Not A New Year's Resolution

I'm not the type of person to make New Year's resolutions because why should a person pick just one time of the year to say that they are going to evaluate how they are going to live their life or run their business. This philosophy comes from my grandmother that use to say, "Why should I wait until your birthday to give you a present to show my love? I love you all of the time so anytime is a good time to give you a gift." So while I tend to evaluate my plans and life on a continual basis, the beginning of a new year is a psychological new beginning for many people. More importantly for most of us in the business world it the beginning of a new fiscal year for many of our customers.

The start of a new fiscal year is my motivator for implementing the plans that I made last year. I previously lamented about the malaise in the telecommunications industry. My assertion was that all of the excitement was in the equipment attached to the network. Looking at the excitement surrounding the CES that just ended, one could agree with my statement. Instead of an either/or option for intelligent network/intelligent CPE, the truth is that they have to operate synergistically to achieve their desired aim. There is a tremendous amount of heavy lifting behind returning your "OK Google" request or bringing you a Uber car. It may be the application developers that appear to create magic on smartphones and tablets, but it is that work of thousands of telecom network professionals like us to make it look like magic.

Although today's mobile device has more computing power than a supercomputer from 1980, that device cannot do everything necessary to deliver information or intelligence from the far-flung reaches of the Earth. There are thousands of protocols and API designed to allow systems to interact with each other to assemble disparate pieces of information into a simple result displayed on a screen. We use catchy marketing terms like Big Data and Internet of Things to make these interactions understandable by the layperson and to sell products and services to our customers. Although I cringe every time I hear buzzwords like these or cloud, I know that they are euphemisms for a complex set of interactions taking place in the network on the user's behalf.

So there are exciting things left to do in telecommunications afterall. They may not be as straightforward as the creation of DSL or SDH/SONET technology, but we have built that layer of the network and it is mature. We are in the phase of more complex interactions between different layers of the network to automate and simplify how services are delivered. For those veterans that built the foundation of today's broadband optical network, it may appear that there is not much left to do, but that is not the case.

The industry will continue to develop the SDN-based network and take advantage of powerful inexpensive computing to virtualize more functionality (NFV) into the cloud (ouch that hurt). As we continue to optimize the transport network to add more connected devices like doorbells (Ring), lights (LIFX), and cars, we will need the added sophistication that the network provides to provide near real time interactions with us.

There are still plenty of problems to solve such as ubiquitous connectivity. With only 40% of U.S. rural population having access to wired broadband and much less connectivity in many other parts of the world, there is still a tremendous effort needed to make broadband universal worldwide.

Security of data and information is another significant concern. Up to now, everything that we have done is just treating the symptom. Personal information is being stolen and sold every day from governments and private enterprises. No organization is immune to a data breach. Privacy goes right along with data security. Privacy is a basic human right that is constantly being violated globally by governments, corporations, and individuals. I question why my identity was compromised by a company that I never did business and used against me by the government. This situation is inexcusable, and it demonstrates the fact that security has not been a priority in our industry. Our liberty depends on these two tenants which is why the industry's brightest minds must develop a holistic solution that includes end-to-end encryption of all information on devices and traversing across the network. There can be no backdoors for any reason.

Millions of new devices being connected to the network monthly requires scalability. With increased scalability comes increased power consumption. We need to put our minds on how to grow these networks without exponentially increasing power consumption. Actually power consumption should be decreasing.

I could go on and on but those are the big three topics that I see the industry addressing in 2016 and beyond. Closer to home, I will continue to be involved in the larger trends in the industry while solving some of the more tactical problems to get us there. ComTech Sales and myself can be relied upon to work with service providers to develop and implement solutions to expanding broadband penetration, security, and power consumption. We will continue to grow our business on the telecom side of the industry that we started in the fall of 2015. Please rely on us for solutions to your equipment needs.

A Time for A Transition

Almost a year has passed since I last written a blog, why? Maybe after almost three decades in the industry I'm not excited by the technology these day. Maybe it has been the associations with my last two companies that have deflated the once full sails that I had for navigating through the industry. Or maybe it is the malaise that has wandered into the industry after the deflation of the bubble. Most of the innovation has migrated to the services delivered and customer equipment and out of the network. The pendulum has swung back to intelligent CPE/dumb network. Of course there are those that will argue with me that there is more intelligence in the network than ever with bandwidth on demand, SDN, NFV, IP-centric data transport, and the cloud. All of this technology are just techniques to optimize data transport from point A to point B. Exciting as it may be, we are just at the asymptote of the Moore's Law curve.

After reading this first paragraph you may begin to think that I am jaded. I prefer to think of it as experienced. I believe that the industry will still create breakthroughs in technology but they will be focused on the customer experience more than the network experience. There is still much work to do making access to the network ubiquitous and inexpensive. The creation of Inphotonics Research was to leverage the concept of open-access broadband infrastructure to increase customer choice and broadband penetration outside urban and suburban areas, but we were a bit ahead of our time. I know that open-access infrastructure would be the best alternative for consumers and municipalities, but I am not going to fight that fight again unless some unforeseen circumstance were to unveil itself.

When I started my telecommunication career in the mid-80 at AT&T Bell Laboratories, I was fascinated by the possibilities of fiber optic communications, and I chose to be a part of it all the way from basic research on III-V materials to make better laser diodes and photodetectors to the systems that used those devices. I was a part of many industry firsts though the innovation that myself and my colleagues created and delivered. As my career progressed, I evolved from a development/technical role to a business/management role but I still stayed on top of the technology because it was my differentiator. I continually educated myself on the latest technology and standards to remain on the leading edge of technology. My companies and customers benefited from this skill.

After the bubble broke, I made some decisions that were more family than career oriented. I was disillusioned with the industry because of the corruption and ineptness that I witnessed firsthand. Maybe I would have been less disillusioned if I had cashed in on some of the spoils, but despite my best recommendations our owners decided to take a different course. Still I ended up working with some great people over the last decade and a half while at Accedian Networks and even Sunrise Telecom. Through it all it was my customers that kept me going. It was the satisfaction that no matter what happened that I was giving them the best recommendations and value that I could provide.

All is not doom and gloom though. I have been involved in many industry firsts, and gained extensive knowledge and experience along the way. I have had the privilege of working with some great people both as colleagues and customers. A few months ago, I was contemplating what I should do for the next stage of my career. I am in Boulder, Colorado which I love and have ties to my family and community. The Denver/Boulder area is not known for being a hot-bed of telecom activity these days and investors are more interested in mobile applications and social media over investing in big infrastructure companies. A Sphero-like device has a better chance of being funded over an inexpensive device that can deliver broadband services to remote areas. It is a shame because we have a vibrant communications services industry in the region still the money is going elsewhere.

What to do? Fortunately my industry colleagues and friends are always there for me, and I reconnected with one of my best manufacturer representative to expand his business into the telecom sector. Charlie Fajardo built ComTech Technologies to serve the cable TV (a.k.a. MSO) industry. Charlie and his team have been extremely successful building a relationship with MSO customers over the years to build a great business that not only sells a wide variety of products to these companies, but is a unbiased and reliable technical source to provide recommendations to these service providers.

I have joined ComTech Sales to start the telecom practice to provide the same services to customers in the telecommunications industry. We will build on the already extensive list of manufacturers that we have partnered to service our telecommunications service provider customers. I am excited to embark on this new venture with Charlie and the team to grow ComTech Sales business to the level the team has done in the MSO space. I look forward to continuing to build relationships with my existing customers plus add many more as well as forge new and stronger relationships with our manufacturer partners. We are here to be a reliable resource to all communications companies to serve your needs from the customer all the way through the network. This will be an exciting new journey that I am thrilled to do.

Obama Proposes Overriding the Tenth Amendment

Obama’s speech at Cedar Falls, Iowa was like most of his speeches; much to do about nothing. He is proposing nothing short of allowing municipal governments to use taxpayer funds to compete against private enterprise, and he is encouraging the FCC to override 20 state laws in contradiction to the Tenth Amendment. I make no bones that I am a free market capitalist and I am strongly against the government taking over or competing against private enterprise. What Obama is proposing is not only anti-capitalism but also illegal.

I have written here that our current duopolies are not optimal for consumers, but replacing them with a subsidized government bureaucracy is a move in the wrong direction. I support municipal governments determining their own broadband destiny as much as I support removing restrictions allowing new entrants into the market by removing obstacles that municipalities and states have created. Twenty states have created laws to protect taxpayers from having to pay for cities failed attempts into the broadband services markets. These states realized that the communications market is competitive and fast moving. They have seen how over 50% of all municipal broadband efforts have failed leaving taxpayers to pay off creditors and bondholders (link, link). Proponents of government broadband, including the press, are quick to point out the few successes like EBP in Chattanooga and Cedar Falls, but they don’t bring up UTOPIA or Longmont, Colorado that is going for its forth attempt to provide residential broadband services. There are a variety of reasons that municipal broadband efforts fail which is why it is better to leave the risk to private enterprise.

Obama cannot instruct the FCC to just override the 20 state laws enacted to protect taxpayers. The Tenth Amendment gives states the ability to make its own laws without the federal government overriding them except for powers expressly granted by the Constitution and states. The Supreme Court has already upheld the authority of the states to prevent municipalities from providing telecommunications services in Nixon v. Missouri Municipal League by a 8 to 1 decision. He can say what he wants but case law is already pretty clear on states’ authority granted by the Telecommunications Act of 1986.

There is no question to the value of broadband services to a community, but it should be delivered in a competitive environment to enjoy all of the value that it brings. Either industry partnerships or cities should be allowed to come together to build open-access broadband fiber infrastructure as done in many cities and countries outside the United States. Sharing a common infrastructure will reduce the barrier to developing a profitable business model for a service provider; therefore, promoting competition that will benefit everyone in the community. This is the direction that Obama should be encouraging states to go.

Technorati Tags: broadband,municipal broadband,open access,telecom,FTTH,broadband penetration,FCC,Obama

There May Be Hope Yet

Over the past couple of weeks, I have been encouraged that there are more people discussing open-access infrastructure than before. Maybe it is because they have started to read Title II and realize that it is not the panacea once thought. By definition more government intervention/regulation means less freedom, and the hundreds of pages contained in the Telecommunications Act of 1934 is no exception. Title II is jam packed with regulations designed around telephone service in the 1930’s when we were under the control of the Bell System. Needless to say that it will control every aspect of our Internet services. The Internet was founded based on a loose federation of networks survivable if any one link disappears. It was meant so any node could reach and freely exchange information with another node. Even the technical aspects that the Internet was designed were not called standards or regulations, they are called Request for Comment that implies they are fluid and optional. Imposing laws and regulations on the Internet is contrary to its founding principles.

The FCC has indicated that if they impose Title II regulation, it will chose which parts to enforce. If you expect the FCC to exercise any forbearance of any section, you have not been living in America long. Bureaucracies live to grow and expand their power. Eventually piece-by-piece the FCC will implement parts of Title II over the years. Also included in Title II is the allowance of paid prioritization which is a no no for many net neutrality wonks. People that support this heavy handed move either are ignorant of what it will really means or have ulterior motives such as lobbying to influence control of the Internet for their business advantage (i.e. crony capitalism).

Thankfully some people are waking up and realizing what regulation will really mean to the Internet, and they realize that competition is the real solution to the yet to be encountered net neutrality issue. Karl Bode wrote an article yesterday on Techdirt that concluded that open-access broadband is a superior choice to regulation. Leo Laporte had a well-balanced panel discussion about net neutrality on TWiT that touched on the fact that competition would be superior to regulation. My neighbor to the north, Brett Glass, delivered intelligent arguments against regulation and for open-access on TWiT. These intelligent and technical discussions are ones that we should have had two years ago when net neutrality reared its ugly head. Broadband competition can be achieved if we remove the barriers that are preventing it from happening.

Fortunately there are solutions that can be adopted that eliminate the need for heavy-handed FCC regulation: open-access fiber infrastructure. I am not discounting other means of access such as wireless, but there are impediments to wireless access as well such as spectrum allocation which is also under FCC control. I have already extolled the virtues of open-access in other posts so I will refrain from being repetitive. Suffice it to say that there are a few different models for open-access. Network unbundling is the least favorite of mine but in a pinch that will work. Most of the incumbents don’t have fiber that deep into the network to make unbundling an option. We need to build fiber to every home and well as provide spectrum to do it as well. The FCC should be working to support those efforts and eliminate barriers for new and existing entrants that want to provide infrastructure. Working on some convoluted semi-regulation scheme is a fools-errand that will only lead to lawsuits and more complaining. Let’s work on providing a competitive broadband environment instead.

Technorati Tags: broadband,municipal broadband,open access,FCC,net neutrality

Avoiding the Pitfalls of Municipal Broadband Networks

I just posted an article on municipal broadband from Forbes that is one of many that points out the pitfalls of municipal broadband. Lest we forget all of the muni-WiFi follies of the last decade. It is not the purpose of government to compete with free enterprise in a capitalist economy. Government should only step in when private enterprise will not or cannot financially serve a market.

This article touches on the fact that fiber-based broadband networks are extremely costly to build. That last-mile access is the most expensive because it is the portion of the network least shared. Add to it the fact that we have a much lower housing density in the United States than in most countries, and you have added even more to the cost of providing service to a single home. Now consider the fact that the electronics that power the network will be replaced typically every 5 years to keep up with the demand for more services and bandwidth and you have offset most of the benefits of the 40-50 year life-cycle of the fiber. Do not forget the pressure to lower cost due to competition and the increasing costs for content. Now maybe you can see why there are only two providers at best in each market.

The business case for broadband services (i.e. voice, video, and data) works for at most two providers if they build and operate their own networks. Most areas of the United States are currently in this situation. A duopoly does not promote competition; hence, the desire for a third player. Google has chosen to stir up the pot in several markets by competing with the incumbents but their business objective is to use these captive eye-balls to push more Google advertising. I personally applaud Google for taking a long-term and different approach to provide true competition in some markets. The down side to what they are doing could be the "walled gardens" that so many net-neutrality wonks are afraid with managed services on the Internet. What's to prevent Facebook from doing the same as Google? Why not? The problem is if Facebook and Google start limiting content to competing services. It could happen. Remember AOL and CompuServe?

These fears and the fact that Google has only announced a limited number of markets it is entering. In Google's defense what is limiting the speed of their penetration is the byzantine regulatory environment that they have to navigate. Many cities and towns do not want to wait for Google or someone else to come so they have turned to government to fill in where private enterprise will not. A persuasive argument could be made for wanting municipal broadband which citizens of Chatanooga and around Salt Lake City have bought.

Cities have not considered out-of-the-box solutions such as they lay and manage the fiber infrastructure and allow service providers to lease the fiber access from a centralized location to the subscribers' home. Locales in Europe and Asia have successfully implemented this model. Where they have open-access broadband infrastructure, competition has flourished. I have challenged several municipalities to try open-access but they had employees more interested in building and running their own little networks. Civic leaders need to reach beyond their own bureaucrats or desire for bigger government and look for solutions that will work for the economic growth of their cities.

Why Do We Need the F.C.C. Involved in the Internet?

Apparently my last article hit a nerve with a few people which is strange because it was only meant to enlighten people as to the real issues concerning traffic management and peering to stimulate competition for over-the-top (OTT) providers.  I have to say that at stake here is the exact issue that I have personally encountered.  My lowly blog isn’t backed by any major media outlets or elite-funded NGO, but it reached the world and struck a nerve.  I have over 25 years experience as an engineer in the telecommunications industry developing and selling network elements.  I am not a lawyer, politician, or lobbyist who want to call the shots in the industry, but through the power of the Internet my voice has been heard.  The Internet gives those of us with real knowledge a way to be heard (and those without knowledge too). 

There are people our society who don’t want those voices to be heard or at least controlled.  They purport to champion freedom and equality yet their agenda is just the opposite.  I have no agenda other than supporting the free market and everyone’s ability to be successful on their own terms.  So what does this all have to do with Net Neutrality?  The ability for all of us with a voice to be heard are under attack by people purporting supporting net neutrality.  Let me elaborate.

In my last article, I applauded the common sense rules proposed by the F.C.C. because they allow OTT providers to compete against incumbents effectively.  I do not have anything against the incumbent carriers; I use to be part of a couple of them.  I believe that competition benefits not only the consumers, but the entrepreneurs and incumbents as well.  It is a win-win for everyone except for those that end up losing control and power due to free-markets.  I believe that the F.C.C. are proposing rules that support the free-market and entrepreneurship.  To me this is a technical argument with business implications; not a political discussion.  That is where I got it wrong.

Being an engineer by trade, I always believe that a sound technical solution and logic will prevail.  Also, I believe that people understand that competition and freedom benefit all.  It appears that with even though I have age, I am still a bit naive.  My article received some negative comments by people and even NGO that supposedly support an open Internet.  They didn’t like the fact that I was supporting these proposed rules.  There is a huge public misinformation campaign going on across the Internet under the guise that the F.C.C.’s proposed rules will kill the Internet and free-speech.  At first I believed that this effort was based on a lack of knowledge of the issues at hand, but now I realize that the people behind this campaign know exactly what is going on.  They are using the general lack of knowledge by the general public on the topic to scare them into believing that these rules will benefit the incumbents and kill the Internet, and the tech media in all in on it with them.  Their real motivation is to gain greater governmental control of the Internet so they can determine who says and does what.  These groups are disingenuous in their motivations.

This is why the F.C.C. or any governmental organization does not need to be involved in the Internet.  Government involvement always leads to manipulation by special interests and loss of freedom.  The groups purporting to protect the Internet actually will do the opposite.  There are FCC staff members that are founders of groups that are campaigning against these rules under the guise of supporting net neutrality.  Unfortunately their disinformation campaign is very effective.  We do not need the F.C.C. to further regulate and interfere in the Internet although these rules do make sense.  The Internet should remain open for all to speak freely and compete effectively whether an incumbent or OTT service provider.  Please do not be fooled into supporting a cause because it sounds like the right thing to support.  Read and fully understand both sides of the argument, and draw your own conclusion.  Things aren’t always what they seem.

Technorati Tags: ISP,Internet,FCC,No Agenda,Silicon Flatirons,censor,net neutrality,telecommunications

Common Sense at the F.C.C.

Federal Communications Chairman Thomas Wheeler (Brian Fung/The Washington Post)

After a few months of comments by the Chairman of the F.C.C., Thomas Wheeler, that the Commission would consider allowing companies to pay for special arrangements for access to their customers.  They will propose a new set of rules in their May meeting that will allow content providers to pay broadband carriers for better access to customers.  In this statement they included another proposed rule that would prevent any carrier from inhibiting, limiting, or denying access that would limit the openness of the Internet.  The Commission was not specific on how the details of this so-called fast lane could be implemented, but most likely it will be increased bandwidth at peering points, improved content caching, and traffic prioritization (i.e. Quality of Service).  The F.C.C. was specific in stating that broadband providers “may not act in a commercially unreasonable manner to harm the Internet, including favoring the traffic from an affiliated entity.”

The F.C.C.’s action is based on a January decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columba Circuit that struck down the FCC’s 2010 net neutrality rules.  This still left the commission with the authority under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to regulate broadband services.  The F.C.C. would still have to look at each agreement on a case-by-case basis as required by the D.C. court.  Also they will act on any broadband company that engages in harmful conduct that threaten the openness of the Internet.

The F.C.C. has properly covered its’ bases here by preserving the value of the Internet that allows any device to freely connect to any other device, but they also wisely recognize that all bits are NOT created equal.  Since the arrival of Thomas Wheeler at the commission, the analysis and reports from the staff engineers have triumphed over the politics of the bureaucrats and outsiders.  They realize that best-effort Internet access is not sufficient to promote true content competition.

Since divestiture we have strived for a competitive telecommunications market in this country, but we have been unable to achieve it because the business case is untenable for each service provider to build high bandwidth fiber networks to homes and small businesses.  It is affordable to run fiber to business customers that spend thousands of dollars a month on services which is why we have approximately 40% of all businesses now served by fiber.  For the residential subscriber that spends less that $50 per month the cost is prohibitive. This fact is why we now have triple-play services offered by a duopoly with an ARPU over $100 per month offered by the incumbent broadband carriers.  Service providers need at least a 40% market share to provide a reasonable ROI to build a network which is why you don’t see small start-ups building alternative networks.  Investors are smart enough to realize that it takes too much capital to build these networks and it is a losing proposition to take on the incumbents.

Fledgeling startups like Vonage or Netflix could never afford to build their own network, but they can leverage the Internet to provide competing services to the incumbent carriers.  The incumbent carriers control the quality of their services by utilizing bandwidth outside of their Internet service to deliver their voice and video services.  Over-the-top (OTT) service providers do not have any ability to control the quality of their services since currently the Internet is a best-effort where all bits are created equal.  Before delay and jitter critical services like voice and video traversed the Internet, best-effort was good enough because no one really tell if their web page or e-mail was arriving a few milliseconds later than it did last time. Slow performance was usually related to the last-mile access bandwidth.  Throw a few more Mbit/s at a customer and the problem was gone. 

Now that video dominates the Internet, the backbone frequently becomes saturated at peering points and access;  thereby, affecting all traffic.  Customers of OTT companies are complaining that the quality of the service is poor, and they eventually go back to the incumbent service provider.  The OTT loses while the incumbent wins.  The customer loses too because there is less competition in the market.

The conclusion is that best-effort packet delivery is not good enough for services like voice and video.  Businesses have known that for over a decade which is why they purchased managed Ethernet services where they can prioritize their voice traffic over video over web surfing and e-mail.  There are two standards by which traffic can be prioritized end-to-end and several implementation agreements that the industry uses for interoperability.  These same mechanisms can be applied to the Internet to level the playing field for OTT service providers.

The F.C.C. is smart to recognize that true service provider competition will take a few more decades to come to the residential market.  Of course open-access municipal broadband could deliver true competition as I have written about many times, but allowing content providers to negotiate special peering arrangements and traffic prioritization will offer consumers a real choice in services other than that forced upon them by the duopolies.  OTT service providers like Netflix, Hulu+, Amazon, Google, Vonage, etc. will soon be able to deliver the same quality of service as the incumbent carriers at competitive prices.

Unfortunately this common sense technical solution to enable capitalism has been extremely politicized.  Many of the articles written over the past few months are vehemently against this proposed change in policy, but their fears are fueled by their ignorance and vested interests.  Surprisingly The New York Times and PC World each wrote very good and non-biased articles on today’s announcement that accurately presented the F.C.C.’s proposed new rules.  The usual tripe was spewed by outlets such as The Verge, NPR, The L.A. Times, and CBS’ own CNET decrying the end of the Internet and quoting any number of Soros funded front groups.

Their arguments are based on the egalitarian philosophy that all bits should be treated equal.  They trot out anti-capitalist rhetoric and class-warfare arguments.  What they do not realize that while they think they are sticking up for the little-guy (the consumer and OTT providers) they are actually supporting the big guy (the incumbent).  Maybe I am not giving them enough credit and their support is intentional. 

A prime example of the the misinformation that is propagated was on today’s The 404 Show hosted by CNET.  Bridget Carey (@BridgetCarey) incorrectly states that the little guy cannot afford to pay the toll to Comcast that the large companies could easily pay.  Well Netflix was and still is a little guy compared to companies like Comcast, but they charge an order of magnitude less than the big guy so adding a couple of bucks a month for superior quality of service insignificantly impacts their value.  She leaps to the conclusion with the support of her cohort Jeff Bakalar (@JeffBakalar) that there will be an Internet ghetto for those companies and people that cannot afford to pay. What they are missing is that only companies with time-sensitive content will want to pay for prioritization, and that companies just serving up web pages like Amazon, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc. can still survive on a best-effort service.  Jeff believes that the Internet should be free and that all service and content providers are inherently evil.  Their arguments were thinly veiled slams at Comcast which is no surprise since they are paid by Viacom/CBS.  This is the problem when you have journalism majors applying their political philosophies to the technical domain.  They certainly should not be issued a journalism license.

The problem is that arguments like these will be presented as opposition to the common sense rules proposed by the F.C.C.  They will be guided by emotions and fear and not facts which seems to dominate today’s political domain.  Thomas Wheeler is the first Commissioner in more than a decade that actually understands the industry that he is attempting to regulate.  Let’s hope that the rest of the Commission understands reason so we can have a truly competitive content market.

Technorati Tags: FCC,FTTH,Internet,broadband,net neutrality,differentiated services,Silicon Flatirons,No Agenda,Comcast (CMCSA)

North Carolina Legislate to Limit Muni Broadband is Neither Fair Nor Level

Last week House Bill 129 was passed by the North Carolina House of Representatives, and it is now making its way through the Senate.  This piece of legislation’s sole purpose is to protect the incumbent service providers in the state in areas where they cannot afford to make investments for advanced broadband services.  It unfairly limits municipalities ability to drive economic growth and stimulate competition in the communications marketplace.  States that enact this type of legislation are limiting their long-term growth capabilities.  Competitive content and service providers need to band together to support municipal broadband as an alternative method to deliver their services and content.  The best way to ensure net neutrality is through greater competition. 

I have written a longer editorial on the topic in the news section at Inphotonics Research.  Please read it and provide any feedback you feel fitting.

Technorati Tags: North Carolina,broadband penetration,net neutrality,telecom,municipal broadband,rural broadband,NC politics

Where Are Your Blog Posts?

You may have noticed that I have not posted anything on my blog since mid-December.  Instead, I have been posting commentaries to the articles I post on Inphotonics Research.  Every day I post and article or two to the news page of our company’s site, and I will add my comments to the story.  I post articles relating to municipal and rural broadband on this page.  There is an RSS feed associated with this page to make it easy to track new articles.

I will continue to publish a blog post or two each month to this page, but they will be on other telecom related topics like net neutrality or carrier strategies.  Feel free to request a topic that you would like for me to expound upon. 

In the mean time, I was sent a link to this YouTube video posted by Ogilvy Asia for a Taiwanese bank.  Normally I hit the 30 second skip ahead button on the remote or only watch the beer commercials e-mailed to me.  I started watching this one, and I was compelled to finish it.  This advertisement struck a chord in me to remind me that the human spirit is much stronger than societal norms.  I am including it on my blog for your enjoyment and as an interlude until my next post.

Enjoy.

Technorati Tags: Inphotonics Research,Ogilvy,motorcycle,municipal broadband,net neutrality

Qwest’s Request for Statewide Video Franchise Has a Weakness

The proposal by Qwest for statewide franchising for video services is not necessarily a good move for consumers unless communities have options to ensure their broadband future.  By simplifying the franchising process, Qwest/CenturyLink and others can easily re-enter the video market in Colorado without negotiating with every city they want to provide service; thereby, allowing competitors to satellite and cable TV companies.  I personally welcome Qwest’s re-entrance into the market.  Local franchise negotiations are often fraught with requests for community TV stations and equipment, free or reduced charges to schools and other institutions, municipal network access, and that pesky universal service requirement.

Elimination of these individual negotiations will reduce the cost of providing services to consumers and speed time to market.  Wireline providers such as Qwest and Frontier Communications will be able to develop successful business cases to deliver video services in communities enabling more competition and choice.  The problem is that there are still a limited number of competitors for video services in the state, and without a universal service requirement new entrants will likely serve only the markets that can be reached for the lowest cost and highest probability of market penetration leaving some suburban and rural areas with limited or no choices.  Additionally it gives new entrants an advantage over current municipal franchise holders like Comcast that are required to provide service to all households in the franchise territory.

I support Qwest’s move to simplify the franchise process with the caveat that allows communities to have control over their broadband destinies.  If a community can no longer guarantee that they will have video (and broadband) services that meet their needs, then they should be able to offer alternatives for their community.  A few years ago the legislature passed SB-152 that prevents communities from building their own broadband networks for public use.  The intent was to keep communications services in the hands of private enterprise and not divert taxpayer money for these purposes.  What is does is prevent many communities from having advanced broadband services that many of their urban counterparts have.

Building broadband networks to every home is a very expensive endeavor.  The economics to build these networks for just a single carrier use is not feasible for public companies except in the densest metro areas which is why you see Verizon’s FiOS in only major metropolitan areas.  A community could build that last mile network and lease access to multiple service providers and see it break even in 5-7 years.  Google is trying to institutionalize this model in their Fiber for Communities project.  These open-access last mile networks have proven to be economically feasible in many cities throughout the world, but in Colorado cities are prevented by law from building them.

Any proposed change in franchising and lessening of the “universal video service” requirement should come with a repeal of SB-152.  This change would allow municipalities to form public/private partnerships to build and operate network infrastructure where private service providers could purchase network to deliver voice, video, and data services.  Communities would then be assured that their citizens would have a choice of service providers and the revenue from the network would replace franchise fees.  Eventually Qwest and Comcast would see the benefits of municipal broadband infrastructure and begin purchasing capacity as well.

Denver Post Article

Technorati Tags: CenturyTel (CTL),Colorado,Comcast (CMCSA),Google Fiber for Communities,Qwest (Q),Verizon (VZ),broadband penetration,rural broadband,telecommunications,video

New US "mega kill bill" would give President and DHS even more power to control the Internet

Laws like this is the reason that I am against the FCC or Congress getting involved in any regulation of the Internet especially net neutrality.  This bill, if passed, would give the President and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) sweeping powers to shut down parts and the whole Internet or even terminate specific users they deem are threats by executive fiat.  There is no Congressional oversight.  There is little definition of what IS a cyber-threat.  Once again is proves that the current Administration and Congress does not understand the Internet. 

There are several things wrong with this proposed legislation not to mention that it is probably unconstitutional without “war power” authority to go along with it.  This power would allow the Executive branch to interfere with commerce and suppress free speech.  Wasn’t this administration suppose to be “open” and “transparent?”  They are actually more totalitarian than they claimed of the previous administration. 

Next, the legislation allows continued unwarranted surveillance of “suspects” that are deemed “threats” to national security which is an extension of the Patriot Act.  Finally the legislation barely takes into account the fact that the Internet is a global network and not just a U.S. network. 

The philosophy of the bill can be summed up by Senator Joe Lieberman’s comment on CNN that the U.S. needs the same ability to shut down the Internet as China.  So it looks like the current administration and Congress is benchmarking ourselves with the Peoples’ Republic of China.  God help us all. 

The Internet is a global network for commerce, information dissemination, and communications.  There may be a need during war to manage ingress and egress to the United States, but it should not be wholly shut down.  The NSA is better equipped to understand and manage this job than DHS.  The government should recall that open communications did more to bring down Communism than anything else we did during the Cold War.

Senator Lieberman’s legislation is ill conceived and needs to be killed immediately.  This is not a partisan issue, but one of freedom and openness.  Also, there must be checks placed on the application of such a power.  It must not be given unilaterally.  Contact your Senators and urge them not to support S.3480.  When will our industry and tech community realize that as a whole the government does not really understand the Internet and any attempt to control it will have disastrous effects?

Technorati Tags: Internet,eavesdropping,net neutrality,politics,president,telecom,wiretapping,terrorism

The Wrangling on Net Neutrality Continues This Week

The debate on net neutrality rages on this week with AT&T checking with their position on the topic.  Not only did they effectively state their case for differentiated services, they also addressed the inaccuracies in the positions of the political opposition groups.  Mr. Hultquist noted, in his blog post, that the position of net neutrality groups like the Church of Extreme Net Neutrality (CoENN) will make the Internet a “dumb network.”  I applaud AT&T for coming out in support of differentiated services and backhandedly supporting the Verizon/Google principles.  Their article took the direct approach to dispel the myths of political opposition groups.

Declan McCullagh of CNET wrote a rather objective piece on AT&T’s announcement covering the basis for AT&T’s position.  In the article he presented an opposing views from groups like Free Press.  Mr. McCullagh shows the astute reader that AT&T’s position is based in technical facts while the Free Press’ position is based on opinion with no historical or factual basis.   I hope that CNET and the rest of the press will continue to provide objective reporting on the topic and continue to produce well researched articles like this one.

The FCC took some action this week requesting more data from Google and Verizon as reported by ARS Technia.  Anti-differentiated services proponents chastise the FCC for dragging its feet, but I think that it is giving industry time to align itself and reach an agreement.  I am sure that they will not public admit to this strategy, but their passive role and quiet support of differentiated services in their Broadband Performance report seems to support my supposition.  The FCC is treading lightly because it knows that net neutrality is a political hot potato, and if they take no action, then the political opposition groups will utilize the President to put pressure on the FCC.  They realize that their legal authority to implement net neutrality is weak so they will drive the industry through their inquiry process.  If they push the industry to address wireless networks as well then they can claim credit for being an active participant. 

Companies continue to come forth in support of differentiated services.  Hopefully in the coming weeks more content companies will release statements.  I would like to see a content provider like Vonage, Netflix, or Disney chide in the debate.  If these companies realize how differentiated services can allow them to compete and create new content delivery models, then the political opposition groups will not have much ground to stand on.

Technorati Tags: FCC,Google,Verizon (VZ),broadband,differentiated services,net neutrality,politics,wireless

Copps Is Out of Touch With FCC Staff

Michael Copps should spend more time talking to FCC staff and less time playing politician. The FCC's latest report on broadband performance recognizes and defines different service types, and they state that QOS plays a role in their performance. The FCC staff even goes as far as to recommend the use of differentiated services.
in reference to: FCC member blasts Google-Verizon plan, says it favors the rich - The Hill's Hillicon Valley (view on Google Sidewiki)

The FCC Has Recognized the Need for Differentiated Services

Last week the FCC published its’ report on U.S. broadband Internet usage entitled Broadband Performance: OBI Technical Report No. 4.  The press chose to report on the sensational claim in the Executive Summary that actual measured bandwidth was half of the advertised bandwidth.  If they would have taken the time to read past the Executive Summary or not copy the other articles written about the report, they would have noticed that the report supports Quality of Service (QOS);  thereby, implicitly endorsing differentiated services.  They even dedicated Appendix 3 to a cursory discussion of QOS.

In Section I, the concept of QOS is first mentioned when profiling the different types of traffic users download.  In the quote below, The FCC states that high definition video needs bandwidth and QOS.

At the high end of the range, an application such as enhanced high definition (HD) video teleconferencing could require 5–10 Mbps, or more along with significant quality of service (QOS) performance (see Exhibit 9, where “Symm.”—short for symmetrical—indicates that the download speed is also required for upstream traffic).

In the next paragraph they reveal the other parameters that are required for HD video conferencing.

Download speeds are only one measure of broadband performance.
For example, HD quality videoconferencing requires very fast upload speeds to allow a person to transmit her image and voice while simultaneously receiving the image and voice of another person. In addition to upload and download speeds, measures of QOS such as availability, latency and jitter (variation in latency among different packets) may be important. Some applications, like e-mail or text-based Web surfing, are generally insensitive to these other measures of network performance, but for other applications, such as videoconferencing, these measures may be important (see Exhibit 10).

These statements introduce the reader to the concept that bandwidth alone may not be sufficient for certain types of services.  Later in Exhibits 9 and 10, services are classified by their need to be experienced immediately along with the need for QOS to determine user experience.  The FCC is unequivocally stating that all bits are not created equal.  They identify real-time and near-real-time traffic as needing lower packet loss, latency, and jitter from typical web browsing or e-mail reading.  The FCC’s quiet endorsement of differentiated services came in the beginning of Section III by stating:

The NBP therefore relies on a National Broadband Availability Target defined in terms of quantified download and upload speeds, with qualitative reference to a QOS consistent with the delivery of voice and video applications.

Perhaps the reason why the FCC was dragging their feet on net neutrality regulation was that internally they actually support differentiated services.They realize that it can improve overall user Internet experience and provide real competition to the incumbents.  By letting Google and Verizon publish their principles of net neutrality, they let those two take the flack for supporting differentiated services instead of staff having to deal with the political fallout.  Whatever the reason, I am glad that the bureaucrats recognize how the application of QOS will benefit the Internet.  Too bad the press missed it. 

Technorati Tags: broadband,differentiated services,FCC,Google,Internet,ISP,telecommunications,Verizon (VZ),QOS

Why Richi Jennings Is Right About Net Neutrality

Out of the hundreds of articles written about the recent set of principles released by Google and Verizon, this article written by Richi Jennings correctly points out two reasons why the egalitarian net neutrality concept will not work.   He realizes that packet prioritization is necessary to create a good experience for all Internet users.  The Internet’s architecture has changed much from the early days when it just pushed around short notes, e-mail, file transfers, terminal sessions, and net news.  The services have increased to real-time and near real-time traffic like voice, video, instant messaging, and webcams.  The backbone has changed from cobbled together private line connections to a complex backbone connecting many different carriers with both paid and neutral peering points.  Its’ ability to adapt to the increase of users, services, and complexity is a credit to the many people that contributed to its architecture. 

One of the reasons that the Internet has been so successful and extensible has been an absence of governmental interference.  True that some countries have outlawed it or prevented access to certain types of material, but they have not meddled into its fundamental design.  If the U.S. government intervenes by not allowing companies to add new capabilities or manage their networks, then the Internet as a whole will suffer.  Every time the government creates a new law there are always unintended consequences.  This time we can see them before they happen (is that possible?).  Any carrier should not block or inhibit access to any lawful content provider.  That is/should be a basic Internet tenant.  That tenant should not exclude the classification/prioritization of traffic types as long as it is applied equally to any content provider. 

Richi is one of the few people in the technical press that has enough of a technical understanding of the Internet to acknowledge that Google’s and Verizon’s principles are a good start.  Holman W. Jenkins Jr. wrote an op-ed piece in today’s Wall Street Journal that acknowledges the need for traffic differentiation and recognizes that wireless is the true battlefield.  I wish more of the technical press was as enlightened as these two.

Why Andrew Orlowski is wrong about net neutrality - Computerworld Blogs
AT&T Sees Hope on Web Rules – Wall Street Journal
End of the Net Neut Fetish – Wall Street Journal

Technorati Tags: Google, Verizon, Computerworld, net neutrality

True Progress on Net Neutrality from Verizon and Google

Monday Google and Verizon released their joint framework for an open Internet.  While the press and digiratti expressed their outrage that two leaders in the industry too the initiative to make a proposal, it was a major step forward in reaching consensus by the largest access and content providers.  Condemnation was generally universal from expected sources like Wired, This Week in Tech, the George Soros funded MoveOn.org, the technical press in general, FCC, and even the Wall Street Journal.  Other carriers, such as AT&T and  Level 3, were generally timid in their acceptance of the progress.  The reasons for the condemnation were varied and often overstated.  Most of the denunciation resulted from a lack of knowledge in how the Internet and telecommunications networks work.  This ignorance causes fear that results in calls for government intervention even though there is yet to be a problem.

Presently all Internet traffic is classified as a “best-effort” service.  That means that all packets travel independently through the Internet with no preferences given to them.  The packets are not even guaranteed to arrive at their destination if there is congestion at network nodes which is why TCP was invented to tell the sender to resend lost packets.  The truth is that most non-business Internet traffic uses the same equipment and bandwidth as business services that are already prioritized.  Carriers may already be slightly delaying best-effort Internet when their router becomes congested with business services.  Therefore, the concept of “all packets being equal” is already a misnomer.  Even content providers like Google prioritize their internal traffic over Gmail sessions or search queries when they may be comingled. Carriers have been selling “differentiated” services to businesses for several years to ensure the quality of video and voice traffic over e-mail, web browsing, and other applications that are tolerant to a few hundreds of milliseconds delay.  It is about time that residential users have access to those same capabilities if innovative services like Over-the-Top Video (Hulu Plus, Netflix, etc.) and VoIP are going to compete with Cable TV and “digital phone services."

Several articles prophesized that the introduction of differentiated services would create two Internets because carriers would dedicate almost all of their bandwidth to the more profitable differentiated services or split networks.  This statement is false because operating parallel networks is not an economically viable solution.  Duplicating equipment would drive the costs up of all services.  In reality network operators are always trying to converge their networks to a single network for economies of scale.  We are reaching the 1950’s goal of the Bell System that all services will ride over a single network.  The Internet Protocol (IP) and inexpensive Ethernet has made that goal possible.  Carriers are increasingly migrating their network to IP to yield both capital and operational cost savings.  As these networks merge, Internet access will ride right along with the voice and video services also offered by the carriers.  Services like FiOS, U-Verse, and Xfinity are based on this shared network concept.  Carriers of these services dedicate bandwidth to each service.  If a competitor like Netflix wanted to offer a service to you they could not purchase bandwidth from Comcast, AT&T, or Verizon.  They have to do it over the Internet where their movies are subject to potential degradation through the normal course of transit.

Differentiated services would simply introduce priority bits to the traffic that may be sensitive to delay and jitter like a Netflix movie.  Best-effort traffic would continue to have no priority.  In most cases the end-user would not even know that their traffic was being delayed.  If that same end-user purchased a Hulu Plus Plus service that was differentiated, they would no longer see the excessive buffering, stopping, and block errors that they typically now see.  The result is a better Internet experience for all.  Throwing more bandwidth at an end-user does not necessarily solve the problem as Molly Wood of CBS Interactive (CNET) and others have postulated.  Routers, servers, and other transport equipment can slow down traffic if too much hits it at one time no matter how much bandwidth is available.

Net neutrality is a vague term that means different things to different people so saying someone is for or against net neutrality means nothing.  Most everyone including the carriers will agree that they want an open Internet, but what does that really mean?  Verizon and Google each have some of the Internet’s pioneers working for them, and they have the technical know-how to best evolve the Internet.  Al Gore, Ted Stevens (RIP), George Soros, Rupert Murdoch, Jason Calacanis, the FCC, and many others did not invent the Internet nor do they engineer it on a daily basis.  They should leave the engineering of it to the many companies and people that build and manage it.  The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) is composed of those individuals which make it a perfect body to decide the tenants of net neutrality.  The Internet is a global phenomenon because it was designed and built by these people, not bureaucrats, politicians, and do-gooders.  By deviating from that formula we risk polluting the Internet with restrictions that will stifle innovation and the entrepreneurs that net neutrality proponents are claiming to represent.  That is why I believe that this shared statement of principles should not serve as a basis for legislation by Congress or regulation by the FCC, but as a request for comment (RFC) by the IETF so the Internet can truly be left free and open globally.

Verizon and Google arrived at a major milestone by agreeing that they will not block or impede traffic/services from any particular lawful source.  Both parties agreed that network management techniques or traffic prioritization was allowed by service type and not service provider.  The implications of this agreement is that YouTube could compete against FiOS on a level playing field.  The small additional charge for a guaranteed quality of experience is well worth it.  Revenue gained would be used to continue to invest in continued Internet improvements and a better user experience.  It is a pity that the technical press does not grasp this fact.  Instead they are intent on listening to governmental organizations trying to expand their control over the Internet or third-parties spreading their socialist agenda.  None of these groups have a true financial interest in the Internet.  The astute observer will notice that true content providers (mainstream media excluded) are absent form the cacophony of descent.  Could it be that they are siding with the largest content provider in the world?  Perhaps they realize that these principles could allow them to compete with the large carriers.

Verizon and Google took the initiative to form an agreement between content provider and carrier.  The media assumes that any time private companies get together that they are doing evil.  They would be wise to keep in mind that private companies, research institutions, and universities built the internet, not the FCC or Congress.  Google and Verizon did what bureaucrats and the politicians could not do: take an initial step at defining net neutrality for wireline networks.  There are some items that could be refined a bit as other content providers and carriers come on board, and they must tackle wireless networks.  Exempting them was their biggest mistake, because they are just as an important Internet access method for many Americans.  The IETF should take this draft proposal and expand it to cover all access methods including wireless.  Global adoption by carriers and content providers is crucial so innovation and competition can continue on the Internet.

Note:  The author does not work for or compensated by Verizon, Google, or any other carrier or content provider.  These opinions and facts are based on my two plus decades of experience in the telecommunications industry.

Technorati Tags: AT&T,broadband,Comcast (CMCSA),Google,net neutrality,politics,telecommunications,YouTube,Verizon (VZ),IETF

The Future of the Internet: Net Neutrality

Manish Mamidanna of Scatter Tech writes a complete argument (The Future of the Internet: Net Neutrality) on net neutrality covering the deficiencies with the ISP, but he does not make a case for legislated net neutrality. We have been living under de facto net neutrality for years. There have been almost no instances of violation except for a few cases where the appropriate legal remedies were applied. ISP in the U.S. do not block content and they allow us to use any type of equipment we wish. ISP employ traffic management when required so a few excessive users do not completely degrade access for the rest of us. There are several cases where the network becomes saturated with traffic during peak hours so users start seeing long latencies that affect voice and video. By limiting those users cranking up P2P during peak times, all users enjoy a pleasant Internet experience. The ISP are adding bandwidth to their networks but not fast enough to keep up with demand. Even if we had unlimited bandwidth, traffic management is still necessary. Access bandwidth is limited whether it is DSL, cable modem, or mobile. The place I want the ISP to innovate is in offering greater bandwidth and the ability to prioritize services. The ISP got is right that all bits are not created equal. We need to be able to say which content is more important to maximize quality of experience. I want the content providers to innovate on how content is delivered. More competition between ISP and access providers will keep the net neutral. If any legislation is required, it is to prevent any legislation blocking the building of competitive access networks. Making profits is not evil and neither ISP nor content providers should not be vilified for trying to do so. It is these profits that spur the innovation and jobs that Manish would like to see. Our economic system is based on private companies providing the products and services we need. It sounds to me like he is advocating the Venezualean economic system. Once again I go back to driving ISP competition. Two or less providers does not make a competitive market. A true free marketplace would be where there is more access competition because legislated net neutrality will actually hurt those same people Manish thinks it is trying to protect.

More Evidence That You Can't Stop That Demand for Bandwidth

VeriSign's Project Apollo to increase their root domain infrastructure to meet a surge in Internet bandwidth of 1,000 is further proof that the future demand for greater bandwidth is real. This and other empirical data is contrary to the results published in the National Broadband Plan and touted by incumbent service providers. Consumers' consumption of more digital content will only increase as they access 3D and high definition content. The tying together of the power and communications infrastructure will consume even more bandwidth. What we are missing is access to greater speeds for the connection to the consumer.

in reference to: VeriSign's goal: Bump up internet bandwidth 1,000 times | Emerging Tech | ZDNet UK (view on Google Sidewiki)

Palm Will Live On at HP

NEW VIDCAST: A Message to the Palm Developer Community from HP PC on Vimeo.

The interview of HP CTO Phil McKinney by two of Palm's developer relations team reassures Palm owners that HP will continue to invest in Palm devices and WebOS under the HP umbrella. Palm will continue to exist as a subsidiary of HP in their mobile products division and Jon Rubenstein will continue to run Palm with responsibility for WebOS. It is clear that HP has other ideas for WebOS beyond just smartphones into tablets, slates, and even printers.

HP is demonstrating their support of Palm in several ways. They have lowered barriers for developers to submit apps to the App Catalog by eliminating their $50 fee for App Catalog submission.  Now even casual developers like me may finish and submit and app.  McKinney offered to provide free Pres to the first 1,000 employees that develop WebOS apps. He said that the response was overwhelming.  They are investing in WebOS development to get it on par with Android. A new release will fully create a protected sandbox for PDK applications such as 3D gaming, and Flash is eminent.  Hopefully we will seen updated API for the phone, sound, and camera so we can have voice search, visual voicemail, Skype, and video chatting.  I would expect that GPU acceleration will be coming as well.  Ars Technia, Engadget, and other sites have rumored that HP will release a WebOS slate this fall with WebOS-enabled printers not far behind.  Let’s hope that HP leverages the Touchstone for the slate too.  HP’s CTO hinted at both items in his interview with Ben and Dion. 

One of Palm’s greatest weaknesses, due to lack of budget, has been in marketing.  After CTIA two years ago, Palm lost mind-share.  I’m sure that Palm blew a ton of money on the “spooky lady” ads, but they have not been successful in raising the visibility of the phones or WebOS.  Needless to say, Palm's marketing has been very anemic. The modest success they have enjoyed has been through mainly through the carriers that sell their phones. It is almost as if the people running the channel program were disjoint from the marketing people. Palm had the opportunity to retain mind-share before Android, and they failed to do so. Their limited number of devices and carriers at that time allowed Motorola, Google, and HTC to obtain greater visibility.  Palm has a very loyal following that they failed to capitalize except for the development community.  They failed to convert all of the Treo users to Pre and Pixi users as they left for Blackberries and iPhones.  Positioning of the Pixi was a bit off too.  Instead of pidgin-holing it as a “soccer mom” device (which it is), they needed to expand it as a starter smartphone for kids and baby-boomers that are just buying their first smart phone.  I still contend that Palm should have hired me for their marketing, but that’s another story. 

Palm restarted their marketing and awareness campaign about the time of the HP announcement.  Their $1 million Hot Apps contests are a great way to excite the development community, and their advertising is more Apple-like.  Even though the Treo market has evaporated, HP needs to win-over Blackberry users for corporate use.  HP has already started down this path by adding the Pre and Pixi to their SMB store and marketing it as a no-brains enterprise device.  The next step is to create public awareness for WebOS devices.  Think eco-system HP.  If I have a Pre then I would want the slate so my apps can run on it as well.  Now if I could take a picture on my Pre and print it directly on my WebOS printer wirelessly or make a movie on my slate and store it on my home server to watch later on the TV and simultaneously send it to YouTube, I would not even need to interact with my PC unless I wanted to edit the video.  These examples are the easy ones that can lock customers into HP products and develop that loyal following similar to Apple. 

As the largest computer manufacturer in the world, HP has the clout to be just as visible as Apple and Google. The first place to start is by winning over the geek community with demos of new WebOS features and devices.  Build that grassroots support through the geek community first then building to carrier excitement by demonstrating some of these applications through HP Labs.  Dan Hesse, CEO of Sprint, is out touting his HTC EVO as the world’s first 4G phone.  Get Verizon to really push a LTE-capable Pre2 before they get locked in to Motorola, and do the same for a couple of international carriers.  Show the vision and sell what you have today, but keep the vision based on reality that the common consumer can relate.  Let's hope that HP starts putting some of that creativity to work to demonstrate the beauty of WebOS. Now the battle for mobile OS will be interesting to watch.

in reference to: HP CTO Phil McKinney sits down with Ben and Dion | PreCentral.net (view on Google Sidewiki)

Technorati Tags: Palm,WebOS,Rubenstein,Android,Apple,Hesse,Sprint,Verizon

Elimination of Discounts May Spur Fiber Deployments

Frank Simone has a point here. Carriers utilizing these discounts are using the legacy network to boost their bottom line. Why put in fiber when they can bundle a few copper pairs to provide 10 Mbit/s at $13 per pair typically? The price hike will impact SMB the most when carriers like Covad, IP5280, and Integra Telecom boost their prices. We cannot continue to milk our copper infrastructure indefinitely. Solutions like open-access municipal networks are an alternative.

http://inphotonicsresearch.com/

in reference to: BroadbandBreakfast.com: NoChokePoints Coalition Slams AT&T for Rate Hikes (view on Google Sidewiki)