« September 2005 | Weblog | November 2005 »

October 2005 Archive

Which Way Municipal Broadband?

Back at the Texas Wireless Symposium in Austin, the panels have become less cellular centric, and that's a positive development. In fact, it has proven very interesting. This morning, Paul Strusaker, VP Engineering for Platforms and Mobile Devices at Motorola, stressed the duality of SIP and cellular - he said that Wi Fi Mesh and WiMAX shouldn't be viewed as competitors to cellular - they're complementary. What's more, dual handsets will take off because they provide coverage in areas where cellular often experiences poor reception (inside homes and businesses). That problem is an opportunity for the handset to shift to a WLAN. I'm more optimistic about the prospects of wireless municipal networks after hearing Paul's quality presentation.

Now, on to the Municipal Broadband panel discussion, which is my bread and butter.

Niel Ransom, former CTO at Alcatel, moderated the panel. Niel began by giving an overview of industry status. His opener: the US is falling behind in broadband access. Isn't that where this topic always starts, with the US down at 16th place? With all these PCs, why aren't we the leader or at least near the top in broadband? Korea is now enjoying the benefits of compeittion, with falling prices and rising bandwidth, as companies vie to outdo each other in Mbs value. WiMAX (IEE 802.16-2004) is being trialed around the globe. One compelling thing about this municpal broadband development, Ransom said, is that IP applications can become an alternative to the mobile data applications that cellular operators are counting on for new ARPU. Skype, Vonage, Bit Torrent, and others can provide the value once the broadband network is made available.

The Panel
Andres Carvallo, CIO, Austin, Energy
Mohan Natarajan, Vice President of Engineering, Firetide
Devebhaktuni Srikrishna ("Sri"), Founder and CTO, Tropos Networks
Roger Dorf, CEO and President, Navini Networks

Neil asked about the future of municipal wireless broadband.

Sri opened with some statistics to explain why Wi Fi mesh will prevail: over 100 million Wi Fi computers out there, and by 2009, it is anticipated that 20% of cellular handsets will be Wi Fi compatible. Metropolitan Mesh networks provide the data speeds that 3G cannot, because their technology limits them, providing mesh an opportunity.

Mohan played it a little safe, when he commented that 3G is complimentary with both Wi MAX and Wi Fi Mesh (echoing a theme from earlier in the day). While Wi Fi has cost and bandwidth advantages and 3G has problems, 3G's problems can be addressed. The winner will only be determined when all these technologies converge - then we will see which technology rises to the top.

Roger was then baited a little by Neil, who cited comments from telecoms that mobile WiMAX (IEEE 802.16e) will be rendered obsolete and still born by 4G solutions. Roger claimed that it has service comparable to DSL and cable, but is untethered, which is a decided advantage.

How could a utility make use of the new wireless technologies? Where does it fit in the municpal policy debate? Andres asked that if the city can provide other essential infrastructure services, why can't it also provide telecommunications where it is not available. Why put them on the bench when they could be in the game helping to close the gap in national competitiveness? Look to the incumbents' business models, said Andres, to understand why they will not be able to compete: their model bundles infrastructure access and content in an exclusive bucket, which is challenged by these new market entrants, who provide better value with a general purpose lower cost network and market-based content.

Sri added that cities should have the option to do what their citizens need them to do. It's very straightforward, he said, Wi Fi mesh provides a great value, so the market is responding.

Asked about 802.16d and e and the incompatibility of the standards, Roger responded that e's potential dwarfs that of d, because it targets the mass market. He looped back to mesh networks and asked about the risk when cities lack deployment and management expertise - won't that splash mud on the technology? Aren't you worried?

Mohan explained that mesh was just an architecture, and at its core it is technology-agnostic. Mesh architecture gives such aspects as self-healing, self-configuring, etc. Sri answered Roger saying that Philly's selection of Earthlink was a great harbinger that the capability to deploy and manage these networks would exist and that the risk Roger cited was not real.

Andres asked the audience to look again at the business models out there, challenging them to look at machine-to-machine communication over wireless networks as an example of an alternative use of wireless networks to achieve better business efficiencies. There is too much focus on personal telephony service and that leads us to overlook the other benefits of wireless networks.

Neil posed two scenarios: as a common carrier of bandwidth, should these new carriers be required to allow any application; or as an application provider, can the new carriers exclude applications that they deem harmful to their network?

Sri said that Net Neutrality and bandwidth consumption are separate issues that inform this question. Limited capactiy means that operators must throttle bandwidth. But the types of applications is another matter. Roger said its a classic case of balance, between users' needs and traffic management. The needs of the many should trump the needs of the few. Mohan cited peer-to-peer applications as the next wave - stopping it will be impractical, and that will lead a focus on value add. The prisoner's dilemma comes up here, where competing motivations exist.

Neil brought up the licensed v. unlicensed debate, citing a UT campus issue when student networks were conflicting with campus networks and the university objected. The FCC said its rules do not preclude an overlay - how do you feel about that? Hot spots got away from this risk because the operators also owned the real estate. Is unlicensed spectrum appropriate for outdoor networks? Sri responded that the question is Does it Work? and the answer is Today - yes and Tomorrow - yes, because the environment today will be similar to the environment tomorrow. Interference issues are overblown. WiMAX, on the other hand, will see its largest opportunity in licensed spectrum.

Mohan believes that technical solutions are on their way to any interference issues. And Andres said that new carriers will enter the market for their own purposes and then repurpose to serve the public - WalMart is active in RFID, Google looks for advertisers, 7-Eleven traffic in their stores, and MacDonalds manages its supply chain. Sri's observed that 190 cities are in the process of purchasing a municipal network, and 40 cities have RFPs by the end of the year. They are pursuing value and the market is noticing.

Neil asked for predictions and got some interesting responses.

Mohan stated that bandwidth has already become a commodity, and it's on its way to becoming a portable commodity, unlinked from the home or business. Networks are about more than access. Applications will proliferate once the infrastructure is deployed. Integration of applications will be a next step. Infrastructure must have the hooks to accommodate new applications.

Roger predicted that wireless will enable personal broadband and that markets will start to look at number of people with service as the primary stat, not number of households. People add up to a bigger market, so that's why cellular has taken off. Volume will enable multiple types of access. Wi Fi and mobile WiMAX will survive.

Andres wrapped up the predictions by saying that broadband is to the 21st Century as the Interstate Highway System was to the 1950s. You must have it to thrive, and the way for us to get it is to unleash the market.

Let My Market Go!! Unwire My City!!

Posted on October 28, 2005 at 10:58 AM | Comments (1)

Texas Wireless Symposium: The Future in the Eye of the Beholder

Here in my hometown, we have an annual event, now in its third year, sponsored by the Wireless Networking & Communications Group at the University of Texas, this year dubbed the Texas Wireless Symposium. And this year, that sponsorship is shifting over to the Austin Wireless Alliance, a local group of over 100 companies allied to share information on wireless, and promote industry development in Austin.

The evolution of this conference reflects the growing commercialization of wireless. In its first year, the conference was heaviliy loaded with academics and theoretical discussions on radio engineering, etc. Last year, while there were more highly technical discussions than I would have liked, the program had shifted to include discussion of business issues and different flavors of wireless. This year, you can see the commercial side creeping in. The opening of the program was heavily weighted on the cellular side, with a kickoff Keynote from Steve Largent, CEO of the Cellular Telephone Industry Association (CTIA). I was disappointed that he toed the line on the munipcal policy debate, trotting out the old canard of the public sector competing against the private sector. That just is not happening. And the panels were weighted with representives from Verizon, Cingular, etc. But as the conference went on, more was heard from alternative wireless technologies like Wi Fi Mesh, WiMAX, UltraWideband, and others.

One interesting point of discussion has been when panel members dismiss WiMAX and gently highlight the hype aspects, careful not to be too disparaging, but nevertheless state that they are unimpressed with the technology and its potential. I call this the conventional view - when cellular companies brag on 2 BILLION subscribers, growing to 3 BILLION worldwide, its easy to understand their prejudice to an interloper like WiMAX or Wi Fi Mesh, which could disrupt their party - they are currently where the money is, and they'd like to stay there. At least for now, I would add, cellular is huge. But I'm glad to see that I'm not alone in seeing the promise of Wi Fi Mesh and WiMAX - these panels have been challenged by members from the audience during the Q&A period by those who see WiMAX, in particular, in a different light. Clearly, it's an item that is in discussion and hotly debated. This discussion is in stark contrast to the WiMAX World conference going on in Boston this week - I bet the discussion on WiMAX is different from their perspective.

The current panel underway while I'm blogging is discussing the venture financing aspects of wireless, with the moderator from Austin's own Motion Computing kicking off discussions. Dr. Preston Marshall from DARPA is talking now, and he's interested in technologies that are "infrastructure-less". Gotta love DARPA for pushing out the envelope. 'We invented IP, and that was great, but we want to know what is next."

The themes are convergence on the application side, convergence on the handset side, the convergence of WiMAX and cellular WAN technologies around OFDM at the 4G level, in about 4 years, and the potential of these technologies working together in integrated systems - WiMAX and Wi Fi mesh as overlay technologies, for instance. I guess that's what conferences like this are good for, to get people to speculate in public about the unknown future. We can't see there, but we can speculate. Clearly, the incumbent industry expects the future wireless world to look somewhat like it does today. Those who read this blog probably have a little broader viewpoint. (pun intended)

I'll post tomorrow during the municipal broadband panel (no doubt, that will be the most interesting panel of the week!!).

Posted on October 27, 2005 at 01:39 PM | Comments (0)

Mesh Secrets Revealed: How Many Nodes Make a Network?

When it comes to technology options for a municipal wireless network today, mesh networking is not only one of the most compelling wireless technologies available, but also one of the least understood. Where does this new technology fit in your plans? Does it even fit into your plans? While there are many issues that you'll need to consider in evaluating different telecommunications technologies, two critical questions will be: 1) Will the mesh network even work in my environment? (or what will it take to make it function well enough for my purposes?) and 2) How much will the mesh network equpment, deployment, maintenance, and operations end up costing me (in round numbers) - what's the Total Cost of Ownership or TCO? So evaluate these variables carefully before going too far down the mesh road - you're better off to find out how a proposed technology will work up front, than after you've made a decision. The good news is that mesh technology is already a valid solution for most environments and purposes, and its only getting better and cheaper as time goes by.

Mesh networks are best used to provide an area with ubiquitous broadband coverage. Their principal benefit over other wireless technologies is their ability to provide alternate paths that work around obstacles and ensure quality coverage and adequate capacity, at an affordable price, for both network equipment and consumer premise equipment (CPEs). So, assuming adequate backhaul has been established (a big assumption, but a topic for another day), the number of wireless mesh nodes used to provide optimal coverage in the mesh network, as well as the cost per node, will be the key drivers in both the performance of the network and in the network's equipment cost.

Consider then these variables in this UnwireMyCity Guide to help you decide on whether mesh networking would be a good fit for your city. This exercise should lead you to look at your proposed project and territory with a more critical eye and better prepare you for when you begin serious work on your network design, with or without professional help.

Download and Print this handy UnwireMyCity Guide and keep it around as you evaluate your options.

Posted on October 26, 2005 at 10:18 AM | Comments (0)

Latest on Wireless Security

See Daily Wireless under the heading Cloud Security on Tues, Oct 25 for a super review loaded with links on the latest and greatest on wireless security options and updates. I don't know how Sam C does it...Good link.

Posted on October 25, 2005 at 11:34 AM | Comments (0)

Through the Looking Glass...Go Ask Alice, I Think She'll Know

When logic and proportion
Have fallen so I'll be dead
And the white knight is talking backwards
And the Red Queen's on her head
Remember what the dormouse said

Feed your head
Feed your head

(Jefferson Airplane, 1967)

More and more, I feel like I'm down a rabbit hole with Alice in Wonderland. Telecom, Vdeo, Internet, and Wireless take up more frequent and larger chunks of the business section in my paper, but the articles give an often confusing account of what is going on. Nothing seems to make sense. Cities are behind some rural areas. Little companies do what big companies just talk about. Cable companies provide voice. Telecom companies want to provide video.

Municipal wireless consultant Greg Richardson opines on the odd behavior of telecoms in his weblog for Civitium. Civitium's Weblog: The Definition of Insanity Why do telecomes persist in fighting municpal broadband, when clearly it's a trend with sufficent momentum to go the distance, and their efforts to stop it have not to date borne fruit? Why do they both not want to serve rural areas, AND not want rural towns to serve themselves? Sane? Insane? Desperate? Deadly Serious? Highly Motivated? You make the call.

Clearly, telecoms will see their revenues from voice calls continue to decline in the coming months and years, with cellular phones chipping away at landline usage, and a myriad of VOIP options shifting into high gear. In press reports at the end of last week, SBC explained its 41% decline in profits for the quarter. While that high number can be explained in part by special events, such as the sale of a profitable directory business, higher costs related to hurricanes and a merger with AT&T Wireless, one has to think that declining voice revenues play a part.

SBC's chief financial officer, Richard Lindner, said that investors focus too heavily on how many phone lines carriers have. Instead, he said, investors should consider all of SBC's services, including broadband, cellphones and video. "All of those things represent connections to the customer and represent revenue sources," Mr. Lindner said on a conference call with financial analysts.

But some industry specialists disagree. Cable companies are persuading tens of thousands of customers to drop their phone service from SBC and the other Bell companies and instead subscribe to one of their new - and often cheaper - digital phone services. (October 21, 2005 New York Times)

But its not just about voice, so don't give up on the telecoms just yet. At the Telecom '05 conference this week, for instance, the Triple Play is all the rage. Change afoot for telecom industry tells us that Voice, Video, and Broadband constitute the Triple Play, and SBC won a big victory with passage of a statewide franchise law in Texas a few months ago. They will try to do the same thing in Washington at the federal level, paving the way for a Triple Play offer over high speed fiber. But that will take time.

Evolving technology and financial necessity are driving the change as growth in the voice business has slowed amid a growing field of competitors. It is an uphill fight for telephone companies, given cable's decades-long dominance in video, but the ultimate winners could be consumers, analysts say. The coming slugfest over America's living rooms could rein in the rising price of pay-TV prices.

"The cable television industry has not had a fierce competitor," said Jeff Kagan, an independent telecommunications analyst based in Atlanta. "The Verizon offering is a bargain compared to the cable television offerings. I think if enough customers cancel their cable company service for their phone company television service, then the cable companies will cut their costs." However, he said, competition on a nationwide scale is still years away. (October 24, Austin American-Statesman)

That's years away for those big city folks faithfully waiting for their traditiional telecom or cable company to bring them services. But for those lucky folks, often in the smaller towns, whose municpalities lead with wireless solutions, the future is now. Smaller rural areas are in the hunt with innovative wireless solutions, as described in Wi-Fi cloud hovers over rural Oregon landscape This article has a great overview of the types of innovative solutions that are possible once an area is covered by a wireless cloud.

While cities around the country are battling over plans to offer free or cheap Internet access, this lonely terrain is served by what is billed as the world's largest hotspot, a wireless cloud that stretches over 700 square miles of landscape so dry and desolate it could have been lifted from a cowboy tune.

When a common network is available at affordable rates, many different groups can step up and share the costs and a profitable business model is available. Sure, it won't kick up millions of dollars that can go to lobbyists in Washington and in state capitals, but the municipal wireless approach, most often in partnership with a small innovative private company, can provide a backbone for all kinds of new applications and business innovations. Voice, Video, and High Speed Internet Access - the Triple Play - that's only the beginning. A world of new solutions awaits those with a high-speed broadband wireless cloud.

My advice - do your homework, ask around, make a plan, take action, try new solutions, keep reading, feed your head. There's just no substiute for open eyes, open ears, and most importantly, an open mind in today's business climate.

Posted on October 24, 2005 at 07:58 AM | Comments (0)

GoogleNet? Not as Far Fetched as You Might Think

This is the longest work-in-progress blog I've written, having started it almost one month ago. So, I've been traveling lately, and its almost as hard to blog on the road for me as it is to exercise, so I haven't made much progress here lately. But I think this Google / San Francisco story has legs. I saw Mayor Gavin Newsome speak last week at the W2I Digital Cities event, and he might just get my vote if I lived in San Francisco. His vision is a good fit with Google's, so watch this story for more fascinating twists and turns in the near term.

First it would build a national broadband network -- let's call it the GoogleNet -- massive enough to rival even the country's biggest Internet service providers. Business 2.0 has learned from telecom insiders that Google is already building such a network, though ostensibly for many reasons. For the past year, it has quietly been shopping for miles and miles of "dark," or unused, fiber-optic cable across the country from wholesalers such as New York's AboveNet. It's also acquiring superfast connections from Cogent Communications and WilTel, among others, between East Coast cities including Atlanta, Miami, and New York. Such large-scale purchases are unprecedented for an Internet company, but Google's timing is impeccable. The rash of telecom bankruptcies has freed up a ton of bargain-priced capacity, which Google needs as it prepares to unleash a flood of new, bandwidth-hungry applications. These offerings could include everything from a digital-video database to on-demand television programming.

What's Next :: Free Wi-Fi? Get Ready for GoogleNet. Telecom pundit Om Malik opines on what Google may be up to in this August 25 article. One thing's for sure, with a name like Google and access to the capital to back up their ambitions, this outfit thinks big.

So when Google started nosing around San Francisco last month, they got significant notice from the press. That really picked up when they offered to build the network for free.

Google has a staggering $7 billion in the bank and is using it to fund some off-the-wall ideas, so maybe the Mountain View company's bid to provide free wireless Internet service throughout San Francisco will be a one-shot deal.

But I see Google as a knight in shining armor, decapitating the two-headed monster of SBC and Comcast that has controlled high-speed Internet access for Bay Area consumers.
MercuryNews.com No tears for the monster Google is about to behead

And check out this great blog from the start of this month about the competitive aspects of Google's potential market entry. Linux Pipeline | Google In The Air

So, lots of press for Google and San Fran. What does it mean? Let's pause for a short survey: fill in the blank in this sentence: "My life would be dramatically improved if __________."

We all have this internal conversation from time to time (some of us more often than others), and the blanks get filled in with wishes like
a) I only had more money;
b) I could just get more organized;
c) I could get access to information WHENEVER AND WHEREVER I wanted it;
d) I could reach the people I need to reach when I needed to reach them;
e) I could just lose some weight;
f) I had more healthy eating habits;
g) I exercised more;
h) my family would just leave me alone;
i) my boss would just get off my case;
j) my wife/husband/girlfriend/boyfriend would treat me better. and (drum roll)
k) I had more sex.

Well, believe it or not, Google actually believes that it can help THE WHOLE WORLD with items a-d. Now that's what I call visionary. There's no doubt some will argue that high speed Internet access could also help you with items e-k, but I'm not going to go there.

Fact is, Google envsions a whole new world with everyone using Google software, and even if it doesn't have the clout to make it reality, it certainly can stir up a good bit of press. But I wouldn't rule out the potential for Google and the followers it inevitably gets along the way to make that vision a reality - Hello, New World Order.

Surf the GoogleNet, anyone?

Finally, for a great discussion of San Francisco and Google, check out this Podcast. On Point : WiFi America If you haven't tried a podcast yet, I'd urge you to jump on in, the water's fine, and this is a good listen. And you don't actually need an iPod to listen to a Podcast.

Posted on October 21, 2005 at 06:07 PM | Comments (0)

Broadband is Smokin', From Sea to Shining Sea

Hot. Red Hot. Those are the words I've heard in the past week during my informal poll of the municipal wireless industry. When I eased into the conversation with one industry wag by suggesting, "well, it looks like things are starting to heat up," the response was a derisive snort and a "are you kidding?? More like 'smoking' " When I asked another if he thought the hockey stick turn was coming up (referring to the Tipping Point we've all been anticipating somewhere in the future), he said, "I think we're right in the middle of it and we just don't know it yet." These are the consummate insiders who are living and breathing and sleeping new age broadband day in and day out ... so I'm listening to what they have to say, and trying to figure out what that means for us all.

I was out in Boston early last week, at the American Public Power Association (APPA) Community Broadband Conference, where all the attendees had keen interest in implementing broadband for their cities, and then I switched coasts to attend the World Internet Institute (W2i) Digital Cities Conference in San Francisco. Needless to say, it was a lot to digest in one week, but an interesting contrast as well. The overwhelming message from both conferences is that this is an industry poised to take off, indeed, already taking off. So, if the ship has already sailed, what course have we charted?

And the wind in our sails? Growing momentum generated by ever more community broadband projects, and the projects are growing in ambition and scale. Just take a short look at these events in the background: 1) East: Philadelphia's recent selection of Earthlink to build its city-wide network (along with team members Motorola and Tropos Networks); 2) West: San Francisco's Mayor Gavin Newsome flirting with tech titan Google to build a wireless network for all of San Francisco; 3) Center: Madison, MIlwaukee, Chicago, Kansas City, Houston...the list goes on and on.

Broadband options are under the microscope and not just in the big cities. While the man on the street may be stumped, those who track this budding business will quickly recognize what cities such as Braintree, Bristol, Chaska, Corpus Christi, Lafayette, Manassas, Moorhead, Oklahoma City, Owensboro, Sallisaw, and Scottsboro have in common - these are some of the pioneers in this new community broadband movement. While major cities like Philadelphia and San Francisco garner press attention, city leaders everwhere are plugging away, taking control of their own destinies. As Corpus Christi's project leader Leonard Scott said at last week's W2i Digital Cities conference, words to this effect, "It's not a matter of if, but when, for city leaders. This is quite simply the network of the future for cities, and the sooner they get started on one, the sooner they will be on the road to real progress."

The high level lessons learned from my travels last week?
1) Cities that move sooner will cut the best deals with private sector partners - those who wait will have less to offer potential partners.
2) It is far more important to engage in a project than to defer activtiy while getting just the right technology to put in place - these networks are dynamic and will ultimately include whatever technologies make sense for business purposes, and will evolve to get it right.
3) Wireless mesh technology is like plastic - very malleable. It is viewed by some cities as sufficient for their networks, by others as complementary to their wireline networks, by others still as complementary to their wireless point to point networks. Either Or discussions miss the point that these are integrated networks.
4) Costs are coming down, and the costs of alternate broadband are miniscule in comparison to traditional telecom costs.

More on this topic soon. Good to be back posting!

Posted on October 19, 2005 at 10:14 AM | Comments (0)

Smart Wi Fi Fits Into Integrated Broadband Future

Pyramid Research, a communications industry research firm, predicts the global number of Wi-Fi users could top 271 million by 2008, with 177 million of them in the U.S. Today's Wi-Fi community already supports a vibrant international business in Wi-Fi equipment, estimated at about $3 billion annually, according to extrapolations of figures produced by In-Stat, another market research company. But the very popularity of Wi-Fi also brings problems. As Wi-Fi networks become ever more heavily used, they may be unable to handle the expanded traffic, causing clients' devices to become bogged down with slow service and long delays.

Scientific American.com: Smart Wi-Fi For those wanting a good overview of the basics of technology behind Wi Fi, I highly recommend this good comprehensive article in Scientific American. Wireless pioneer Alex Hills, now Distinguished Service Professor of engineering and public policy and electrical and computer engineering at Carnegie Mellon University, and formerly charman of Airespace (now a division of Cisco) does a good job of walking through the details of Wi Fi, explaining both why it is a formidible and promising technology, and where its warts will hold it back if not addressed. Check it out.

See also these sidebar items:
Wi-Fi vs WiMAX
Smart Wi-Fi Equipment Makers
Wi-Fi Access Points
Transmission Glitches: How Wi-FI Can Fail
Woes of Wireless Networks
Intelligent Wi-Fi Networks Adapt

Posted on October 07, 2005 at 01:26 PM | Comments (0)

Calypso Wi Fi phone demo

Calypso Wireless Demos Wi-Fi-GSM-GPRS Cell Phone - Yahoo! News Just in case you were suspecting that this is all just so much hype, check out this artcile about an actual demonstration of a combo cellular VoWiFi phone by Calypso. The sound you hear is more and more consumer options marching towards us.

Posted on October 06, 2005 at 10:57 PM | Comments (0)

BPL Challenged...Again

"We believe that a lack of utility expertise in running commercially successful consumer telecom businesses and a poor track record of success, combined with utility reluctance to rapidly adopt new technologies, and competition from DSL, cable modems, and other emerging technologies will limit the growth of BPL," said Rick Nicholson, vice president of research for Energy Insights. "Even in markets currently underserved by DSL and cable modems, the lack of customer density makes achieving scale and favorable economics a challenge."

BPL may be overhyped, study says We will probably be hearing this kind of analysis in 2007. What analysts tend to overlook is the amount of time and energy that utilitiy executives have put into this technology, and the impact of adding wireless mesh and WiMAX to the BPL solution. As part of an integrated solution, I believe that BPL is viable. By itself, I'm not so sure, for reasons highlighted in this short article.

Posted on October 06, 2005 at 10:50 PM | Comments (0)

This is Just a Test. In the Event of a Real Emergency, Well, You're on Your Own

USATODAY.com - Wireless text for emergencies While I think that the cellular phone networks are more vulnerable to disruption than new mesh networks, I think that this article reflects the discussion on these pages concerning the need for better more integrated communications options for first responders. This article extends the need to communicate to the multitudes affected by disasters. We should be looking at all the different technologies that are available and putting a highly redundant system in place, so that no matter what happens, we will have layers of communications at our disposal - our society has become too complex and vulnerable to disruption to not throw the kitchen sink at this problem.

Posted on October 06, 2005 at 10:40 PM | Comments (0)

Rearranging Deck Chairs

Senate Rejects Big Bump In Communications Budget In my previous blog, I expressed the hope that Congress would step out of their "business as usual" mode and address the problems highlighted by the Keystone Kops disaster response shown by FEMA, state, and local authorities after Katrina hit. Let's just say that I will probably not be holding my breath on this.

This article shows that speedy action to addresss such shortcomings will be, well, how can I put it - "somewhat less speedy than it could be" is the nicest way to phrase it. Despite the obvious gaps, despite the pressing need for a better system, despite the continued exposure of the public to natural disasters and terrorism, despite the highly likely repeat of past confusion after a disaster, such a snail's pace of reform is likely to continue at the federal level. It is truly distressing and depressing.

So I'm banking on some well-publicized examples of telecom solutions by an unimpeded private sector, or local government efforts for that matter, to show our political leaders how to lead. Action is needed on communications reform, not more debate.

But, as my hope ebbs away amid my depression, maybe things are not as bleak as they appear. Check out this article Katrina spurs federal action on VoIP | CNET News.com, whcih provides a different perspective, indicating a fresh look at TV spectrum may be coming in a couple of weeks. This article has a good detailed description of the communications breakdown as well.

Posted on October 06, 2005 at 10:22 PM | Comments (0)

IP v. Analog

Sununu, for one, expressed dismay at the state of the nation's emergency communications infrastructure, which failed miserably in the aftermath of Katrina. According to Sununu, Congress has spent billions of dollars on homeland security communications projects, "and there still appear to be significant interoperability problems," he said. "Shame on me for assuming that money was well spent."

The IP communications industry, Sununu said, needs to step forward now and "clearly level criticism where it's due" about the existing communications infrastructure, which did not stand up to the floods or winds brought by Katrina to the Gulf region.

"IP, in the long run, will be more reliable and secure than the analog system[s]" Sununu said. "I think there is a lingering false assumption [in Congress] about the performance characteristics of an IP system, and that it will always be what it is today."

Advanced IP Pipeline | Sununu: Katrina's Effects May Split Telecom Legislation Business as usual should not continue in Congress, now that our nation's weaknesses have been exposed. The prevailing presumption in conversations I've had is that the rewrite of telecom legislation will take "at least a couple of years" because the impact is so great and so many powerful parties are impacted.

Perhaps that's why Sen. Sununu highlights the potential of spectrum issues to be split off the main legislation, so that some emergency spectrum can be allocated to first responders. This article also stresses the need for education among lawmakers - my fear is that too much of what legislators hear is provided by powerful lobbyists for incumbent interests, who give the background briefs a slant that favors existing technologies over new technologies.

Posted on October 06, 2005 at 10:06 PM | Comments (1)

Community Internet Sites Weigh In on Debate

hearusnow.org: Connected With this website, Consumers Union provides a good resource for those who would seek to motivate a community effort to bring in broadband. I recommend you check this one out and bookmark it. Good tools and lots of good information.

Free Press : Community Internet provides a valuable tool in a map that shows all the different community network sites around the US, as well as a variety of other resources.

And ConnectMyCity.com provides numerous resources for those who would seek to do more than just read about the debate.

Surf these sites today and see how you can get involved, and let your voice be heard in your local community, in your state capital, and in Washington, DC. This is a democracy, you know!

Posted on October 06, 2005 at 09:25 PM | Comments (0)

Hey Telcos and Cables - Come on Over to the Dark Side

Muni nets can work to incumbents' advantage, Yankee advises While this analyst from the venerable Yankee Group has suggested that incumbent telcos and cables could benefit by reconsidering their opposition to municipal broadband networks (the wired kind - fiber), this provocative suggestion stops there, adding that they should still oppose wireless networks - Wi Fi and WiMAX networks.

While I have next to no direct experience with pantyhose, I do understand that this is how a run starts - a snag creates a small hole and begins the unravelling process - and the ultimate demise is inevitable - so we have the multi-million dollar pantyhose industry. And so it goes with the incumbents' opposition to municipal networks - while I agree with the premise that there is more to be gained by promoting municipal broadband networks than opposing them, especially iin areas that are uneconomic for incumbents to get to in the near term (duhh), I think that to discriminate between wired and wireless technologies is pointless. The fact is that promoting evolution over revolution merely slows down the inevitable changes that will occur.

I would argue that incumbent telecoms and cables would do better to get out in front of this parade and demonstrate leadership by extending broadband access throughout the land, with whatever technology makes sense. By doing so, they could take advantage of a great national need and prove why they deserve to remain in their leadership positions, and forestall the disruption that would introduce new competitors into "their" markets. By continuing to oppose the progress that such networks represent, incumbents demonstrate that they are more interested in holding on to their privileged positions at any cost, even to the detriment of the communities they serve, than they are in serving the nation that crafted the regulatory climate that gave them monopoly positions and paid for their infrastructures.

Such a strategy opens the door for alternate providers to service the needs left unmet by incumbents - check out The Innovator's Dilemma by Clayton Christensen in my Unwired Library on this site. I reference this book so often, so I apologize for yet one more reference. Still, to understand the risk that incumbents face, one has only to recall the early 1970s, when Detroit automakers failed to provide the public with an affordable, fuel-efficient car and Toyota stepped in to meet the need, with a rattletrap that did the job for much less than what Detroit would provide. And in so doing, Detroit opened the door for the dominance of Toyota (and Lexus) in today's automobile market.

As the saying goes, those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it. And despite the advantages of embracing change and taking a leadership role when it is thrust upon them, I wonder if it's in the Incument DNA to do so, to foster any municipal broadband, wired or wireless.

Time will tell. It may take something extraordinary...like say, the utter destruction of a network and the need for a rapid recovery ... that time may be upon us in the wake of the destruction that Hurricane Katrina wrought - watch Bell South for something innovative in the near term...

Posted on October 06, 2005 at 09:14 PM | Comments (0)

"W" to the rescue - and I don't mean George

In ISP-Planet - Business - Editorial: ISPs Can Survive, the author describes what ISPs will have to do to survive, now that the FCC and the Supreme Court have together eliminated the requirement that third parties have access to cable and DSL networks. Among the options is for ISPs to give strong consideration to becoming WISPs, adding a W to their acronyms.

This is a great article for public sector leaders and IT managers to check out - I've long advocated Public Private Partnerships as the preferred method for cities to gain access. If you agree, it makes sense to check out articles like this to better understand the position that your potential partners find themselves in.

Posted on October 06, 2005 at 08:23 PM | Comments (0)