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

Bye, Bye Sprint Airave

A month ago, I was excited to install Sprint's Airave to boost my signal strength in and around my house.  I was excited about its potential to further eat into traditional POTS sales.  This type of service is ideal for T-Mobile and Sprint to increase ARPU since their companies do not own any wireline networks in North America.

After a little over a month of using the Airave, I had to take it back.  Once the unit was activated, it worked well except for the occasional dropped call.  Airave technical support in Fort Worth, Orlando, and Overland Park diligently worked to determine why the unit kept dropping calls.  They determined that the IPSec tunnel was restarting every several minutes which caused the unit to restart.  This was the source of my problems.  I was delighted that Sprint was actually securing my connection, but why was my VPN tunnel dropping?  The technician confirmed with Samsung that my Netgear WGT-624v2 router was not handling the computation/translation of the IKE key correctly with NAT.

During the course of troubleshooting, I could no longer receive any incoming any calls or text messages.  I could still make outgoing calls though.  Sprint could not explained what changed to make my unit worthless.  My solution was to buy a new router or take the Airave back.  I am perfectly happy with my router and do not plan on replacing it for another couple of years.  I suppose that I could put a Ethernet switch on my cable modem as long as I could get another IP address from Comcast, but I really do not want to keep troubleshooting the problem.

In the mean time, I received my second bill since activating the Airave.  The charges were almost incomprehensible.  I was charged a $26 activation fee that was supposed to be waved plus double charged for a month of service.  I took back the unit last weekend and tried to have the retail store give me credit.  They pushed me off to Customer Service.  My first call to customer service was a failure and the second was not much better.  I still have not been completely credited for my one month plus experiment with Airave.  It is not hard to see why 337,000 customers fled Sprint last quarter.

Sprint's Airave initiative is a bold move to capitalize on the trend for younger people to exclusively use their cell phones whether at home or on the go.  At the moment it is superior to T-Mobile's service because users do not need a new cell phone.  Once again their execution of the service is lacking and customer service makes the experience a nightmare.  I know that the purpose of the limited introduction is to work out the kinks.  I just hope that they can work out all of them before the mass market launch.

Technorati tags: Airave, Sprint (S), wireless

TerraNet Wireless P2P Is Disruptive

From the land of Skype, Kazaa, and other innovations come another potential market disrupting technology:  peer-to-peer wireless networks.  TerraNet in Lund, Sweden built a system for free local wireless calls, free texting, and long distance VoIP calls.  The disruptive part is that the system does not rely on relaying each call through a carrier's base station.  They utilize a peer-to-peer protocol over a wireless medium to communicate directly with another phone up to two kilometers away.  We use to call these systems walkie-talkies. 

The difference with the TerraNet system is that they can use other phones as relay stations to reach their destination without going through a base station.  Each call can travel up to 7 hops to reach its destination giving a maximum reach of about 20 kilometers.  If there is a TerraNet USB dongle within that 20 km diameter, callers can make phone calls to phones on the PSTN.  The dongle plugs into a computer or router that has Internet access creating a self-organizing mesh network with wireline connectivity.

The fact that users do not rely on a carrier's radio access network is a disruptive concept that traditional carriers will likely have a hard time embracing.  Traditional wireless carriers typically have every call or datagram travel through one of their base stations so they can charge for the service.  Peer-to-peer calls would be free, but that is not different than the plans that Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile offer now for calling phones on their network.  My plan with Sprint includes unlimited calling to other Sprint users.

I recently took a road trip in two cars with my family.  My wife and I brought our cell phones and two-way radios to handle our drive through that wireless wasteland in western Nebraska.  We made extensive use of the two-way radios the whole trip because of the reliability and convenience.  We had a range of about 2 km just like the TerraNet system.  With wireless peer-to-peer built into our cell phones, we would have not needed the walkie-talkies especially with at PTT feature.  If there were other users in range maybe we could have reached the PSTN on occasion; thereby, generating revenue for Sprint.  I see great value to traditional and non-traditional wireless carriers with this technology.

The benefit to a traditional wireless carrier is increased coverage in areas with marginal signal strength.  The big 4 wireless carriers all show excellent coverage at my home, but the reality is marginal coverage at best. I frequently miss and drop calls while receiving text messages and voicemail notifications.  I always return them by land line because I cannot rely on sufficient call quality or even a connection.  Just think if I could leverage the better coverage of other nearby Sprint customers.  My cell phone would almost always work at home.  If they allowed me to install a dongle in my home network, then I would always have excellent coverage.  T-Mobile is already doing this for their customers.

Bidders in the 700 MHz C-block of spectrum could differentiate their service with this technology and get a deployment boost.  First it would allow them to quickly increase coverage without a massive radio access network deployment.  They could offer customers a phone and USB dongle to augment their radio access network.  Secondly they could reduce the cost of operating the network by relying on customer's Internet connections for completing calls to the PSTN or distant users.  Finally, Apple could include the technology in their iPhones to share chat sessions, music and video between other iPhones without relying on Wi-Fi connectivity.  My guess is that integrating iChat with iTunes would go over better than Zune's implementation.  Imagine distributing movies to Apple TV users by copying pieces from your neighbors' boxes.  Multi-player role playing games can be organized into teams from only point-to-point connections.  The applications are endless.

TerraNet has not announced any partners or customers yet, so their traction remains to be seen.  As long as wireless carriers are open-minded about the peer-to-peer aspect of the technology, this company has an extremely bright future.  In Europe and other places where handsets are unlocked, TerraNet does not need to rely on the carriers just the handset manufacturers.  In the U.S. market, carrier acceptance is a must.  There is still the opportunity to work with bidders of the 700 MHz spectrum to provide a truly disruptive wireless service.  Let's see who has the vision.

TelecomTV article

Technorati tags: TerraNet, wireless, peer-to-peer

Is Apple Going to Become a Wireless Carrier?

Rumors were abound all day about the possibility of Apple bidding on the 700 MHz C block spectrum that the FCC will auction off on January 16th of next year. Articles appeared in BusinessWeek, Wired, C|Net, and TelecomTV about a possible bid by Apple. Up to now, all of the rumors and discussion have been about Google bidding on this spectrum. Google's successful play to have some of the spectrum open to any device or application opens up the rumor mill beyond the usual suspects of carriers. With the launch of the iPhone and complaints about the AT&T network it was only time before Apple was identified as having ambitions in acquiring this chunk of coveted spectrum. Although the rumor is plausible, does it have any legs to it or is it just hopeful speculation?

Apple can certainly afford the minimum bid of $4.6 billion required to participate, but does it make business sense for them? The short answer is yes and no. The obvious application is to use this spectrum for access to the iTunes Store to sell music, TV programs, and movies without sharing revenue with wireless carriers. Also, Apple can retain control over the complete user experience which is why the iPod has been so successful. Breaking the connection to the PC will allow the Apple to create an iPod Touch and iPhone that can access content over-the-air without depending on cutting in another carrier to use their network. Even iTV could benefit from access at 700 MHz.

What does not make sense is for them to get into the business of operating a voice network. Creating a voice network is an expensive proposition beyond building a radio access network. Voice services are best left to the ones that already have a network.

Remember that the C block is a 22 MHz slice of spectrum that is to be open to devices and applications. This means that Apple could invite a selection of voice and application providers to resell their services over the network. Apple could partner with a carrier like T-Mobile or Sprint to provide voice service in this or another frequency block. Sprint is very comfortable selling capacity to MVNO, and they could certainly use a boost.

Another option would be for Apple to partner with Google to provide a collection of applications. Google could provide Internet and voice services to the iPhone while Apple retains control of the entertainment services. Apple could even create a version of iTunes to run on the Google phone. I am sure that Eric Schmidt and Steve Jobs have had discussions on the topic since Schmidt sits on Apple's board.

The wildest option would be for Apple to work with eBay to provide Skype's voice service over this network. Skype has the user base and network to deliver a quality voice service.

The most likely scenario appears to be a consortium with Apple, Google, and eBay to bid on the spectrum block with an experienced network operator not already in the business; maybe DirectTV or Echo Star. The satellite provider will not only run the network but offer services to their customers over it. Skype/eBay can sell voice services to the other partners while Apple sells devices, music, and video and Google sells ads through all outlets. It is much easier to share the cost of this multibillion dollar network across four or more partners than go it alone.

I am sure that in the months to come that many more rumors will surface as the bidding gets closer. I like the idea of these companies getting together to create new and exciting mobility opportunities. Their success could open even more spectrum to innovators.

Note to Steve Jobs or Eric Schmidt: Feel free to call me if you need leadership with this venture.

Technorati tags: Apple (AAPL), Google (GOOG), eBay (EBAY), 700 MHz, wireless