kind of like a cross between a subnet dating service and DNS? Could a metropolitan subnet be created that would still comply with existing regulations making several of the services that people are looking for legal to be accessed? As long as we're all friends, right? Well, what happens when we now purchase transport to the next city's metropolitan's subnet and introduce the two? Are they still friends? Is this still legal - even if we are really only skirting the law?

If we extrapolate this concept out to it's logical conclusion we might have the roadmap to a parallel Internet, one from from oversight by either the ILECs or the government - to a lesser degree.

What fascinates me about this is the fact that the harder you try to squeeze restrictions on to the Internet the end effect is that it is kind of like squishing Jello.

What a brave new world we have here!

2005-11-16T06:00:00.000-05:00

The UK has announced that they will passively monitor every vehicle and retain that data for two years.

As I understand it, this monitoring system will utilize a combination of RFID and video surveillance. All of this data could be carried over a wireless network if spectrum and bandwidth were made available. Will something like this be deployed in the US? That is difficult to speculate based on a number of factors, not the least of which is the size difference between the US and the UK, however, we already have red light/cameras that automatically snap pictures and issue tickets. We are also busy installing RFID tracking devices on all shipping containers and luggage that is transported in this country, FedEx and UPS packages will probably be next.

While it is not my intention to start a discussion about the expected right to privacy or if this is an any way an invasion of those rights, it should be noted that should this database ever become open to the public or to people willing to pay for the privilege we could realistically see a profound change in the way we live our lives and conduct business.

How can we maintain any "company confidential" information if every shipment in or out of our company is now public knowledge? At the very least, our suppliers can easily be uncovered as well as our customers. Even a sales prospect we were courting could be identified by our competition and targeted.

In our personal lives any relationship we would have would very easily become public - from political to ones of indiscretion. We would no longer have any expectation of privacy not that we do now in public.

There are also benefits to be reaped. We would have the ability to almost instantly track stolen cars, locate kidnap victims, find lost luggage along with packages being shipped by any of the delivery companies. There is certainly a potential to help reduce terrorism and catch criminals of all kinds - from Scofflaws through murders.

Conversely, there is also the means to create a society none of us really want to be part of. As most people know, any technology can be misused and I see this one as being ripe for abuse. What happens when the technology that writes the RFID tags gets hacked? Would it be possible for someone to rewrite the tag on your car with a known criminal's identification? What happens if a coordinated attack happens where hundreds (if not thousands) of tags get rewritten so as to through the system completely off track?

How long will it be before the DNA database and the National ID card is incorporated into this database and what ramifications will happen then?

Maybe, we need to take a look at this breakneck innovation that is occurring and ask ourselves if this is really something we want to implement. Some days I believe we don't even take into consideration what the long term ramifications of our actions might be yet we institute these changes and then try to deal with the effects. If there is one thing that seems to be a constant in this world, once something is implemented it is usually very hard to remove.

The future is coming up on us faster than it ever did before and I don't believe we have gotten any more capable of managing it than we were centuries ago, This could turn out to be a far greater problem than we ever anticipated.

I'm sorry Dave, I can't do that.

One real opportunity.

2005-09-25T09:14:00.000-05:00

Most all of us have been fixated on the disaster in the Gulf Coast over the last few weeks. The destruction is something one would expect to see in a war zone with a significant portion of the communications infrastructure having been wiped out.

According to this article, we see the following damage as being reported to the FCC.

More than a thousand wireless towers were knocked down

Over 11,000 utility poles are down, 26,000 spans of cable are down, 22,000 line drops are down

Out of the 578 central offices in Hurricane-affected states, 545 remained in service.

The loss of connectivity on the wireline network quickly spilled over to the wireless networks.

Over 100 broadcast stations were knocked off the air.

Only 2 AM and 2 FM radio stations in New Orleans remained on the air following the hurricane. These local radio stations were the only way only getting news out during the crisis.

BellSouth estimates the damage at $400 to $600 million and will have to bear these costs now as it redeploys equipment.

No matter how you view this disaster one thing is clear, the current infrastructure is incapable of handling the weather conditions it occasionally runs across. Of course, that won't stop Bell South from rebuilding the very same infrastructure to replace it.

Let's take a look at what the real cost to you (after all, you really don't think Bell South is going to pay for this out of their pocket, do you?) and what value you are getting for your money.

Bell South estimates the damage to be $400 to $600 million to replace and upgrade the damaged infrastructure. While there has been nothing specifically said, there does not seem to be any losses calculated as to lost business revenue, or lost revenue going forward. That's right, Bell South is going to lose customers to WISPs and other independent connectivity suppliers that did manage to keep their connections up and running. If we add in these factors and then factor in the additional damage that Rita caused (remember, the above testimony was after Katrina but before Rita) we can assume that Bell South alone will stand to lose a billion dollars plus when all is said and done.

This estimate does not include the cost to the local television and radio broadcast industry, police and fire depatrtments or the Cell Phone providers, among others.

One thing that was certainly conspicuous in its absence in the above testimony is the length of time Bell South estimates it will take them to repair the damage - especially considering that many of their local employees were also victims of the storm, losing homes and property. In other words, how long will some of Bell South's worst case customers be without service?

Perhaps, the most difficult question to ask is how long before this happens again? When will the next big storm hit? For this "investment" of a half billion dollars will we end up with a communications network that will be able to withstand the next category 5 hurricane? I would submit that the answer is no. In fact, if next year's hurricane season produces another devastating storm like Katrina (and it seems likely this could happen) what have we earned for our money? The reality is not one damn thing.

What could we do differently? More importantly, what should we do differently?

How about this?

I am proposing we engineer and build a network of wireless towers capable of withstanding a category 5 hurricane that can accommodate not just phone but Internet, first responder traffic, police, fire, radio, television, LMDS, MMDS, along with WiFi hot spot connectivity. These towers would need to be built on an five to eight mile grid, connected by licensed, carrier grade, microwave links and supplied with backup electrical power that could last for weeks without attention.

If we were to look at the shared cost of rebuilding the infrastructure of all of the above services we can see that the total cost of a project like what I am proposing would be more expensive that each of these services being rolled out individually but this would be quickly recouped the next time there is a massive storm and the payback would continue on through every storm from then on out.

This proposal isn't a cure all for every one of the problems faced by the telecommunications industry during this last round of crisis. One of the glaring omissions is how we supply power to each customer because even if the cell phone network had remained functional the cell phones themselves would not have had the power to last for the length of time necessary. There are many of other issues that need to be looked at and addressed but there certainly isn't space for all of them here.

Of course, this only addresses the technical side of the issue, completely leaving out the benefit to people. Would there have been a real value to the population of New Orleans (and many other areas) if their communications had functioned? Would the desperation many faced have been lessened if they could have called for help, spoken to their loved ones, gotten an idea when help was coming or simply not been stranded, alone, isolated from the outside world? I will leave that up to you to decide and place a value on what that means to you as an individual.

Virtual Adjacency or Where the net will evolve to.

2005-09-01T06:33:00.000-05:00

I recently attended a ribbon cutting ceremony that was very different from any other event I have had the displeasure of suffering through. I was expecting to be forced to politely sit through meaningless speeches provided by politicians who were only there to take credit and garner votes but instead I was fascinated by several very well informed people casually discussing how connectivity was going to change the geopolitical landscape.

During a speech made by Aris Melissaratos, secretary of Maryland's Department of Business and Economic Development, I was introduced to a term that I was unfamiliar with, "Virtual Adjacency." At the time I really didn't put too much weight on the phrase as each speech contained enormous amounts of excellent information delivered by some very well educated people.

Later that night, I was lying in bed and the full impact of the phrase hit me. Virtual Adjacency, this was something that somehow resonated with me. As I continued to think about this I decided to get up and do some reading on this concept. A quick Google search turned up several results including some from Cisco but nothing that defined the phrase as I was beginning to interpret it.

The next day I was chatting with Kory Mohr and I told him about the phrase. I explained that it was my belief this phrase was the quintessential definition of where the Internet was going to evolve to. In his usual no-nonsense way Kory asked, "Why is this different from what we have now?"

In trying to formulate an answer to this question this is the thought process that I followed. To my way of thinking, the Internet is some sort of loosely defined entity often depicted in diagrams as a cloud. (Don't get me started as to how ridiculous I find that example. The concept almost seems as if it is magic, not some incredibly expensive grouping of high-end hardware that makes it all happen.) If I think back to the early days of dialup, we would connect, navigate somewhere (later, by using a search engine) find what we were looking for and maybe download it to our local computer for archiving. Certainly there were other purposes including email, reading the news or whatever else we needed to grab for information but this was largely a tool that was out there, we temporarily became a part of and then left.

A few years ago, broadband allowed us to connect and stay connected. Several things started to happen that changed the way we interacted at that time. Many of us stopped downloading information and saving it locally, instead opting to "leave" the information "out there" knowing that we could find it again (probably faster) if we needed it at a later time.

Lately, I am beginning to notice another behavior that is now becoming accepted in our usage, a tying together of distant locations in a near permanent connection between people. Yes, I know the phrase "virtual network" has been around for a while and that the phrase accurately describes how two locations can be considered as one LAN but this is now evolving into something entirely different. I see this as now morphing into a virtual office, one where I can attend meetings, share data, work collaboratively on a project as well or better than I could if I was actually present at the site! In other words, I am "virtually adjacent" to my coworkers. In fact, I can be adjacent to my coworkers in China, India, California and in my home town without ever leaving my livingroom.

As technology progresses we can look forward to an even more realistic simulation of our adjacency. Take a look at this announcement. If/When this technology hits the mainstream we could expect to almost believe we are sitting right next to our coworker as we share virtual documents, collaboratively work on projects or simply discuss whatever the subject of importance might be that day.

As the cost of fuel (and transportation in general) climbs, our ability to work together effectively with others remotely will become even more critical. The term telecommuting has been in use for decades but now our ability to telecommute is now making more sense that ever. According to this link, we have an estimated 129,000,000 commuters in the US. To put that into perspective, if each commuter uses an average of 10 gallons of fuel every week for commuting (I think we can all agree that is a low figure) we find a staggering 1.29 billion gallons of fuel are being consumed weekly by commuters! Even if we could lower that by 1/4 we would be saving roughly 32,000,000 gallons of fuel per week. As gasoline hovers around the $3/gallon mark the estimated saving in fuel alone reaches $100 million per week and that does not take into account wear and tear, depreciation on vehicles along with the incredible waste of time we are talking about. Couple that with the money we spend on roads including maintenance and cleaning up from the weather and I believe we can uniformly see that the fuel expense is only a small percentage of our overall cost to maintain this system.

Recently, I had the pleasure of meeting Chuck Wilsker and Jack Heacock of TelCoa. It didn't take very long for the three of us to understand that we were pretty much in complete agreement as to the benefits of telecommuting (or Telework as they like to call it) but I was astounded at the specific examples they brought up that explain exactly why this business model makes sense.

For example, in this country we have a mounting problem dealing with an aging population (myself included) and the associated medical issues (not to mention the staggering costs) that we are facing. Complicating this issue is the fact that we don't have enough health care providers to adequately deal with this problem. One of the most dramatic deficits is our shortage of nurses - especially ones with experience. Ironically, as nurses get older we see health problems that prevent them from being able to function in the physically demanding tasks we need them to do such as lifting patients, etc. We also have a need for people to be able to communicate with health care professionals without choking doctor's offices and emergency rooms everywhere.

It makes sense to set up a facility that allows people to get on the phone and have access to an experienced nurse. This is one way that we can provide a rudimentary form of health care to our population inexpensively. However, the idea of a traditional "call center" may not be the best way to handle this situation. In cases where a nurse is disabled (say back problems) the added commute along with the continued time spent sitting in a chair is something that is not conducive with the needs of this person effectively locking them out of gainful (and useful) employment while denying the rest of us the ability to benefit from their extensive experience.

The answer, telecommuting! In fact, I believe that VoIP coupled with telecommuting will be one of the next big partnership between ISPs and business. As high speed connectivity becomes ubiquitous we will be able to employ many people that would otherwise be incapable or working. People who cannot drive temporarily (or cannot drive any longer) people who have loved ones at home that need care, single mothers with pre-school children will all now be able to work from their homes. Add to that the huge number of people living in rural areas that do not have the options available to their urban counterparts. More importantly, since these people have removed the ever-increasing expense of commuting they will effectively take home more money making them better compensated without costing their employers any more money.

On the employer's side of the equation there is the added benefit of not having to rent/own a facility let alone the cost of heat, light, maintenance, etc. Since employees are better compensated and people who had few or no realistic work options before can now work at a professional job the impact of job churn on both the employer and the employee are less likely to be a factor. This cost alone is something that should be seriously looked at. The savings that are made by not having to advertise, sift through resumes, answer the phone, interview, check references and then once an applicant is finally hired training is substantial. Additionally, in situations where someone relocates they can still keep their job by simply plugging in their SIP router into their new broadband connection almost without any interruption.

So, how does a business model like this technically work? Simple, we create a virtual PBX that allows the real time routing of calls to the next available operator. From the operator's perspective they can either choose to be "available" or "unavailable" and the PBX will route the calls accordingly. This allows for the single mother to feed her baby and put it down for a nap and then go back to work. The same holds true for an older person who has to attend to a sick loved one, personal needs or simply to take a nap. This is something that would be impossible in a traditional job where commuting was mandatory.

An even more fascinating aspect of this business model is what it is going to do to the traditional workplace. From computer tech support to telephone answering services this is going to disrupt the norm. While it is nearly impossible to estimate exactly the savings realized from switching from a brick and mortar telecenter to a home-based virtual telecenter model I think it is apparent that the reduction in cost will be dramatic.

As we all know, those that choose to adapt will displace those who don't. This "Darwinism of technology application" is something that is going to happen at a greatly accelerated rate. Disruptive Technology is one aspect in business any manager worth his salary should be losing sleep over but the correct application of these disruptive technologies is where the magic lies.