|
|||||
FEATURED TOPICDigital Transition -The term "Digital Transition" describes the process all organizations must go through in the 21st Century, as they leverage new technologies that provide new options for Applications, Equipment, Processes, and Networks that make them more effective. In contrast, the term "Municipal Wireless" is limiting. It puts the network technology ahead of the application and process changes that drive the business case. ORIENTATION |
« May 2008 | Weblog | July 2008 » June 2008 ArchiveThe Coming ExaFlood
This is the ... Internet ... I know, it looks like an internal view of the eye, or something. But this is what the internet is - a conglomeration of various local networks of different sizes. Some say there's a flood a' comin'... I'm not sure about that, but I know that the internet is an ever bigger part of our lives, and we're in a very dynamic situation where what we considered "a whole lot" two years ago is "not that much" two years from now... This brief addresses the growing need for internet bandwidth - communications infrastructure capacity at the backbone and last mile, being driven by a multitude of factors.
How Much is "Enough?" Bret Swanson of the Discovery Institute gave this nascent debate the name "ExaFlood" in his January 2007 Wall Street Journal editorial, entitled The Coming ExaFlood. The word exabyte is the basis for the term "ExaFlood", the neologism created by Swanson. The Exaflood refers to the rapidly increasing torrent of data transmitted over the Internet - it's a classic case of demand for bandwidth out pacing supply. The amount of information people upload, download and share on the Internet is growing at an exponential rate (due in large part to video, audio and photo applications). Meanwhile the capacity of the Internet, its bandwidth, remains limited and susceptible to a "flood" of data. At the Broadband Properties Summit 2007, a panel on the ExaFlood raised a challenge. The panel: David Kozischek, Corning Cable Systems; and David McClure - U.S. Internet Industry Association; Larry Irving, Internet Innovation Alliance. The Challenge: How will the Internet handle the estimated traffic in the near to mid-term? The key point driven home in this fascinating keynote panel discussion was this: Not one, but several signs indicate a growing issue, if not a coming crisis. Whether the ExaFlood represents an an issue, a crisis, or a market opportunity is a matter of perspective, however. Whether there is a growing need for bandwidth is not. The FTTH Council Video on the ExaFlood, summarized in the Signposts inset above and shown below, provides a quick overview of the themes of this discussion. A Matter of Scope When faced with any problem, it helps to put it into perspective before spending too much time on a solution. When it comes to the "ExaFlood," how much do we know about data and the internet? The amount of traffic on the Web has grown dramatically over its short lifetime, and it continues to show strong signs of growth.
Growth is driven by three primary factors: first, number of users - how many access the Web daily; second, frequency - the number of times each user accesses the Web; and third, bandwidth, the type of content that flows over the Web. All three of those factors are on the rise, but it's the third - the type of content - that is most worrisome. The rise of video content, especially high definition video, dramatically increases the amount of data traffic. According to Doug McClure of the US Internet Industry Association, print is not the problem, per se. Where a typewritten page is about 2,000 bytes, and a small graphic image is about 100 kilobytes, the complete works of Shakespeare about 5 megabytes, and an entire pickup full of books about a gigabyte, it would take a billion of those pickup trucks to amount to a single exabyte. It's video that is the bandwidth hog. Standard definition video consumes 450 times the bandwidth of a regular web browsing session, but high definition video bumps that to 2,700 times the bandwidth. YouTube Growth JANUARY 29, 2007 YouTube videos comprise two percent of all Internet traffic. Surveys: Internet Traffic Touched by YouTube JUNE 19, 2007 In six months, YouTube video traffic has grown from two to ten percent of all internet traffic. YouTube Comprises 10% Of All Internet Traffic | WebProNews FEBRUARY 1, 2008 Six months later, YouTube video traffic comprises 20% of all internet traffic. Alexa.com YouTube traffic statistics However one looks at it, this is a statistically significant growth curve that supports the concerns about the ultimate capacity of the internet, fast becoming as critical an infrastructure as our electric grid. The Consequences of Growth As more and more Internet traffic is video traffic, and as more and more subscribers start using broadband to gain access to the Internet, we will face some mixture of these consequences, to an ever growing degree. First, without significant investment in infrastructure, continued growth in network traffic is likely to result in network performance degradation, most likely in the form of slower uploading and downloading. One significant consequence is pressure to manage the Demand Side (i.e., Net Neutrality debate). As one follows this debate, one quickly recognizes the political agenda - there usually is a political agenda when looming shortages and the need for a change in public policy enter the picture. The ExaFlood and Net Neutrality debates are - inevitably - interwoven, and predictably, political. A driver of the conditions that create the Net Neutrality issue in the first place is the scarcity of broadband bandwidth. Incumbents argue for the need to differentiate on service pricing in the face of scarce bandwidth. The ExaFlood is all about scarce infrastructure. Moves by ISPs to suspend heavy users or cut them off entirely reflect the sense of scarcity. Political pressure to allow ISPs to charge varying rates for different levels of service or on the other side, to prohibit different levels of service are each signs of looming issues. Incentives to manage the Supply Side may be a preferred alternative. While there will be increasing business incentives to build more last-mile broadband infrastructure, political incentives may be another way to stimulate broadband infrastructure growth that would relieve such scarcity. Clearly, when it comes to broadband, efforts to fit all this increasing traffic into an already tight pipe (i.e., current network capacity) must be contrasted with some effort to figure out a way to get a robust sustainable infrastructure built out. Anyway this issue is sliced, we're going to have to spend more capital on broadband infrastructure. We should be talking about the best ways to get this infrastructure built. Fiber v. Wireless Broadband In the face of ever growing demand for bandwidth, we need both the infinite capacity of fiber broadband, and the ubiquitous mobility and utility of wireless broadband ... we need to meet the ever growing need for both bandwidth and mobility. We need wired solutions like Cable, and DSL, and wherever possible, FTTH, for reliable connectivity when we are in a fixed position, like at home or at work. We need wireless solutions like cellular wireless and wireless broadband when we are mobile and away from our normal fixed locations. Hot Spots, by the way, are not really adequate substitutes for a mobile solution. They're a portable solution - not mobile, but an alternate fixed location while roaming. Wireless and wired broadband should be considered two equally valid, complementary technologies. Asking which is better pre-supposes that there is a certain need being filled and that wired and wireless are comparable solutions to fill that need. Most times, one is better than the other - the variable is the need for capacity v. the need for mobility. In considering the need for both FTTH and wireless broadband - not one or the other - an apt analogy is " The 747 and the Helicopter." The 747 is hard to beat if the objective is to move a large number of people economically and comfortably over a very long distance, say, over an ocean or between continents. The helicopter is the best solution if the objective is to move a small number of people or things from any one location to another, generally over a relatively short distance, irrespective of airports and runways. There is no better network for capacity than fiber - FTTH offers nearly infinite capacity and long-term viability because of its physics. But there is no better network for mobility than wireless broadband - Wi Fi Mesh offers a relatively low-cost wireless solution that goes up relatively quickly, then provides far more bandwidth than a cellular air card solution to far more people. Which should come first, capacity or mobility? On the one hand, a small town may opt for a FTTH solution first, because they have very poor alternatives for triple play services, and little need for mobility. But after the network is in place they may grow more interested in a Wi Fi Mesh network, because with fiber widely available, the price of Wi Fi Mesh goes down, and its utility goes up. On the other hand, another town, perhaps a little larger than the previous one, may opt for wireless broadband because they already enjoy adequate competition for triple play service, but their city government operations could benefit from more options for mobile solutions. But after the wireless mobile broadband solution is in place, the value that the community places on broadband goes up, and there may be a more compelling appreciation for the benefits of FTTH. It's a matter of priorities and at some point, after some experience is gained, it's about awareness and perspective. But in every case, we must come to some agreement that we all will need both the infinite capacity of FTTH and the ubiquitous mobility of wireless broadband, before all is said and done. Some of us will get it sooner than others. And those local populations that adopt broadband lifestyles, whether fixed or mobile, are more likely to devote the resources needed to get the other. The Debate on Solutions Advocates of Net Neutrality tend to argue in favor of flat pricing for access and separation of infrastructure ownership and/or management service from content delivery service (structural unbundling). Opponents of Net Neutrality argue for continuation of status quo vertical integration, variable pricing options to ensure quality of service and network management flexibility and little-to-no regulation to ensure adequate (abundant) revenue sufficient to finance network construction. There is significant distrust on both sides of the argument, and lots of history.
Source: Wikipedia article on "Bit" But back to the approaching shortage of bandwidth. The first question is whether one believes that there even is a coming shortage. Debates about other shortages seem more long-term - the coming oil shortage as we approach Hubbert's Peak, the theory about approaching finite limits of oil production on the planet; or projections of world population growth and coming food shortages and famine (see also the Limits to Growth by the Club of Rome and Thomas Malthus). The difference is that while the Club of Rome's projections of disaster and calamity have been proven wrong (so far), and Hubbert's Peak remains an unknown (so far), the ExaFlood dilemma seems more immediate and real, and we can still imagine that the problem is somewhat manageable. Drowning in the ExaFlood gives an interesting counterpoint to this suggestion of a coming "flood" of data transmission shortage. Author Tim Lee, a fellow at the Libertarian Cato Institute, makes the argument that we are facing less of a "flood" of bandwidth shortage and more of a simple extension of the continuing need for telecom firms to build out their infrastructure, which supports his rationale for government to get out of the way. Bring On The Exaflood by Bruce Mehlman, former assistant secretary of commerce under President Bush, and Larry Irving, former assistant secretary of commerce under President Bill Clinton - both currently co-chairmen of the Internet Innovation Alliance - embrace the problem and see solutions at hand, as follows. All sides agree that we need ongoing investment in content, massive upgrades of infrastructure and relentless innovation to handle the phenomenal growth in data traffic. We need advancements in how we build and operate networks, including new file compression technologies, upgraded traffic management software, better spam and virus filters, and new delivery platforms. And we need substantial investments in short-haul bandwidth through fiber to homes, broadband over power lines, satellites and fourth-generation wireless networks. The formula for encouraging such extraordinary investments is clear: minimize tax and regulatory constraints and maximize competition. Policymakers across the nation have ample opportunity to implement this blueprint right away. They should pass common-sense legislation such as permanently extending the Internet tax moratorium, building broadband-ready public housing, and cutting depreciation schedules for network equipment and infrastructure. The Bottom Line The ever growing demand for bandwidth appears to be quite real, but also incremental, so it need not be a crisis. But it deserves much greater attention and more creativity. The ExaFlood scenario makes a strong argument on all sides to build out real broadband infrastructure at both the backbone (transport) and last mile levels (100 Mbs - 1Gbs) ASAP. Such speeds mean fiber in all its forms - nothing else will get us those speeds and be truly future-proof, or in this case, Exa-Ready. And the need for infrastructure means letting go of limiting the number of players in the infrastructure business. We need more energy and creativity to accomplish such a Herculean task. Conferences and articles may be good to raise the hue and cry and get people motivated and busy. But this is a project no less exciting than building the railroad network was in the 19th Century, and it demands the attention of leaders at all levels. We should be building out broadband networks, both wired and wireless, as robustly as possible. Given these trends of exploding data needs, most especially the growing popularity of video applications in all their forms, we appear to be at little risk of overbuilding (certainly out on the edge we are not). We are quite likely to see an unending need for bandwidth in the foreseeable future.
Posted on June 30, 2008 at 06:26 AM | Comments (0) The World Wide Web: W3, Web 2.0 and Beyond(Amazing video on Web 2.0 - check it out before reading on - you'll want to watch it a couple of times, it's so chock full of images.) There follows a brief on all things World Wide Web. Lots and lots of links. Be sure to watch both of the YouTube videos on this post, you won't regret it!
The internet is the system of connected local area networks, the network of networks that uses Internet Protocol (IP) language as a common system of data transfer. The World Wide Web - 'Web" for short - is the system of hypertext documents connected by hyperlinks, accessed via a Web browser (Internet Explorer, Safari, Firefox, etc.) over the internet. The concept of the Web has to do with how we extract value out of internet connectivity, and significant changes are afoot, highlighted by what has come to be called Web 2.0. The Web Grows Up Web 2.0 is a good jumping off point to discuss the evolution and implications of the World Wide Web. More important than the term Web 2.0 is the evolution it embodies. Web 2.0 as a label emerged at the Web 2.0 Conference in 2004 sponsored by Tim O'Reilly. So far, feedback on this concept is wide-ranging, from "it's a load of hype" to "it's the second coming of the Web." For the unitiated, Wikipedia is a great resource on the relatively new phenomenon of Web 2.0 - see both the Web 2.0 listing, as well as the entire Web 2.0 Category listing. At its most simple, Web 2.0 is a term that describes what the Web is becoming: websites are more and more interactive, now including features like YouTube video clips, blogs, wikis and podcasts - tools for interactivity - that provide much more utility than older websites, which tended to be more static presentations of information, with limited e-commerce capabilities. Here's a synopsis of what the Web looks like (looked like, this was written nearly three years ago): The scope of the Web today is hard to fathom. The total number of Web pages, including those that are dynamically created upon request and document files available through links, exceeds 600 billion. That's 100 pages per person alive. How could we create so much, so fast, so well? In fewer than 4,000 days, we have encoded half a trillion versions of our collective story and put them in front of 1 billion people, or one-sixth of the world's population. That remarkable achievement was not in anyone's 10-year plan. The accretion of tiny marvels can numb us to the arrival of the stupendous. Today, at any Net terminal, you can get: an amazing variety of music and video, an evolving encyclopedia, weather forecasts, help wanted ads, satellite images of anyplace on Earth, up-to-the-minute news from around the globe, tax forms, TV guides, road maps with driving directions, real-time stock quotes, telephone numbers, real estate listings with virtual walk-throughs, pictures of just about anything, sports scores, places to buy almost anything, records of political contributions, library catalogs, appliance manuals, live traffic reports, archives to major newspapers - all wrapped up in an interactive index that really works.
This website also includes a list of the Best (Or Most Interesting) Web 2.0 Definitions and Explanations - as well as The Best Web 2.0 Software of 2005. The Meme A meme -a new word for self-propagating units of cultural information - is a great example of the new Web 2.0 world, where people are connected and enabled to circulate ideas at the speed of light. The "meme map" above is an early attempt to forge a group consensus on the concept of Web 2.0. Note the fluid, dynamic nature of the Web. The Web is vast, decentralized, democratic, and dynamic, changing and evolving before our very eyes. The Web has become transcendent, so we must approach it peripherally to grasp and describe it. Web 2.0 is actually a meme itself. It created quite a buzz in 2005 and 2006, but has been criticized as one more example of the Gartner Hype Cycle, which sees exaggerated interest in any new technology typically followed by a commensurate dramatic fall off of interest, then a discovery of true value as understanding of the technology and its utility takes hold. Much of the material available to understand Web 2.0 is indeed from the 2005-2006 time period.
Web 2.0 Tag Cloud image from Wikipedia Web 2.0 Applications One way to understand Web 2.0 is to look at software applications that embody the new Web approach. MySpace and facebook are emblems of the social networking trend, where the Web is used in new ways to connect people with other people. Google Maps is a powerful tool that puts the user out in space, looking down on the planet. Flickr lets us all share our photos with each other; YouTube does the same with our home movies. Del.icio.us introduces the concept of tagging and bookmarks, more Web-oriented ways to label what we put out on the Web, and find what we're looking for. Looking at information organization is a good departure to better understand Web 2.0. Tagging, bookmarking, and tag clouds, like the one in the graphic above, are new ways of organizing information into folksonomies, a means to access information more accommodating to the decentralized nature of the Web than the traditional taxonomies of static categories and subcategories. David Weinberger's book, Everything Is Miscellaneous: The Power of the New Digital Disorder shows that the way we deal with information has transformed with a maturing Web. Search Engines provide us a tool so that we no longer have to have "a place for everything and everything in its place," at least when it comes to the digital "everythings" in our lives. We can leave them in a "big, messy pile," and when everything is tagged with descriptors, we just need a good search engine and a knack for describing our search problem to find what we're looking for - we don't need to remember where we filed the item. According to a review on Boing Boing, we've traditionally divided the world into categories, topics, and hierarchies because physical objects need to be in one place or another (they can't be in all the places they might belong). But computers and the Internet turn this approach on its head: because a computer can "put things" in as many categories as they need to be in, at little to no cost, and because individuals can classify knowledge, tasks, and objects idiosyncratically with "tags," the hierarchy, best characterized by the Dewey Decimal system we grew up with in libraries, has become an outdated mode to organize information - at least when it concerns digital information. Web 2.0 Principles and Lessons Tim O'Reilly laid out these underlying principles that led him and his colleagues to come up with this terminology and the lessons learned with this new "Web 2.0 perspective." (see What Is Web 2.0. Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software, published on-line on September 30, 2005). 1. The Web is a platform where the value of the software is proportional to the scale and dynamism of the data it helps to manage, i.e., build bridges to more data, not fences around your data (e.g., Google). Leverage customer-self service and algorithmic data management to reach out to the entire web, to the edges and not just the center, to the long tail and not just the head (e.g., Overture and AdSense). The service automatically gets better the more people use it (e.g., BitTorrent).
2. Embrace the power of the web to harness collective intelligence, so that network effects from user contributions are the key to market dominance (e.g., Wikipedia). Blogs are the best example of this principle. ... like Wikipedia, blogging harnesses collective intelligence as a kind of filter. What James Suriowecki calls "the wisdom of crowds" comes into play, and much as PageRank produces better results than analysis of any individual document, the collective attention of the blogosphere selects for value. 3. Data is the next Intel Inside, as data become the building blocks for Web 2.0 applications (e.g., GoogleMaps). O'Reilly envisions a coming battle over control as data owners line up against applications that seek to leverage that data. 4. End of the Software Release Cycle. When software is viewed as a service rather than a product, operations that ensure service quality become a core competency, users become co-developers, and development moves from an episodic activity characterized by releases, to a constant activity marked by fluid updates. 5. Lightweight programming models drive several shifts, lightweight programming models that allow for loosely coupled systems, a preference for syndication over coordination, and designs that anticipate being hacked and mixed on the back end (designers start the process and let the hordes of smart programmers leverage their creativity to continue the process beyond the original vision, in new - and unpredictable - directions).
6. Software Above the Level of a Single Device is a paradigm shift required by web-based businesses, where the web and web services pull together resources to provide a service not possible without a network paradigm. iTunes and TiVo are examples of services that manage data as a service and leverage network dynamics. 7. Rich User Experiences. As new applications are written with the Web as a platform, the creators can leverage not only the new capabilities that network dynamics make available, but also the best of the old PC-based applications, which results in a delightful, new, rich user experience. This transition provides new companies with a great opportunity, and incumbents with an ongoing challenge. Adapting to a New World Order
Graham highlights three points in his blog about Web 2.0. First, he says consider the new ways of designing Web applications that are more intuitive and easier to use, with the help of tools like Ajax. Second, he says that democracy matters in the Web 2.0 world, highlighting things like Wikipedia and blogs, where normal people have access through the Web to make a difference, to gain an audience, and to impact the business world without having to go through the establishment, VCs, or an editor. Finally, Graham says that the new mantra of "Don't Maltreat Users" is vital to Web 2.0. When an average Joe can reach millions through the Web, millions who interact at their leisure, it makes good business sense for a Web 2.0 business to be as affordable and user-friendly as it can be, to prevent competitors from undercutting the business plan and to keep those millions coming back. If a Web 2.0 business is not on its toes, its audience can fly away in a heartbeat. Respect for the customer has moved to the front of the line. This lack of initial "stickiness" is a huge difference between the old and new worlds on the Web. In the Web 2.0 world, there are severe and immediate consequences for not putting one's best foot forward with customers. That's good news for customers, bad news for more traditional, less hyper competitive businesses and organizations. The rapid advances being made with Web 2.0 companies should indicate to cities the pace of change and changing expectations. The days of of playing it safe and getting by with minimal change as a late adopter are ending, or at least, they carry an ever higher cost. City officials, just like private sector business people, must recognize the need to adapt to the trends expressed by Web 2.0 companies because citizens are users and increasingly will have these same tools at their disposal. The environment is changing more rapidly than we think and the business and political structures and practices that we are used to will not be the same in 10 years, maybe even in five years. At the risk of understating the case, the internet and the World Wide Web are intricately connected. Just as computer software and hardware progressed in tandem throughout the early days of the Computer Age, we see the internet and the World Wide Web evolving in similar fashion. Continuous extension of the broadband internet, bringing more and more Web surfers onto the Ethernet waves, will hasten the changes discussed in this analysis of the evolving World Wide Web. Expansion of broadband will be helped along by technologies like Wi Fi Mesh and WiMAX, two technologies that are driving accelerated adoption of community broadband. City leaders can no more choose to avoid the changes of the evolving Web than individuals can. We can turn away, but evolution will progress apace. We withdraw from this march at our own risk, making catching up that much harder to do when we're finally compelled to act.
Posted on June 28, 2008 at 04:04 PM | Comments (0) Quick, Cheap, and Good (Enough)Especially notable in the public sector are the wasted cycles spent trying to please all parties, trying to reach that perfect solution that will meet all the requirements of a project. But as we know living in the real world, its extremely rare to find that perfect solution. This brief outlines the issues associated with seeking the perfect instead of the best solution, and suggests an alternate pathway to get to the destination incrementally rather than in one fell swoop.
Government agencies are most guilty of pursuing, albeit with the best of intentions, the perfect solution at the expense of an adequate, but good solution. Most often this is done by adhering to a rigid process of competitive bidding and formal rules, only to turn away competitive but partial solutions, or worse, to accept the lowest cost solution, one which may well not be the best-fit solution. Too often, the result of this mindset is the opposite of perfect - the worst outcomes - either doing nothing - wasting valuable time and resources - or getting taken to the cleaners. This brief is intended as a challenge to the status quo of public bidding and vendor selection, which too often seeks optimal solutions on behalf of the public interest, but ends up with sub-optimal results. MetroNetIQ suggests that its time for a reality reset when it comes to city government processes and results. Reality Reset We learn through buying and selling, gaining experience in the marketplace, that giving time to a vendor at the door or a salesperson on the phone is an actual commercial exchange - while accepting a vendor overture rarely results in the promises that first come across the threshold, it may well be worth the time if one learns something. In point of fact, "Free" is always subsidized by someone, somewhere, so there is someone picking up the tab out there, carrying an expectation of a payoff, whenever costs are incurred. There's an implied debt whenever a gift is accepted. Beware the gift that comes with strings attached. There is almost always a sacrifice of quality, for instance, when a "free" gift is accepted. It is rare that something of true quality is offered for free. Paying for something should always be acceptable, IF there is a fair exchange of value - that is, in fact, the very definition of commerce. "One can't get something for nothing" is a primary lesson of adulthood that we all must accept and keep in mind, because we're constantly told the opposite by people who want something from us. Growing up means accepting reality, and one of the toughest lessons to learn and relearn is that "free" is not, in fact, "free," no matter how attractive it may look. 2. Low Bid is Not Always Best Bid. If we can't have it for free, we often shouldn't even want it for cheap! This is worth a small digression... The Golden Triangle When it comes to digital transitions and metropolitan broadband projects, all of us are bounded by some basic constraints that govern any procurement or project. There's a business maxim one could call the "Rule of the Business Golden Triangle." You may recognize it by the name of the Project Triangle: you'll no doubt recognize its truths as you read on.
According to the Rule, when it comes to procurements and projects, one cannot have one's cake and eat it too. That's reality in the business world. The three aspects of the golden triangle that control and impact any project manager's prospects are Time (fast v. slow, sooner v. later), Quality (high quality v. low quality), and Money (less expensive v. more expensive). To recognize the truth of the Rule, just try to imagine getting just what one would want - the Best Case: very high quality, immediately, for very little money - let's face it, that's not going to happen, that's a fantasy world. Or imagine the polar opposite, the Worst Case: getting something of very low quality over a long period, with project delays, while spending a lot - unfortunately, that may just happen, and that's getting taken to the cleaners. While one extreme is possible but unlikely (the best case), another is regrettably common (the worst case, above). The rational choices in a procurement or business decision guide the outcomes, and too often the worst case is the result, when better alternatives are available. Alternately, project managers should focus on best possible outcomes in the middle of those two extremes - they should pick two factors that are most important and relax the third constraint: Middle of the Road Outcomes a) Fast and less expensive, but lower quality. Strategy: Lower one's standards (accept less quality or fewer options, usually achieved through extensive planning and negotiation between stakeholders to determine the must-have items and the nice-to-have items and then setting priorities). b) High quality and less expensive, but takes more time. Strategy: Start the project earlier (to be a responsible steward of time as a resource, a city leader would start a low-grade project immediately to get a jump on things and then move at a reasonable pace to allow adequate time to find savings and develop creative approaches that would leverage existing assets or competitive advantages). c) Fast and high quality, but costs more. Strategy: Pay more (budget more to accommodate a higher expense, create a strong business case to justify a financial strategy, identify alternate grant or funding sources, etc.).
The bottom line? If one is interested in digital transition and metropolitan broadband as an option for one's community, one is best served to bring in professional help to find the right fit, devise a strategy, and develop a business case, all of which will position one and allow one and one's city to: There's no substitute for: Getting back then to the Reality Reset of city government processes and results: 3. A changing environment demands adaptation; doing nothing is a choice too. The essence of denial is that if I don't recognize something, if I avoid facing it, then it doesn't exist. Living in denial is alternately seen as childish, immature, or unhealthy behavior. It's often called various things in shorthand: "Burying your head in the sand." "Running away from your problems." "Delaying the inevitable." Traffic increases or economic activity dwindles. Without a clear strategy to monitor a changing world and adapt a city or organization's strategy to manage its position in that world, it becomes inevitable that one's position will decline. Any system faces decline without new energy being fed into it. The concept of Entropy is a physical reality, not readily understood, and even less readily accepted by the psyche - it says that left alone, all things will decay over time, from a state of order to a state of disorder. Quit investing in the future, and watch the world around you slip into decay. If the world is constantly changing, then one must constantly spend energy (time, money, etc.) to adapt in order to stay even, and spend even more energy (time, money, etc.) in order to move ahead and do better than the rest. Doing nothing is a choice, but in a highly dynamic environment, it becomes a choice to fall behind. No longer is it the case where one could pretend that high tech did not matter - to pretend otherwise, to cling to old analog tools and processes, is to accept less efficiency and more cost. That is not to say that all things digital are good, necessary or even effective; to discern the mix between old and new requires an investment of time and attention, to gain the understanding and experience to tell the difference. The silicon chip is now pervasive, and increasingly, connectivity over an IP network is becoming just as pervasive. To deny the need for broadband is to deny reality. To deny the need for mobile broadband is equally evasive, because as new tools become available, they offer an adaptability challenge that we either accept or deny. Going through a digital transition is a matter of When, not If. 5. Life is a Series of Choices and Consequences. Individually and collectively, we each choose to be In the Game or On the Sidelines. There are costs and benefits to either choice, but the reality is that we do not get a third choice. The Reality of Freedom means that there are Choices and there are Consequences. Having to choose is indeed a burden, just as not having an ability to choose is a burden. Life is a burden, that's reality. Freedom of choice places a premium on education and learning to make good choices, profitable choices, beneficial choices, healthy choices, just choices. Refusing to make a choice is in itself a different kind of choice, with its own set of consequences, including the lack of experience that comes with being engaged in a project. Delaying a choice opportunity is a strategy that can be appropriate or inappropriate, given the circumstances at hand. Denying a choice opportunity, at least as an adult in a free society, is an aversion to accepting reality. Sometimes reality can present a series of "bad" choices that can seem like the same as no choice at all. But in that case, we are forced to weigh the outcomes and choose the least bad option - that is reality - to say that there is no choice is to play the victim, to deny that one is in control. On this topic, I'm obliged to share a statement actually made by the CEO of a major corporation where I worked - I was only a week or two into the new job, when I took my first trip to corporate headquarters to attend an annual all-hands conference. The CEO gave a headliner speech, where he described the bleak business environment in our industry at the time and shared this pearl. That was in 1995 - five years later, the 70 year old company was acquired. The CEO was right, but he also steered the company into a safe harbor as his final duty. At the time, I was shocked to hear those words in a public speech, but they stuck with me, 15 years later. The essence of good leadership in bad times is to make hard decisions that offer the best outcome over the long run, with the least pain in the short term. Reality in life is about accepting life as it comes at one and doing the best one can with what one has to work with at the time. It's not all that hard to analyze what we all now face in regards to digital transitions and metropolitan broadband when one accepts reality. The reality we face is that all cities, all organizations, all communities will have to go through a Digital Transition sooner or later. In a sense, a Digital Transition, can be looked at as making the most of a necessary evil, along the lines of the Shit Sandwich analogy.
Having accepted Reality as what it is, we can start having the adult conversation about what a future based on digital tools connected with ubiquitous broadband would look like, and how we can get from here to there. Optimal v. Best Facing Reality is acknowledging that while we would all prefer the perfect, no-risk outcome, it is not attainable. Therefore, we have to look at what is attainable given the current set of constraints and position ourselves to find the best fit at the time. Such a "rough order of magnitude" or "ROM" strategy accepts that there will be time after any decision to improve on the situation and then make subsequent decisions with more options at hand. A ROM strategy assesses the situation and the set of options and compares the indicated outcomes with the default outcome, which is doing nothing and accepting the status quo. If that assessment indicates that the situation is improved with one or more of the options, they can be weighed against each other and one option will be indicated to be the best solution at that time - even better than taking no action at all. Based on the need for quality (and some situations carry grave risks if quality is not maintained), the decision-making process and line of reasoning offered in this brief suggest that a solution that is quick and cheap, most times, may be good enough to move forward. For those times when quality is the standard, then one can choose to move forward quickly, accepting that it will cost more, OR one can choose to use time to one's advantage, saving money by going slowly and deliberately ahead. Whichever of the three options chosen, this analysis suggests that moving forward in a time of rapid change is generally preferable to standing still, all other things being equal.
Posted on June 23, 2008 at 11:48 AM | Comments (1) Digital Video and Voice - Forget About It!VOIP and VoD are two killer apps that are bringing enormous pressure to bear on two very large industries. And broadband internet is driving adoption of both of these applications. For those without broadband access - Forget About It. A Once & Future Killer App One of the worst punishments man can suffer is isolation from others. The sound of another human voice is vital to the human experience. In March 1876, Alexander Graham Bell and his assistant famously and successfully transformed spoken voice sound waves into electric analog signals to enable voice communication over distances. His "telephone" innovation, patented in that year, proved a social revolution. The term "killer application," or "killer app" for short, means a "technological innovation that has a transformative impact on society." One would have to call Bell's telephone the quintessential killer app, and so it remains.
Telephone innovations progressed over the next one hundred years or so, until a truly dramatic innovation occurred with the adaptation of traditional analog wave transmission services to the digital realities of the internet world. VOIP is dramatically innovative in at least two ways. First, because VOIP is a digital application being provided over the public internet, it provides a competitive alternative to voice communication services provided by a telecom company over proprietary telephone company lines, opening up competitive options that never existed before, which lowers prices and increases service options. Second, because VOIP is not an analog but a digital application, it opens up an array of accompanying add-on services - not available with traditional analog telephony, such as getting voice mails as "WAV" files right there along with your emails. While VOIP turns any laptop into a "soft" telephone, its sound quality still depends on network-provided "quality of service" or "QOS" to prevent dropped packets that cause the voice signal to become choppy. VOIP is a killer app, but is still coming of age and is not widely adopted yet. A Second Killer App Transmission of video content over distances is another killer app of modern life. While the actual moment of the invention of television is a far less documented moment than Bell’s phone call to his assistant, few can argue that television has transformed our lives. Extending television content services to consumers and households has differed from telephone services in several ways. First, the primary television network was wireless. Rather than telephone lines extended to households and businesses to connect telephones at the ends, the television network was comprised a broadcast network of towers and stations, and wireless receivers at the ends - television sets or "TVs" for short.
Second, from the beginning, TV sets were far more complex and expensive devices than telephones. And while telephones, at least until the past few decades, were leased by the telephone company, TVs have always been end devices that were purchased by users. Third, voice content is user-created, while video content was "produced" by professionals and either broadcast "live" or stored on a storage medium and broadcast later. The first major video innovation was to finance content with commercial sponsors, who were allowed to insert advertisements, which came to be known as "commercials," directly into the video programs. This ad-supported content provisioning model allowed content to be broadcast over-the-air for "free" to users who had invested in a TV set. The advent of cable networks, originally intended to provide content services to areas that had poor over-the-air reception of the video signal, changed things dramatically. Cable providers grew into large video distribution companies that generated significant revenue from selling bundled video content. In addition, video became available with the invention of analog VHS video tape players and cassette, which could be purchased, but more often were rented. While digital innovation substituted DVDs for VHS tapes, the business model stayed the same until recently. While professionally produced video over a cable service remains the norm, the rise of broadband internet has made available new services for accessing video content, including streaming video from companies like Netflix, peer-to-peer video content using technology from BitTorrent, and user-produced video content from YouTube. The Triple Play On the backs of their respective killer apps and slim to no competition in local and regional markets, telephone companies and cable MSOs grew into very large, very successful business ventures providing access and content services over their privately-owned networks. In many, if not most markets, telephone and cable companies offered core services under a monopoly franchise. When the internet gained sufficient interest to look like it would be around for a while, first the cable companies, then the telephone companies moved in to provide internet access services that were a step ahead of dial-up internet access in terms of both speed and quality. High-speed internet service, or "broadband" as it came to be known, was until recently loosely defined as "service above 200 Kbs in 'throughput' speed." Of course, the definition of broadband is in the eye of the beholder, and increasingly "broadband" is viewed both domestically and internationally as more in the range of 1.5 - 10 Mbs. In more advanced countries, even these speeds are viewed as relatively slow. Cable companies were first to offer broadband service over their coaxial cable networks, starting in the mid-late 1990s. Telephone companies were late to the game, providing broadband service over their copper wires with a technology they termed "digital subscriber line" or "DSL." To win market share away from their cable competitors, telephone companies offered service that was a little slower, but much less expensive. The strategy worked and now cable and telephone companies together account for nearly all of the residential broadband service in the United States. Broadband has proven a boon for telephone and cable companies for two reasons. First, as their base level offerings come under more competition and revenues decline, broadband revenue has provided high-margin revenues for both telephone and cable companies. Second, offering broadband to their customer base provided cable companies the ability to enter their telephone competitor's space with a competing voice product - VOIP. Having gained some experience with broadband, cable companies recognized that they could provide digital VOIP and offer their customers not only video and broadband, but also voice, for a bundled set of services that came to be called the "Triple Play." In response, the telephone companies soon began to partner with satellite dish networks in order to match the cable Triple Play bundle. Over time, telecom giant Verizon started offering a Triple Play bundle where its fiber-to-the-home (FTTH) network had been deployed, and as it became capable, ATT did the same under its U-verse label in select markets. Broadband as the Enabler When it comes to new digital innovations in video and voice, broadband is a required element to be able to receive such service. The broadband internet offers consumers an alternate channel to gain access to new voice and video service options. On the voice side, besides the cable company VOIP offer, numerous smaller providers are active. Perhaps the most innovative VOIP application is Skype, which began as a simple software application that could be downloaded to a PC or laptop to enable free VOIP, but both parties to a call had to use the application. The original free Skype service that turned laptops into soft phones was soon joined by SkypeIn and SkypeOut VOIP service that allowed Skype users to make and receive calls to and from regular telephone users for a modest fee. These services have seen strong acceptance for international calls especially, given the high rates prevalent for such calls. On the video side, progress is somewhat slower, as professionally produced cable TV content must be acquired under license before being transmitted over the internet. Netflix has begun to offer VoD movies, and BlockBuster has followed suit. YouTube videos are becoming ever more common on websites, and are especially in evidence during the 2008 political season. As broadband penetration grows, expect both VOIP and VoD options to proliferate, making broadband an even more worthwhile service offer.
ATTRIBUTION REQUIREMENT - The reader is encouraged to link to this post and to share this material, with the understanding that they provide an attribution to MetroNetIQ and share any alterations with MetroNetIQ.
Posted on June 22, 2008 at 04:35 PM | Comments (0) Time for a Second Look at Public Private Partnerships
So far, "Public Private Partnerships" mean that the public sector entity supports a private sector network operator/investor by agreeing to act as an "anchor tenant" by signing up for a long-term service contract, thereby lowering the risk of the project, ensuring project financing, and wooing over a reluctant private sector partner. So far. Things are changing, and I would suggest it's time to take a second look at what such partnerships might entail. Fact is, there are many successful network operators out there that do not consider the public sector to be within their tightly focused field of vision. They have achieved success with wireless broadband precisely by avoiding the mess that Muni Wireless has become. So they eschew any involvement at all with "government." But consider what would be possible if these successful network operators opened themselves up to the possibility of supporting a field digital transition project in a neighboring community. They already have a network in operation, servicing private sector clients. They have already made the required investments. Odds are, they have slack capacity in backhaul bandwidth and local area coverage...they could help, if they chose to. This brief argues for a second look at how we define a Public Private Partnership, on both sides. Let's open our minds to the possibilities presented by this time of change. Public Demand for Access and Applications Successful broadband network operators with a history of focusing on private sector clients should take a second look and reconsider public sector broadband clients, given recent changes in an evolving market. And public sector organizations interested in digital transition and broadband access options should look to their immediate neighborhood for partners. Despite discredited business models that bring bad press, municipal interest in wireless broadband continues to grow, being driven by a growing awareness of the attractive economics of field digital transition and wireless broadband applications. Public sector entities are beginning to recognize wireless broadband applications and their supporting networks as a way to contain city operating budgets. Private sector-focused network operators should consider two principal areas to take advantage of this trend and provide new revenue with little added risk: 1) operating public sector-owned networks in exchange for access to bandwidth on those networks; or 2) providing public sector clients access services using privately-held networks already in place, augmenting the networks where necessary based on market opportunity. They should consider these select market segments: 1) cities sufficiently motivated to invest in network assets; 2) cities adjacent to private sector networks that may be extended to provide service to interested public sector clients; or 3) cities where these two trends converge: a city may invest in a partial network in order to leverage an adjacent private operation. Private Sector Success By and large, private sector firms that have been successful so far in leveraging 802.11 technologies and point-to-point wireless broadband strategies have opted not to pursue public sector business opportunities. Public Sector Failure The case for public involvement in wireless broadband networks remains to be made, and it hasn't been helped by the speculative quality and poor performance of early efforts ("Earthlink," "Free Wi Fi"). Those private providers that pursued public initiatives were undone by "bad" business models, high equipment costs, inadequate capabilities and poorly financed networks. Paradoxically, despite bad press and public failure, public managers are growing more interested in wireless networks, but no longer to serve the disadvantaged or to provide free services. Interest is now based on the potential cost savings found in wireless broadband applications, driven by the proliferation of Wi Fi client-side chip sets. For example, a recent survey of 33 cities in Orange County, CA, showed the following interest levels in wireless broadband applications among "currently deployed" or "planned" networks: While demand for such applications on the public side is rising, few if any successful operators with demonstrated skills in 802.11 or point-to-point networks with private sector clients have offered connectivity services to meet such growing demand for public sector-focused networks to provide the access needed for the municipal applications. The Best of Both Worlds: New Varieties of Public Private Partnerships Publicly-owned, privately-operated networks: A new business model is emerging where a city may choose to leverage access to advantageous long-term bond financing in order to optimize public control and benefit by owning the network. The lowest risk approach for cities that opt to invest in infrastructure will be to seek private sector partners as operators and to develop market opportunities based on low or no-cost access to excess wireless bandwidth. In a win/win scenario, the private operator would gain competitive market advantage without expending capital on network construction. Those private sector operators who currently enjoy success in private-sector operations are best positioned and the most experienced to take advantage of this trend. Extensions of privately-owned & operated networks: A private network operator may choose to leverage current assets by extending existing network operations to adjacent cities or towns, as an alternative to municipally-initiated green field projects, the current norm. Like Cablevision's plans to take advantage of existing wired network assets by extending their reach with 802.11 technology to service municipalities and their own customers with mobile broadband services, any private network operator has an opportunity to react to local demand for a municipal network, or pro-actively promote the same where it makes sense. Where a private network owner can extend current subscriber-focused network operations at low risk, the operator is able to more fully utilize current investments, whether in network bandwidth, backhaul injection facilities, pole attachment agreements, or network operating centers (NOCs). City departments seeking wireless broadband applications that sign long-term service contracts provide stable secondary revenue for operators whose primary revenue source remains private subscribers. The Bottom Line Local public sector wireless broadband opportunities complement private network operators' core business (subscriber or client-based revenue) by adding new revenue and spreading fixed costs over a wider base. Left unaddressed, the need for broadband connectivity and services to support digital transformation projects will likely be met by cities providing such services to themselves or bringing in new entry operators who see public private partnerships as attractive points of market entry.
ATTRIBUTION REQUIREMENT - The reader is encouraged to link to this post and to share this material, with the understanding that they provide an attribution to MetroNetIQ and share any alterations with MetroNetIQ.
Posted on June 17, 2008 at 08:50 AM | Comments (0) Communities & Communications
We human beings really have it rough. We can't live without each other, but being in a society can be such a pain in the ass! So many of our problems stem from either the inability or unwillingness to communicate effectively with each other, or the difficulties we find in making our communities work equitably and functionally. The key to both age-old problems is improved communication and more effective communities by way of a digital transition and broadband communications networks. We need to all try to understand each other and get along better, because We Are Family... Common Roots Having something in common is the basis for all friendship; the connections we form with others are the basis of the society we create. From those connections we gain the experience we need to establish trust. From trust, we get the courage to accomplish things by working together, to share risks and reap greater rewards. Our joint actions involve bringing things together.
All those things we really enjoy in life, those things that make it all worthwhile, come from connecting with others and finding a way to live and work together. Having something in common is where it all begins. With that, we are a part of a greater whole, a part of a community. And as a group of individuals with a common bond, we must communicate. We communicate with more variety now than we used to; our need to communicate has in no way diminished, and we have more tools at our disposal. It's far easier now to pick up the phone and make a call, in fact, long distance is even beginning to fade away as a communications term. And then there's email. While we may send fewer letters, we actually end up writing much more often by using these new electronic media. An essential element for all this communication is "always on" broadband infrastructure. Broadband technology makes it ever easier to communicate and stay in touch, to form, build and keep communities. In a world where events and activities seem to conspire to pull us apart, broadband has become one of our most potent and vital tools. We'll never stop talking, never stop connecting. Our need to stay connected will not diminish. Broadband is but one more step in an evolutionary path to find easier, better, and cheaper means of staying in touch with our many communities. Local Community Support Communities must communicate internally and with the outside world and they rely on the dominant telecommunication providers (cable and telecom) to provide the broadband access service they need. In the absence of such traditional connectivity, communities must find a 'Plan B." But as corporate entities, the dominant ISPs believe that broadband is a corporate service that they choose to provide to markets for a profit. They believe that broadband should resemble their traditional service models, It is anathema to traditional ISPs for broadband communication to look like other access services delivered over local distribution networks that society has installed over the years (electricity, water, gas), regardless of any logical argument or community rationale. But there's no good reason broadband access projects should not be free to dip from both wells. They can use both approaches as models for services as well as infrastructure deployment. Broadband can be part of a service bundle (like from a cable or DSL provider), or it can be yet one more access service provided more like a utility (like electricity). And to ensure coverage to all markets in a timely fashion, communities are likely to employ such a utility approach in some areas to gain broadband access, and when they do, the effort will require local community support.
Building the trunk line, the core of any network, is not like building the local distribution networks out at the edges: the trunk lines serve everyone, so there's less risk of cost recovery when everyone pays in to the pot - there's a vested interest for all in seeing that these core networks get built. So at first, the core gets more attention. But when it comes to local distribution networks, nobody outside the local community cares that much, at least not nearly as much as the local population does. Locals have incentives - they experience infrastructure problems daily, while visitors suffer only a temporary inconvenience and then leave the area - and their problems - behind. Beyond the primetime NFL cities - in other words, "all the rest of us", building citywide networks out at the edge requires two critical elements: 1) local initiative and community support; and 2) some form of firm market security (often, a monopoly grant or long-term contract) to ensure both a broad base of revenue and the promise of long-term capital recovery. Without those two critical elements, towns are stuck with the status quo - the networks they currently have in place - or their new local distribution networks will only get built out in spots where cost recovery can be assured. That's why build-out of local Last Mile Broadband has been so slow - it depends on local community support, and lacking any cohesive national strategy to give that process direction, local politics remains a slow, stop-start business.
Distribution Networks It has ever been the case with distribution networks. Build-outs of other networks have shown two predominate paths: In contrast to these established services, broadband service is still very new, only a little more than ten years old. Largely, it is supplied over existing cable and telecom networks, and it has indeed proven to be a high-value service where it's been offered. The cable and telecom networks have taken us a long way in this first phase, adapting their existing networks to provide faster and faster access service, bundled with content or other services in most cases. Of course, current providers would continue under this model - to them, it ain't broke, so why fix it? And broadband service has proven very lucrative so far.
One thing, however, is certain. Given ten years of experience with broadband, we can now conclude that more creativity and local coordination will be needed if local broadband distribution networks are ever to be built out over large areas, or if they're ever to be built out anytime soon. Communities Take Control Despite recent set-backs with initial business models, today's digital transition initiatives merely follow in the footsteps of history, as local communities take the imitative to bring in a vital utility service. As broadband grows in importance, more local communities will grow impatient with existing telecom and cable providers and step up to exert more local control and create a sense of urgency. But it's a slow process. Wi Fi Mesh and WiMAX, the latest iterations of wireless broadband innovation, are so new that unanswered questions remain. Fiber networks have more proven value, but they're very expensive. Ultimately, local broadband network projects move forward with local community initiative and support from local governments, businesses and community leaders. Such leaders have two choices: 1) strike a political and economic accommodation with existing telecom and cable incumbents, cellular carriers, and/or successful new service providers; or 2) strike out on their own. Digital transition initiatives with broadband applications and wireless broadband networks provide a quick technology fix, but where they manage to take hold, expect at some point for the wireless phase to be followed and complemented with a fiber network phase for long-term sustainability. But regardless of the technology at the edge, it's still the politics that drive the solution in the end. When it comes to local distribution networks, the public and the private sector need each other. The most efficient solutions marry the respective advantages of public and private sector players and help offset disadvantages. All previous types of distribution networks offer lessons on where community digital transition and broadband network projects can go, if there is political will at the local level. And as leaders on both sides come to grips with this economic and political reality and gain some flexibility, we'll begin to see the pace of last mile digital transitions and broadband projects increase. While history gives us valuable lessons about economic and political constraints, the Internet has taught us a lot recently about emergence and bottom-up solutions. Either existing leaders will begin to catch on, try new approaches and get busy, or new solutions and new leaders will emerge to go around them - when it comes to broadband infrastructure, we must insist: "Lead, follow, or get out of the way!"
ATTRIBUTION REQUIREMENT - The reader is encouraged to link to this post and to share this material, with the understanding that they provide an attribution to MetroNetIQ and share any alterations with MetroNetIQ.
Posted on June 15, 2008 at 10:52 PM | Comments (0) March to MobilityAt the TAGITM conference last week, a thought occurred to me. Cities spend so much time and money and energy focused on the IT shop inside their city buildings. They have desktops, servers, networks, telephones, storage, software - it's their Enterprise function, and the IT support crew was out in force to make sure their needs are met. Most of the vendors were there to address the needs of the cities as it pertains to their enterprise IT functions, inside the house. Yet we know by experience that about half of any municipal workforce spends at least some of their time on a regular basis out in the field, and many, most especially the public safety folks, spend most of their time in the field. Their needs are assumed to be met by radios and cell phones, perhaps some air cards. So the mission of Field Digital Transition is to take the Enterprise functionality out of the office and into the field, to make employees more functional and efficient when they are away from their office. IT departments spend most of their time and money trying to get more efficient inside the buildings, tweaking what are no doubt already pretty efficient operations. Here is the magic of this space: IT departments could start spending some of that money on their field applications to make their field employees more effective. And given the current rudimentary state of field mobile data access, it is likely that the first waves of investment would produce significant savings in the first couple of rounds. And that is because, as we know, we are increasingly mobile in our lives and on the job. We have come to expect to stay connected by voice wherever we are. I call it the March to Mobility, and its a relatively recent phenomenon when it comes to data communication (as in broadband).
The Roots of Mobility Radio was like magic two generations ago - it was the original "wireless." To understand the societal impact, you have only to chat with someone who is getting on in years and watch as they get a twinkle in their eyes recounting their first experience with radio. Motorola got its name and made its early fortune by putting the radio in the car, solving interference problems that hampered reception. As for mobile two-way communication, you had a nickel in your pocket and a pay phone on the nearest corner. If it was wireless two-way, then for a long time you were limited to bulky hand-held radios and walkie talkies, with advances spurred on by military research - remember those WWII jeep mounted radios and Korean War radio set back packs that weighed 80 pounds? Broadcast radio and two-way telecommunications weren't truly mobile until transistors freed them from the bulkiness of vacuum tubes 50 years ago, so we could take our music and voice communications with us on foot. While we came a long way with analog or non-digital radio systems, mobile telecommunications really only began to take off as the brief period of transistors were followed rapidly by integrated circuits on silicon chips. We haven't looked back since. Digitization and miniaturization enabled mobility to continue the trend of adding voice and data options, as well as more mobility, for less. Digital pagers were our early digital mobile devices, back in the Telecom Dark Ages (20 years ago!) when a cell phone was a car phone. Power sources had to keep up with communications capabilities. The Sony Walkman created a sensation when it took the cassette tape out of the stereo cabinet, out of the car dash, and put it in the hands of joggers, cyclers, and snow skiers. This was true mobility! While not a communication device per se, the Walkman gave a new generation a revolutionary new approach to mobile entertainment. At the original demonstration of the first car phone in the U.S. back in the 1980s, the car battery drained before they were able to demo the phone! More work needed to be done on power supply, one of many challenges to overcome. Soon, however, cell phones went on to become expensive appendages for the business professional. Two advances catapulted cellular phone adoption: the build out of the cellular tower network and the ATT Wireless national roaming plan (no more long distance fees on cell phones). Soon copied by competitors, national plans put pricing of cell phone service plans within the range of the mass market, and higher call quality with improved cell phone reception levels spurred cell phone adoption. Data Comes to Town But what about mobile data? The lowly pager, first to market with mobility, was marginalized to a niche service with the rise of cell phones. Pushing limited data in niche applications became the realm of pagers and mobile data, the RIM Blackberry surged in popularity, with combined data and voice capability in a compelling user interface. SMS text messaging over cellular networks remains narrow band, and necessarily so, because their networks were constructed with voice in mind, not broadband data. Cellular networks are undergoing extensive investment to enable third-generation network technologies that will enable broadband data capabilities. Until those advances are completed, though, current technology will limit the amount of data over cellular networks. The brief history of mobile data communications didn’t start in earnest until the advent of the World Wide Web began to bring the Internet to the masses, first with dial-up, and in the last several years with broadband. With wide-spread Internet access came the rise of e-mail as a popular form of data communication, perhaps the first internet killer app. When Intel began to pump out Centrino chips for laptops, and Wi Fi Hot Spots began to appear at Starbucks, the race for mobility was off again on a new and powerful tangent. Hot Spots and home networks could be called the payphones of the 21st Century. The need to find a restaurant or coffee shop to get on-line and check emails is eerily similar to the need to find a pay phone at a gas station or street corner to make a voice call 30 years ago. Now, the need to stay in touch via e-mail and voice mail messages is joined by the need to access social networking applications like facebook and MySpace while on the go. Wireless Broadband networks hold the promise to do for mobile data communications what the cell phones did for mobile voice communications. Along the way, we can expect voice and data to converge on one handheld device, which will require a broadband network over which to transmit the data. Incumbent telecom companies are busy with plans to build out their data networks with fiber to compete with cable, and cable has begun offering Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) to compete with the telecom companies. As municipalities gain steam in building their new high capacity mobile data networks using wireless mesh technology, telecoms and cable companies are taking a second look at the potential of the new wireless broadband technologies that complement their strategic plans. The global telecommunications industry dwarfs most others, because human beings have to connect with other human beings, fulfilling a need almost as strong as the need for water and air. Cities are recognizing a need to be connected to the Internet and to keep their citizens plugged in to the Web on their own terms and in their own time frame. "Netbooks" like the Asus EEE hold great promise, bringing data and voice convergence from the laptop side, complete with Wi Fi access, Skype loaded on the desktop, and video capabilities. Modern Mobility Whatever the ultimate outcome, we can be assured that mobile solutions will continue to find a place together with fixed connectivity solutions. We can say with high certainty that more bandwidth will be valued in more ways over time. And we can see clearly that prices for these mobile, high bandwidth services will decline in time as well. In a way, culture and society from the adoption side have lagged wireless technology developments all along, from the development side. Culture and society tend to lag most any technological innovation. It takes a while for us slow humans to adapt to change, and we suffer from some kind of lag malaise when technology moves too fast - "future shock" was a term in vogue 30 years ago. But technology that moves along with us wherever we may go has always been welcome by the market, and it will always be welcome. So, the march to mobility goes on, and it drives the need for the enabling infrastructure. The challenge for private and public sector leaders is how to get this infrastructure built efficiently and economically. Private sector providers will build a network, but not necessarily a network that extends everywhere, not necessarily as soon as we would like, and certainly not in places where there is no potential for a profit. Public sector providers (cities and towns) become motivated when the private sector does not provide for them, and faced with the need to get networks installed, they have so far tended to partner with knowledgeable and experienced third party providers to ensure that they have networks that work. The vision of the March to Mobility described in this brief is about ubiquitous, mobile broadband access affordable for all, anywhere, anytime on a multitude of devices with variable content at the touch of the fingertip, at the whim of the user. Because of this history, we can easily envision being able to access voice and data wherever we are, indoors or outdoors. It's not a big leap, but it will happen much faster if more people take initiative to move things along. A wireless cloud will in time cover us all. The technologies that will support that wireless cloud will vary from place to place, and they will fade into the background in time. New and wonderful applications and devices will be used to access the network. The job of public sector leaders is to look out for their citizens and work with all parties to ensure an infrastructure that supports the March to Mobility and the many benefits to modern life it will bring. ATTRIBUTION REQUIREMENT - The reader is encouraged to link to this post and to share this material, with the understanding that they provide an attribution to MetroNetIQ and share any alterations with MetroNetIQ.
Posted on June 14, 2008 at 08:05 PM | Comments (0) The New Three Rs: Risk, Reward, and Resources
Sometimes I'm reminded of my days back in Jr. High, when the boys would stand on one side of the dance hall, checking out the girls on the other side of the dance hall, checking out them. Who would be first to take on the risk of rejection by asking another to dance? These days, city staff and officials, that is, those in the know, eye each other on their side of the public/private dance hall, checking out the vendors and their solutions, wondering who will go first to move into the 21st Century with a program of digital applications running on a broadband network, who will launch a digital transition. You can hear the thoughts, "It already looked risky before, when municipal wireless was brand new, then some cities jumped in and their networks failed. Now, it's not just perceived risk, but proven risk. Why even go down that path. Who needs it?" Problem is, over here on the private side, we feel like we've learned from the failures of the past, rejected the business models that led to failure in the first place, and devised an approach that has in fact, very low risk. But we will need some innovative cities to hear the message and get out there on the dance floor, or else we'll continue this stalemate and sit and tap our feet to the music, wondering what it would be like to be out there dancing. Perhaps this analysis of Risk, Reward, and Resources will help some city leaders to look at risk more analytically.
While some may argue that this discussion is only common sense, decisions on risk, reward, and resources are the lifeblood of a leader, a vital part of the job description. This brief is offered to bring these issues out into the open, hopefully leading to a better shared understanding of the drivers of executive decision-making when it comes to a Digital Transition project. Risk and Reward One of the biggest challenges any new idea, product or service faces is to overcome the resistance to change, which says, "The old way of doing things is 'safer.' " Idioms capture the conventional wisdom: "Better the devil you know (than the one you don't)" or "Look before you leap" or "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" or finally, the more modern, "Nobody ever got fired for hiring IBM." All these idioms share two commonly-held perceptions. First, that "Risk is bad." And second, that "The present is safe, while the future is dangerous." What they leave out is the connection between risk and reward, which is one of the most basic tenets of business. Low risk, low return. Higher risk, higher return. And sure enough, there are indeed also idioms to support the alternative view of moving ahead in the face of risk: "Nothing ventured, nothing gained" and "He who hesitates is lost." This is an age old dilemma, with viewpoints on either side, so, unfortunately, conventional wisdom appears to offer little help. The key to sound decision-making then is to understand how risk and return work as a dynamic, find suitable balance to meet one's objectives, and make rational decisions based on resources and particular situations.
Fortunately, we've learned how to manage the risk of future outcomes to improve returns. Managing investment portfolios is a daily task of managing risk for better returns. Both "Risk Mitigation" and "Maximizing Return on Investment" share the same goal: to move outcomes from the upper right or lower left quadrant to the lower right. Minimizing risk (the chance of a bad outcome) or maximizing return (the chance of a good outcome) are like pairing a good defense with a good offense for a win. Resources A third variable, often given short shrift in assessing a risk decision, completes the equation: the amount of resources at risk is a factor in how much risk is tolerable: buying one lottery ticket vs. investing your whole paycheck in lottery tickets, for instance. Risk Mitigation Recognize. Step One in mitigating risk is to understand all possible negative outcomes, and then assess each for degree of risk and reward - what's the trade-off ratio? Plan. Step Two is to craft and prioritize strategies to minimize potential negative outcomes, and maximize potential positive outcomes. Manage. Step Three, often overlooked, is to execute on the strategies through controlled and prioritized activity. Risk Assessment Recognizing the inevitability of risk and accepting the need to take risks to gain rewards are two key steps every decision maker must master. In fact, one could argue that learning to take good risks is the key to good leadership. In assessing any situation, a leader must map risks in four ways: a) degree of risk; b) risk / reward ratio; c) resources at risk and d) type of risk. Degrees of Risk Not all risk is equal. The degree of risk speaks to the size of the potential negative outcome. It's important to assess this factor, because decisions are often subjective, based on the personality type of the leader. A conservative leader may give more weight to the downside, overvaluing risks and undervaluing rewards, while a more adventurous leader may have a tendency to do the opposite. An objective risk assessment will place a value on each risk - set boundaries around the possible outcomes and ascribe a value to "the worst that could happen" and "the least that could happen," a "worst case," "best case," and somewhere in the middle, a "most likely case." Risk can also be subdivided into categories, ranging from trivial risk, to healthy risk, to acceptable risk, to unavoidable risk, to risk that must be avoided at all costs. Trivial Risk. Encountered & dismissed. Trivial risk falls in the green box, healthy and acceptable risks fall in the beige box, unavoidable risks fall in the yellow, and catastrophic risk falls in the red box.
Risk/Reward Ratio In evaluating risk, it is helpful to add in the reward side of the equation to put the level of risk in perspective. One cannot be considered without the other. There is "absolute" risk, what would happen irrespective of circumstances, there is "relative" risk, how risks stack up against each other based on outcomes (see above), and there is "proportional" risk, which brings reward into the evaluation. Resources at Risk In evaluating risk, one must consider the amount at stake. When a small amount is ventured, the outcome is inconsequential. When one’s life is on the line, literally or figuratively, it is an altogether different assessment.
Types of Risk In any Digital Transition project evaluation, risk falls in five main areas, with the first three most subject to project team planning (financial, technological, and business). Financial. In the end, every business discussion can be boiled down to its financial aspects. Money is the universal language of business. Assessing a risk as to its financial impact is for many, the bottom line that matters most. Financial risks may include such issues as recovery of capital expense, management and recovery of operating expenses, and attainment of cost savings and revenue objectives. How these risks are addressed will determine how well the plan tracks to financial objectives in reality. Will we lose money? How much? Business risks may include such issues partner performance, market reactions, management of quality issues, balancing of budgets, management of expenses, etc. How will the parties manage this project together? Can they be trusted to do as they promised?
Legal. Any public entity must consider legal risks as it moves forward. Will we go to jail or be sued? Legal risks are mostly managed in the contract phase and by following the law and regulations, with guidance from attorneys and the legal department; in areas where public entities are involved, the choice is usually very clear cut - no legal risks allowed! Political. The word public implies that business will be conducted out in the open, making it subject to a higher degree of scrutiny and critique. Will I lose my next election if this fails? Political risks, on the other hand, are often the most pressing for elected officials and must be factored into the equation. They may have an over-ride impact over any other decisions or plans. The keys to successful risk mitigation are information and planning. Investing sufficient resources up front, before a project is underway is perhaps the best strategy for mitigating possible risks and ensuring project success. Gathering Requirements. Before undertaking any project, an organization should answer the Why question. Understanding the project goals before beginning any other activities is perhaps one of the wisest ways to start a project. Ensuring that the goals are in alignment with the organizations values is an important complement. Setting Priorities. A good project plan will establish boundaries and set priorities, so that the leaders can ensure that no matter what else happens, their core objectives are accomplished. By setting priorities in a well-organized plan, with provisions for project management, the team manages unknown risks by being prepared to make good decisions. Selecting a Partner or Vendor. Working with outside parties is often one of the biggest risks an organization can face, but such partnering is a key risk mitigation strategy as well. This duality makes this step one of the most critical. It starts with a thorough assessment of the pool of potential partners, followed by a process of evaluation using both objective and subjective criteria A solid Procurement Process provides the most competitive alternatives and best value to meet the project objectives. First, the team should evaluate the simplest procurement methods. For instance, if any of the necessary components for the project are available through a public catalogue or off of an interlocal agreement with another public entity, or through any other non-bid method, the team may choose that option if it is acceptable, as it may save considerable resources (time and/or money). Or, the team may pursue one of two bid options: Financial Prudence. In general, the project that pays the least for the most quality and the best fit ensures the best value and lowest financial risk. Public entities often place much emphasis on competitive bidding, indeed, are required by law to do so, but too little emphasis on opportunity cost and the gain from partnering or aligning with other public entities for a group purchase. Paying the lowest price is one strategy, but quality should not be sacrificed. Having an option to pay over a long period allows payments to be minimal, but also offers the alternative of | ||||
