|
|||||
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 |
Putting the Cart in Front of the Horse
Not many city officials will understand why they need a broadband network, especially these days, after they read two or three of the ever prominent emails circulating about the debacles in Philadelphia, San Francisco, Portland ... "those didn't work, why the hell do I want my city to be the next one in the next series of emails? No Thanks." But those same officials do know about the continuing need they have to get their tasks done, and they're interested in new and better ways to "get 'er done" and always, always, they want to save money while doing it. They better. It's high time we quit talking about networks and network technology, and start talking about Digital Applications and Digital Transformation: Getting work done faster, more effectively, more efficiently, by using newly available tools and doing things differently than the way they've always been done. That is the nature of Digital Transition: we all have to go through it, and those who go through it sooner will reap rewards sooner and be more competitive than the laggards. Big words, simple concept. Through the use of new digital technologies, city workers can be far more effective, doing more work in less time. In time, the city manager can shrink the size of city government, or meet the demands of growth with a flat hiring strategy. Rather than throw bodies at their problems, the city manager can add technology and keep staff levels the same. The result is better services at less cost, with more options for the city down the road. Good Government Management is a Balancing Act The key to sound city government management is balancing costs with revenue ... but city budgets are under growing pressure from increasing costs and decreasing revenues. The traditional solution is belt-tightening, cutting jobs or services, or both. But there's another way to bring back balance, a better way: using new tools and new processes to work smarter. A Perfect Storm of Bad News A perfect storm of negative economic trends threatens city budget managers in cities both large and small with direct and indirect consequences. Rising Fuel Costs. As the price of gasoline soars, unbudgeted city fuel expenses must be accommodated. Sinking Home Values. Real estate values have dropped at unprecedented rates. Declining Sales Tax Revenues. As people quit spending, the revenue from transactions contracts. Declining Property Tax Revenues. With sinking property values come lower revenues for city coffers. In the face of such bad news, city management staff have few options under traditional business practices. Typically, departmental budgets are scrutinized, salaries and wages are frozen, reductions are implemented across the board. There will be pain, and it must be shared. Because when governments fail at their job of keeping the books balanced, they can't just shut down and start over, like individuals or businesses. They must continue to work through their problems until they find a solution. We're stuck with the problem and the only way out is to work out a solution. Pinned Down by Old Assumptions People and Processes. Governments are bureaucracies that use labor inputs to deliver services to citizens. Taxes and Fees. Governments raise money by taxing and charging fees. The classic argument in government is between those who believe in keeping a tight lid on costs, no matter what, and those who believe in delivering services to those in society most in need. A rising economy eases pressures, while a sinking economy sees tensions mount as factions argue over how to adjust to increasing pressures. Sticking with old assumptions limits the range of solutions to variations of painful belt-tightening. Thinking about old problems in new ways unlocks new win/win solutions that improve on belt-tightening and ease tensions. Under the twin shocks of uncontrollable added costs and reduced revenues, the standard response is to cut labor costs and reduce services, but that leaves the city weaker and provides citizens less. The urgency of added budget pressures provides an opportunity for a better way of looking at government operations, which introduces new digital processes, applications, and equipment to make the city stronger and more productive. Digital Processes. New technology lets us look at old problems in new ways. Sending staffers out into the field in cars and trucks to gather information, returning to the office when necessary, is inefficient, when alternatives exist. Digital Applications. From Voice over IP (VOIP) to Automatic License Plate Recognition (ALPR), a variety of digital applications are enabled by new communication options that enable mobile workers to cut out inefficient steps and added costs, to do their jobs more effectively. Digital Equipment. Converged dual-use cell phones (iPhone, RIM Blackberry), wireless "netbooks" (Asus EEE), and wireless video surveillance cameras are only the first wave of new digital equipment that leverages new communication options to transform traditional business processes. Step One: Analysis. Transformation starts with a departmental review of select business processes and costs. Step Two: Strategy. Departmental managers strategize to transform operations with new digital technology. Step Three: Focus. Key benefits will accrue in three distinct areas. Folks, the smart city management will be reading the tea leaves and already be thinking outside the box, along the lines of the argument presented above. The rest, well, the rest will realize at some point that it's all gone to shit, but it will be too late for them. They will be stuck digging out and enduring the pain of slashed budgets, spread across the board to all departments, as they suck it up to bull their way through the bad times and hope for good times ahead. Yechhh. There's a better way, and that is using technology to do things differently. First, you invest in a network, either city-owned or privately-owned, that will depend on the particular circumstance of the city. Then you pay yourself instead of others - you quit buying services from outsiders. Second, you change the way you do what you have to do - quit driving around and wasting gas and time - start doing the work out in the field and recognize that each trip back to the office costs big bucks. We'll see how this goes, and who steps up to grab the brass ring. Times have changed - the first organizations to realize that fact and make changes will be the first ones to reap the rewards and thrive. Posted on June 01, 2008 at 10:11 PM | Comments (0) The State of Wireless On the GoIn this blog to the NY Times, Connecting to the Internet on the Go, published two weeks ago, you will find a very interesting and revealing discussion with about 90 comments, which shows the current attitude among early adopters who use broadband while traveling, with considerable variety evident in the discussion. Plenty of viewpoints and perspectives, multiple ideas on how things could be better, but not much challenging of the way things are, more attempts to find work-arounds. Consider the time you spend to browse this item an eye-opening stroll through the minds of travelers who adopt various work-arounds to make cellular wireless broadband work for them. The theme of the blog post is the utility of Sprint's new USB antenna, which includes storage and built-in features to provide more convenience. Of course, it's still a relatively high-priced service with various restrictions. And, considering that absent any movement to create the type of city-wide wireless broadband alternatives that we talk about on this site, we will all be left with these alternatives from the major carriers, with slowly ascending capabilities and slowly descending prices, all calculated to maximize shareholder gains for the carriers and maintain dominance in the marketplace, and not so much calculated to fully leverage technology to provide a boon to mankind. For better or worse, that's the way it is when corporations are in control. So it goes. Posted on May 29, 2008 at 10:40 AM | Comments (0) When a Committee is in the Driver's Seat
"Which is more important to driving, the accelerator or the brake?" Clever one that you are, you answer, "That's a stupid question, they're both equally important." No kidding - and don't forget the steering wheel as well. I remember my first snow skiing lesson, where I learned how to turn (steering wheel), and gravity and lack of friction provided the acceleration, but stopping (brakes) wasn't until Lesson 2. It was painful. My dad (6'2") used to get all over my mom (5'0") for her driving habit of resting her left foot on the brake as she drove. Not surprisingly, Dad spent more time and money than he would have liked out in the driveway, replacing worn out brake pads because of Mom's style and reliance on braking while accelerating. In our first attempts to promote metropolitan broadband infrastructure based on new technologies, with goals of wide dissemination, dramatic savings, and improved connectivity options, those of us driving this new industry (if you can even use either of the terms "driving" and "industry" these days) have struggled in a debate similar to that my mom and dad had so long ago over a more literal "driving" topic. It's a matter of style and perspective on which pedal you prefer to dominate as you drive, whether it's a car or an industry under discussion. At any given moment, both brake and accelerator are needed because they work in harmony as part of a system. But when it comes to metropolitan broadband, we currently have multiple drivers sharing one set of pedals, and braking tends to win out over accelerating, at least for now, because conservatism rules after a few well-publicized failures of accelerating into the future heedless of potholes. Until there is a greater sense of urgency, it will remain easier to brake in the face of uncertainty than it is to accelerate, certainly more politically safe. It just makes more sense to go slowly, steer around obstacles, and ride the brakes along the way, IF, that is, one is basically content with the way things are and feels they have time to burn to improve the odds and lower the risks and costs. It's more prudent, the argument goes, to move slowly, especially when the taxpayer's money is at stake. But for those dissatisfied with the Status Quo, moving so slowly leaves them mired in the problems of today, when the possibility of a solution is tantalizingly close. "Without some acceleration into the dark, how will we ever know what lies ahead?" they ask. Which leads us to ... Some Boring, But Essential Truths about Broadband & Infrastructure Can there really be gain without pain? I think not. Growth is about change, and that inevitably means leaving some parts of the past behind when you grow, much like a snake shedding its skin. Growing muscles is all about breaking down muscle cell fibers during the day, damaging the muscle tissue so it can repair itself during the night and the following day, growing incrementally stronger, only to then repeat the process - of course, lactic acid build up from exercising leads to "Muscle Soreness." Taking such dramatic steps to grow is essentially painful, thus the phrase, "Growing Pains." The first of the hard truths we must all face: Growth is Painful. I don't know if there is so much debate out there as to whether the external environment is changing, as there is a continuum of perspectives on which individual civic leaders lie regarding the degrees of change, the need to respond, and the best method of response. On the one side are those progressives who focus on the future and the great possibilities inherent in technological change: "Finally, a chance to shed those old problems that bedevil us!' On the other end are those conservatives who focus on the past and the great threats inherent in technological change: "Not again, yet another call to change what's already working - if it ain't broke, don't fix it!" Either way, the debate is around the nature of the environment in which we operate, and whether and/or how to respond. At the end of the day, the debate must produce some form of consensus on how to react to the environmental change, or you're left with a political stalemate, paralysis, and stagnation. If you choose to move ahead, do it together. If you choose to do nothing, acknowledge it as an explicit strategy and accept the consequences. This leads us to the second of hard truths we must face: Dynamic Times call for an Explicit Response. Thus the battle lines are drawn by those with something to lose by change - the "pragmatists" and those invested in the status quo - and those with something to gain - the "idealists" and the have-nots. The first battle is the argument over whether there is really sufficient environmental pressure to necessitate change. The first gambit of the progressive is to trumpet the pressures that external changes bring on the status quo, and the opportunities to respond in different, more productive ways. Conversely, the conservatives' first gambit is to ignore such changes, then when the ever-more-loud-and-shrill cries of the progressives get to be too much, demanding a response, the conservative makes light of the environmental changes and claims, "Why, even if you are right that something needs to be done, we already have the solution at hand, so we really don't need to change all that much." "In the face of Change, Deny, Delay, Diminish," seems to be the strategy to maintain the status quo. The result is Incrementalism, where small changes are implemented around the edges, in an attempt to demonstrate action but incur as little pain as possible. Which leads to the third hard truth: "Small changes will only get you small results over the short-term." Big problems will only be slightly altered by small solutions. Incrementalism accepts a bigger risk later in exchange for a smaller risk now. These, I believe, are the principal obstacles to dramatic changes that would reshuffle the deck and realize the potential that lies at the heart of new technological advances: Each of these tactics avoids a strategy to fix the problem and move ahead by substituting a strategy addressing the symptom while avoiding the pain of a fix. Pain avoidance is an attractive political concept, but there's a small fly in the ointment: together, these tactics have the impact of allowing small problems to grow larger, and large problems to grow immense. That is where we have gotten to these days when it comes to infrastructure of all kinds, whether it is bridges, roads, schools, or broadband. It is the same with societal problems of all kinds, whether it is energy policy, health care, or climate change. These problems do not in fact go away under this formula, they only disappear temporarily, to come roaring back at a later date (preferably on someone else's watch). Frum writes, "There are things only government can do, and if we conservatives wish to be entrusted with the management of government, we must prove that we care enough about government to manage it well." There's a debate about the validity of the current conservative approach to governing (less government, lower taxes, etc.), with popular feedback expected in November 2008. Of course, results will vary from location to location. Nothing will be settled, and the debate will continue. "The policy ideas in "Comeback" rely on the market more than on the state and are relatively small-bore, such as a government campaign to raise awareness about the dangers of obesity. As with most such books, the diagnosis is more convincing than the cure. The Fall of Conservatism, New Yorker When we accept the politician's message that we can have all that we want without paying for anything, we are allowing ourselves to be deluded with sweet talk, because we know in our heart of hearts that there is no Free Lunch in the real world, we have to pay for what we get. We're deluding ourselves, postponing real-world solutions, and accepting bigger problems down the road. The Bottom Line Infrastructure is an investment by a society in a better tomorrow. Investing to bring future benefits should be judged differently than spending to provide present benefits. Given the greater payback, spending on investments over expenses should be a priority, all things being equal. But at a minimum, investments should be considered equally with expenses. In the absence of funding investments, one is condemned to continually spend on an increasing basis and ultimately, to falling behind those who suck it up and make the investments when they are cheaper to make. A blog on Last Mile Online posted the recent news that the US is stuck at 15th in broadband penetration and asked for comments - mine are below. It's a fairly straightforward equation from where I sit. Currently, the overwhelming majority of broadband in the US is delivered by a cable broadband or DSL (telecom) provider. Who would get it that doesn't already have it? The poor, the ignorant, the isolated, and those who don't want it. Thus, we must see the cause of the plateau in penetration you describe as based on inadequacies in either pricing (costs too much), education (don't appreciate its value) or infrastructure (not available). Only increased competition or government policy mandates will bring access pricing down to stimulate more subscribers - which will come first? And unless things change, infrastructure growth will still come primarily from the large players, who lack any incentive to build out faster than they already are - we are a big country, and they're in no hurry to blanket it with broadband. Sure, at the edges we're likely to see some innovation by 1) the WiMAX consortium; or by niche wired and wireless providers in 2) rural markets, 3) exburban rings around growth cities, or 4) in the "swiss cheese" coverage holes of major providers in suburban and urban areas; or by 5) motivated municipalities, probably smaller towns who otherwise risk being left behind as broadband infrastructure gets built out. In summary, there's a good reason we're stuck where we are; 1) those who have the ability to change things (government and cable and telecom incumbents) lack sufficient motivation; and 2) most broadband users remain ignorant of what is possible, so they're content and satisfied with what they have. We'll move off this square only with 1) governmental leadership that challenges the status quo with a redefinition of broadband upwards of 256 Kbs and new policies to stimulate competition or infrastructure growth; or 2) a growth in availability and appreciation of high bandwidth content and applications, which will expose our current infrastructure and services paradigm as bankrupt, behind the times, and grossly inadequate. The needed pressure will be brought to bear from above (government) or below (market). As the article in the New Yorker commented: "But governing well, in conservative terms, doesn't mean spending more money. It means doing what neither Reagan nor Bush did: mastering details, knowing the options, using caution - that is, taking government seriously." Metropolitan broadband networks need this kind of attention if they are ever to achieve serious consideration as a tool of efficient government operations. Posted on May 28, 2008 at 02:33 PM | Comments (0) New Technologies Beware: Squashed Like a BugFor a stimulating read at no out-of-pocket cost - the book's free! - I recommend this downloadable e-book == Free Culture == by Dr. Lawrence Lessig, the Stanford law professor, founder of the Creative Commons idea that there should be shades of copyright protection, in between the black or white "either copyright protected or not.", as well as a board member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. In it you'll find this gem of a story about the discovery of FM radio and its slow progression to replace or complement AM Radio, the standard of the day. The moral of the story is that technological superiority can, and often does fail when up against the power of a market leader striving to maintain its status quo interests. Sound familiar? Should, that's what happens pretty routinely to many new technologies... And that's what we're experiencing right now with Metropolitan Broadband. It's a long and winding road, but these days, it seems pretty much uphill. Sigh ...la plus ca change... Extended passage quoted after the jump ... On the day after Christmas, 1933, four patents were issued to Armstrong for his most significant invention - FM radio. Until then, consumer radio had been amplitude-modulated (AM) radio. The theorists of the day had said that frequency-modulated (FM) radio could never work. They were right about FM radio in a narrow band of spectrum. But Armstrong discovered that frequency-modulated radio in a wide band of spectrum would deliver an astonishing fidelity of sound, with much less transmitter power and static. On November 5, 1935, he demonstrated the technology at a meeting of the Institute of Radio Engineers at the Empire State Building in New York City. He tuned his radio dial across a range of AM stations, until the radio locked on a broadcast that he had arranged from seventeen miles away. The radio fell totally silent, as if dead, and then with a clarity no one else in that room had ever heard from an electrical device, it produced the sound of an announcer's voice: "This is amateur station W2AG at Yonkers, New York, operating on frequency modulation at two and a half meters." The audience was hearing something no one had thought possible: A glass of water was poured before the microphone in Yonkers; it sounded like a glass of water being poured. . . . A paper was crumpled and torn; it sounded like paper and not like a crackling forest fire. . . . Sousa marches were played from records and a piano solo and guitar number were performed. . . . The music was projected with a liveness rarely if ever heard before from a radio "music box." As our own common sense tells us, Armstrong had discovered a vastly superior radio technology. But at the time of his invention, Armstrong was working for RCA. RCA was the dominant player in the then dominant AM radio market. By 1935, there were a thousand radio stations across the United States, but the stations in large cities were all owned by a handful of networks. RCA's president, David Sarnoff, a friend of Armstrong's, was eager that Armstrong discover a way to remove static from AM radio. So Sarnoff was quite excited when Armstrong told him he had a device that removed static from "radio." But when Armstrong demonstrated his invention, Sarnoff was not pleased. "I thought Armstrong would invent some kind of a filter to remove static from our AM radio. I didn't think he'd start a revolution - start up a whole damn new industry to compete with RCA." Armstrong's invention threatened RCA's AM empire, so the company launched a campaign to smother FM radio. While FM may have been a superior technology, Sarnoff was a superior tactician. As one author described, "The forces for FM, largely engineering, could not overcome the weight of strategy devised by the sales, patent, and legal offices to subdue this threat to corporate position. For FM, if allowed to develop unrestrained, posed . . . a complete reordering of radio power . . . and the eventual overthrow of the carefully restricted AM system on which RCA had grown to power." RCA at first kept the technology in house, insisting that further tests were needed. When, after two years of testing, Armstrong grew impatient, RCA began to use its power with the government to stall FM radio's deployment generally. In 1936, RCA hired the former head of the FCC and assigned him the task of assuring that the FCC assign spectrum in a way that would castrate FM - principally by moving FM radio to a different band of spectrum. At first, these efforts failed. But when Armstrong and the nation were distracted by World War II, RCA's work began to be more successful. Soon after the war ended, the FCC announced a set of policies that would have one clear effect: FM radio would be crippled. As Lawrence Lessing described it, "The series of body blows that FM radio received right after the war, in a series of rulings manipulated through the FCC by the big radio interests, were almost incredible in their force and deviousness." To make room in the spectrum for RCA's latest gamble, television, FM radio users were to be moved to a totally new spectrum band. The power of FM radio stations was also cut, meaning FM could no longer be used to beam programs from one part of the country to another. (This change was strongly supported by AT&T, because the loss of FM relaying stations would mean radio stations would have to buy wired links from AT&T.) The spread of FM radio was thus choked, at least temporarily. Armstrong resisted RCA's efforts. In response, RCA resisted Armstrong's patents. After incorporating FM technology into the emerging standard for television, RCA declared the patents invalid - baselessly, and almost fifteen years after they were issued. It thus refused to pay him royalties. For six years, Armstrong fought an expensive war of litigation to defend the patents. Finally, just as the patents expired, RCA offered a settlement so low that it would not even cover Armstrong's lawyers' fees. Defeated, broken, and now broke, in 1954 Armstrong wrote a short note to his wife and then stepped out of a thirteenth story window to his death. This is how the law sometimes works. Not often this tragically, and rarely with heroic drama, but sometimes, this is how it works. From the beginning, government and government agencies have been subject to capture. They are more likely captured when a powerful interest is threatened by either a legal or technical change. That powerful interest too often exerts its influence within the government to get the government to protect it. The rhetoric of this protection is of course always public spirited; the reality is something different. Ideas that were as solid as rock in one age, but that, left to themselves, would crumble in another, are sustained through this subtle corruption of our political process. RCA had what the Causbys did not: the power to stifle the effect of technological change. The corporation squashed the little guy who threatened their empire with new technology - squashed him like a bug. It's not paranoia or hyperbole when it happens in real life. The moral of this story: "When introducing a new technology, use a strategy for acceptance that is as non-threatening as it can be to the interests of the status quo. Sometimes it's better to come in through the basement window or side door, than it is ringing the bell and walking in through the front door...think like a bug (and hope there is not a can of Raid nearby)." Posted on May 26, 2008 at 07:01 PM | Comments (0) Ctrl-Alt-Del: Time for a Reality Reset
We all know the routine, the crushing feeling when your computer locks up, the "Blue Screen of Death", those automatic messages ... You give it the "Three-Finger Salute," hold your breathe, and hope for the best..."did I hit Save any time recently?" You rapidly go through all Kubler-Ross's Five Stages of Grief...Denial ("this is nothing"); Anger ("F%^&ing Microsoft"); Bargaining ("Oh, just let my documents come back...oh, forget the documents, save my PC"); Depression ("I can't believe this is happening again...we are so screwed ... I don't know what else I could have done"); Acceptance (" You know, I could use a new laptop ... I didn't like this one so much anymore.") Most of the time, you get back on track after a minor hick up, maybe you have to go through the System Restore routine, maybe you hurriedly do the back-up that was three weeks overdue, breathe a sigh of relief, and move on. Some of the time, you take your lumps, pull up a previous version of the document, and try to remember what you had typed over the last thirty minutes - "quick, before I forget it." You may even tell yourself that what you typed a second time is actually better! That's where we are with wireless broadband - I can't actually bring myself to use the term Muni Wi Fi or Muni Wireless anymore, it catches in my throat, my fingers hurt to type it. There's no use denying it, this has been painful to watch the slow collapse of the dream fostered by early companies like Kite Networks, EarthLink, and MetroFi. Now, it's all over but the crying, basically. The sooner we all move through the Five Stages and get on with it, the better. Acceptance means a Reality Reset, where we shake our heads, splash cold water in our faces, and accept that we will not be able to have the fantasy that was the vision of Municipal Wireless - a private company will come in and build a network and everyone will get "Free Wi Fi," including the city government. I'm afraid that we will have city governments stuck in various stages of grief for a while, until Reality starts to look more attractive than the Righteous Indignation of the Victimized Public Official. Reality Reset 1. There is no such thing as a Free Lunch. This is one of the hardest things for adults to accept. Indeed, it is childish to hold on to the belief that you can get things for free. We learn through dating that there are expectations set when a very, very nice "gift" is accepted. We learn through buying and selling, gaining experience in the marketplace, learning that giving time to a vendor at the door or a salesperson on the phone is an actual commercial exchange - it rarely results in the promises that first come across the threshold, but it's worth the time if you learn something. We learn that the free pens we accept have about a gram of ink in them and are so cheap they're likely to explode and drip ink on our pants, shirt, or hands. "Free" is always subsidized by someone, somewhere, so there is someone picking up the tab out there, carrying an expectation of a payoff. There's an implied debt when a gift is accepted - I learned that when I told my parents "No Thanks" to their offer of tuition money and went out on my own at the age of 19 - their gift came with strings attached: I had to listen to them and take their "advice." It was a painful transition, but we got along much better when I became independent. There is always a sacrifice of quality when free is accepted. Paying for something should always be acceptable, IF there is a fair exchange of value - that is the definition of commerce. "You 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." 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! Sorry folks. The Project Triangle, known by many other names, provides a basic pearl of wisdom, a lesson of reality that can be gained only through experience, because most of us don't want to believe it. But it is indeed a pearl. The Project Triangle says that there are three elements to any project: Time, Quality, and Price - you can focus on two out of three, but there is always a sacrifice involved to get those two. I wrote a good blog post about this on November 22, 2006. The Business Golden Triangle Maxim says, "Only two of these three are available to any consumer." To recognize its truth, just try to imagine getting just what you want that is very high quality, immediately, for very little money - that's a fantasy world. Or the polar opposite, getting something of very low quality over a long period, with project delays, while spending a lot - that's getting taken to the cleaners. So, the rational choices in a procurement or business decision are to pick two factors that are most important and relax the third constraint: 1) Fast and less expensive, but lower quality. Strategy: 1) Lower your 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). 2) 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 would start a low-grade project immediately to get a jump on things and move at their own pace, to allow adequate time to find savings and develop creative approaches that leverage existing assets or competitive advantages). 3) 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.). MetroNetIQ Archives: Learning to Live within Boundaries The Triangle is the essence of Project Management, because it's firmly based in the world of Reality, ruled by the Facts of Life. Accepting these rules up front is a key to happiness on the back end. 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." Mature, healthy people recognize that living life with your eyes wide open is always preferable to the alternative. But often the truth can be so painful that we construct elaborate denial mechanisms that rationalize our courses of action as appropriate. One of the key things we hold on to is the fantasy that time is not in fact moving forward, that somehow things can stay the same. I have three coffee mugs that remind me of this fact every morning, after I have the coffee started, when I select a mug. There amid my wife's flower mugs and the souvenir mugs and the gimme mugs from the Blood Bank, are my three favorites, with pictures of my kids, my wife and kids, and me and the kids. The mugs in question are about 10 years old, 5 years old, and 2 years old, so the kid pictures are at various stages of cute (my son and daughter are 12 and 13 years old now). I cherish the memories of each stage, but am reminded each morning as well that they're rapidly moving through time, and there is not a damn thing I can do about it, but accept it and enjoy it. Similarly, the environment we live in is dynamic, and you cannot freeze things or keep at bay the forces of change. People move in and out of a community. 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 it's position in that world, it become 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. 4. The world is now digital, demanding a strategy to coexist, to balance the ancient human elements of life with the efficiencies of a newly digital world. My last blog post was about a wireless toy that played around with an analog radio modulator tool - Mr. Microphone. It is a relic of our past, when High Tech was not digital. Gone too are the days when digital High Tech was a novelty, or even an option. Digital Integration is now an essential element of life. No longer is it the case where you 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. Not 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 you are 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. "Folks, when you have to eat a shit sandwich, you're better off to take big bites." 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 you and doing the best you can with what you have to work with at the time. The Bottom Line: God Bless Reality 1. There's No Such Thing as a Free Lunch It's not all that hard to analyze what went wrong and what we now face in regards to metropolitan broadband when you accept reality and review the recent past through the lens of reality. The reality we face is that all cities, all organizations, all communities will have to go through a Digital Transition sooner or later. I'd suggest a Digital Transformation, making the most of a necessary evil, along the lines of the Shit Sandwich analogy. The sooner we all adopt this mindset that Reality is just fine and put our energies into understanding what Reality means, letting go of the Fantasy that masqueraded for Reality a few years ago, the better off we all will be. It's up to the leaders among us to be the first to proclaim out loud the following Truths: 1. The Emperor Has No Clothes. 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. I'm ready to start talking about Digital Transformation if you are.
Posted on May 18, 2008 at 05:59 AM | Comments (0) A Good Strong Wind
I just heard the news about MetroFi selling its existing networks, and perhaps, the company itself (amply covered here, here, and here). I urge you to check out that good analysis - I guess the pain finally got too great, and the money ran out. I have to say, the image of a strong wind blowing away all the dead wood came to mind, no offense intended at all to MetroFi (or to EarthLink, or to Kite/Gobility). It's just that when the bloom goes off the rose, it really starts to stink pretty fast, doesn't it? This slow motion dying is driving me crazy!! I admire what these companies did, regret their lack of success, but can we move on already?? More after the jump. If I haven't mentioned it before, the project that keeps me sane these days is building a small (200 sq. ft.) outbuilding at my ranch(ette) in Dripping Springs. Since 1992 I've owned 20 acres of beautiful Texas Hill Country, what some would call "raw land," though I choose to call it a "ranch," being in Texas and all. The area is rapidly moving from rural to exurban, located about 25 miles/35 minutes from my house, and I've finally started on building something out there this spring. I'm using reclaimed cedar deck timber for the frame, and reclaimed cedar fencing for the exterior, and building a covered front porch and a narrow back deck hanging out over the gently downward-sloping hill. It will have a small loft and a gambrel (barn) roof when I'm finished - I'm going to need some help at some point. Because of the weathered fencing for siding, the cedar plank doors and shutters, and the tin roof, it'll look like it's been sitting out there about 100 years when I'm done. That's the plan anyway. I'm calling it my "eco-barn." It will have a wood shop down below and a small sleeping loft above. I've finished with a lot of the fun work, and I'm now facing an ugly task - clearing out all the dead wood that hangs around the construction site, because I've had to chain saw away dense cedar undergrowth and some pretty tall old cedar to make way for the barn and clear out the view of the scenic hills to the West. If you've never dealt with clearing mountain juniper, what we call cedar-chopping here in Texas, it's an ugly affair, with stickers everywhere and sharp sticks waiting to poke you in the eye. But until the dead wood is cleared away, it's hard to work on the new building - and therein lies the analogy for what I just read about MetroFi. I'm dreaming of a good strong wind to come along and blow all this dead wood away, so we can finally take stock, start afresh with new business models, and get on with it! But I'm afraid it will have to be more of a manual clearing effort, with painful labor that will take some time. At least that's what it looks like so far. But the sooner we can put Muni Wireless 1.0 behind us, and that means picking through the pieces and gleaning lessons, the sooner we can move on to Muni Wireless 2.0, no? Check out my previous post for more discussion on where we can go in the future, as soon as we're able to let go of this past. Posted on May 16, 2008 at 12:38 PM | Comments (0) Time for Free(mium) Wi Fi?Recently, too many people have been too quick to point out the misfires of early experiments with new wireless technologies as failures, challenging what went wrong and finding moral shortcomings among those who took risks to push out the envelope on how we all might get connected to the internet. For every article that documents lessons learned, it seems, there have been twenty or thirty that describe the failures and criticize the players as naive, deluded, hyped, ignorant, willfully blind, or corrupt. Civitium and other early industry promoters have taken a healthy dose of this criticism on the chin. As the consulting firm that advised many of the cities that sought to challenge the status quo with a new business model that gave city governments a seat at the table, Civitium is in for its fair share of critique. To be fair, they benefited from all the activity over the past few years, so maybe there's some balance there. But I don't think it's fair to place too much blame at the feet of pioneers like Greg Richardson and his partners - as consultants, in my view, they have their sleeves rolled up and they're trying out new things to see what will work on behalf of their clients. Consultants are change agents, but they work within heavy constraints - they take what they're given, by their clients and the market, and make the best of it. Civitium didn't tell EarthLink what to do, after all, but they did coach cities on how best to take advantage of what EarthLink and other motivated private sector providers offered. Greg and I have enjoyed comparing notes over the past four years as we've rambled along in this new industry, so I enjoyed our conversation when we spoke two days ago. Greg urged me to look at his blog post (see On the Issue of Free) from last weekend, where he mulled over recent events and what went wrong, how things could be looked at differently, and pondered the nature of the Free v. Pay arguments. I urge you to take some time and read it, because there are few who have seen what these guys have, so their insights have value. I've been doing my own fair share of pondering lately. Publicly, the metropolitan broadband story over the past week has been about the marriage of Clearwire and Sprint, about Cablevision getting Wi Fi religion, and about the sad final parting of the ways between EarthLink and the City of Philadelphia. And I've written a lot about all of this over the past week. It's inevitable that I see these latest public events through the lens of my own private experience. How can we do anything but that, after all? I've been consulting with city governments for two years. Like Greg, I'm privy to the human element of the struggles inside an organization that pains itself to work through these issues, and I understand better than most the constraints and dilemmas that must be worked around and balanced in order for progress to emerge as the finished product of a network project. Compare that perspective to the very public experience of journalists and commentators who merely skim the waves from the outside looking in, who pronounce judgment on innovative experiments conducted by highly dedicated individuals and groups, often based on regurgitated conventional wisdom about the way things should be - Monday morning quarterbacking, in many cases. "Where would we be if these same rigorous, unforgiving standards had been applied to some of the big breakthroughs that were achieved in our past?" I wondered this morning over my coffee. "In fact," I realized on further reflection, "all early pioneers were challenged by the same mindsets, that's just the nature of Progress, the eternal struggle between Change and the Status Quo. But those pioneers soldiered on, driven by some internal source, motivated to prove the doubters wrong, or to make a buck, it doesn't matter; in the end, the pioneers succeeded where everyone before them had failed, made a name for themselves, and we're all better off for their efforts." Human beings are a strange lot, no doubt. Despite the abundance of experience and wealth and good things we've created to progress out of the muck and sheer desperation that life has been about for most of our existence, most of us continue to look into the dark void that is the future and come away frightened of what awaits us - even those of us, especially those of us who have so much going for us already. Maybe we're afraid because we feel we have so much to lose? I'm afraid that too often we overestimate the downside, and underestimate the upside. Sure, we all have doubts about the future, but too many allow fear to rule their lives, taking the "safe" (conventional) course when presented with alternatives. "Better the Devil I know, than the one I don't," they too often say. The key problem with that course is that one gets stuck with the Devil...that mindset presupposes that any alternative will be equal to or worse than the status quo (perhaps because the status quo is already so damned good?). But why devalue the chance of success and dramatic improvement so readily? Such is the power of fear: "Better Not to Have Loved and thereby Avoid the Loss," they seem to say. Greg's blog reflected long on the experience that Netscape ran into when they sought to be paid for their efforts to develop the first internet browser software - imagine that, productizing their successful research in order to recover costs and make a buck! The nerve! But what Netscape discovered as the new market unfolded was that their potential customers didn't yet fully value what they had brought to the table. So they learned by experience that they were better off giving it away. Such is life as an Internet pioneer, I guess. While Netscape ultimately faded away, their impact didn't. To the contrary, I'm using their browser to post this blog - Mozilla Firefox is the descendant of their early work. That new form of economics has been one of the most astounding things about the bizarre world of the internet. And it sounds to me, like it did to Greg, a lot like access to outdoor Wi Fi in public spaces. But when innovators in wireless access sought to apply these new internet market rules to Wi Fi access, they were criticized as idealists, because conventional wisdom says that internet access is a service that should be paid for - that's what the cable and telecom ISPs do, after all. And capital and operating costs must be recovered for a model to be sustained - not arguing at all with that, I just don't think we were creative enough the first time around. Of course there are multiple nuances to consider as we analyze what happened - and EarthLink's own corporate motivations clouded these experiments in municipal wireless, after all - but one key take away is that you can't sell something to a market that is not yet ready to buy and that has ready substitutes at an affordable price. To get people to try something new, sometimes you have to give it away, removing that barrier to experimentation. Think of the sample tables at grocery stores...Sometimes, you even have to pay them to take it. It's just not easy breaking in a new product in a new market. Most internet users don't yet understand why they would even need to access broadband when they're not sitting down in front of a computer. Mobile broadband is still too new, but then, not too long ago, cellular phones were for rich businesspeople, I had a pager that worked just fine, thank you very much. Consider these points then, as an adjunct to Greg's thoughts on the nature of Free in regards to Wi Fi. 1. Not Free, Subsidized. I grew up in the 1960s, watching Free TV - sure, it was only 2-3 channels of content, depending on the market, and we usually got a Native American "Big Chief" test pattern at midnight when TV programming went off for the night, but it was still a relatively new medium - we forget how new Wi Fi still is, much newer than even TV was in 1965. The business model back then was broadcasting advertising-subsidized content to end devices that the consumer bought and owned. The network operator ran the national network, with local franchisees running local operations and buying content from national networks who procured the content from creative talent in NY and LA. Big advertisers paid for the privilege of gaining access to the viewing public through the network. Local advertisers dealt directly with local franchisees. The network operator and the local franchisee made buckets of cash by selling advertising, not unlike the business model for commercial broadcast radio, on which the TV model was based. We still enjoy "Free" radio broadcasts, in fact, still available in your car or on a nightstand near you. But now you have an option to avoid the commercials by subscribing to satellite radio for a nominal monthly fee, which is gaining traction and growing subscribers, in part by avoiding the commercials, but also by providing more value than you can get with free radio. For that matter, newspapers and magazine publishers played a variation of this game as well, receiving similar support from advertising revenue, although readers paid a nominal fee for the content, thereby subsidizing the cost of production and distribution. The key point: Free was never really ever Free, so much as it was Subsidized - we paid for the right to see entertainment content not with dollars and cents, but with our time and attention to commercial content - we had to watch commercials! But it was perceived and marketed as Free, and that's the same way it could be with Wi Fi - subsidized, but perceived as Free. 2. Freemium. The Freemium model on the internet is a Web 2.0 phenomenon where a start up first gives away its product / software / service in order to generate interest and create a user base, then offers a premium version with more features, better quality, etc. for a small fee. From Wikipedia: "Give your service away for free, possibly ad supported but maybe not, acquire a lot of customers very efficiently through word of mouth, referral networks, organic search marketing, etc, then offer premium priced value added services or an enhanced version of your service to your customer base." This is a modern variation on the Free (ad-subsidized) broadcast TV model above, in so much as its intent is to generate interest and attract a broad user base. It's correlated with the Long Tail analysis by Chris Anderson of Wired magazine. Accepting that search costs on the Internet are near zero and that users can and will find you if you have what they need, it suggests that the logical thing to do is to encourage people to find you by putting out bait. The nature of the new economics is that one can make decent money with a relatively small user base and at a relatively low price, if the payments are repeated monthly, and costs are kept ridiculously low - in essence, that's the Web 2.0 storyline. 3. Commodity Services. Based on costs, IP has turned internet access and VOIP telephony service into a commodity business, but service fees have been kept artificially high for the time being by keeping the number of providers artificially low. This artificial scarcity is consciously engineered by the incumbent service providers with the intent of preserving a very lucrative revenue source - and I frankly can't blame them, I'd no doubt do the same if I were them. When you're on top of the mountain, your job is to kick off others who try to displace you. That's called rational corporate self-interest (which is not, by the way, always the same thing as good public policy). But Municipal Wi Fi came along and offered an alternative that challenged that old "captive customer" business model, which depends on a limited number of options for consumers. The challenge Wi Fi Mesh-based service faced was that consumers were not yet used to getting mobile broadband anywhere they went, and didn't yet value it enough to pay for it - they didn't and still don't know why they should pay for it, so few of them actually do - I'm not surprised, are you? And marketing Wi Fi as a substitute for fixed wire line access was a BIG mistake, because quality of service is not what they said it would be, certainly not comparable to cable or DSL broadband in many cases, and the inevitably strong market competition that early entrants went up against was deadly. A key lesson of early experiments (Google in Mountain View, etc.) was that far more users would come try the service if it were free than if there was a fee attached, and many would grow used to the service over time - and free service had the added benefit of having much lower operating costs by avoiding the billing and high levels of customer service that for-fee service would require. Hmmm. that looks a lot like the Freemium model above to me. Give it away at first, then once consumers value it, start charging a small fee, or series of small fees, or make money off the network traffic it generates. If one understands that one has to create a user base with a new product before charging for it - no value, no revenue - then that's where early models went wrong (among other things!) - they were compelled by investors to monetize private sector investment with aggressive subscriber acquisition models whose subscriber revenues would pay off the network capital AND operating costs in an acceptably short time period. Not. Gonna. Happen. 4. Public Subsidization. And if one accepts that the Freemium model makes sense, then, "How the hell," one may ask, "are you going to pay for the damn network? With Pixie Dust?" So goes the frustration of those who pride themselves on having their feet placed firmly on the ground. The problem is that this Freemium model is an operating model, it still requires some cash to launch a network, and it leaves nobody there to pay for the initial capital costs - after all, it arose as a Web 2.0 model, where a Network exists to start with, and that's not the case when it comes to outdoor Wi Fi. That's where municipalities come in as a natural fit, because they have an opportunity to save budget spending by implementing mobile IP applications, but they need a network on which to run those budget saving applications. With sufficient business planning, they will see that they can either own these networks themselves or act as anchor tenants for a private provider, with acceptable risk. Either model will work, but the city has to do the heavy lifting in order to see the light. No avoiding the sit-ups, I'm afraid. When a city acts as a catalyst to bring a network in, they make a Freemium business model possible as well. 5. Private Subsidization. There's yet another alternative. A smart cable (Cablevision) has caught on to all of this and has realized that they can add a 4th leg to their triple play with mobile broadband via Wi Fi Mesh, giving it away to their own customer base as a means of locking in customers. That move changes the customers' value perception on cable service ("now you can take it with you when you leave the house!") and hopefully lowers or mitigates churn, the bane of network subscriber operations. Going on the offensive this way by changing the value proposition for their service is smart. What else is a small cable to do to stay competitive? Here then is an open door, if companies will just walk through it. It will be hard to do at first, I admit. But if the telecom and cable incumbents in any of these markets where there is a municipal wireless network would just seek to buy access and then give it away as a reward for their customers, as Cablevision plans to do, they'd find that it's a relatively low marketing cost. It's especially low when compared to some other ways that providers currently spend their money (lobbying for protection from market forces, for instance?). When compared to the cost of losing an existing customer, the real threat that incumbent providers face, giving away Wi Fi access is pretty cheap insurance. There are legs with this strategy, we'll see more of it, but it requires a motivated ISP to go there. This would put incumbents in the position of stimulating more broadband usage in a local area, which is commensurate with their grand strategy, after all. The Bottom Line We are all to some extent still trapped in conventional paradigms of internet access as a service that we buy, just like telephone or cable service. We have a ways to go to reach the point where the market accepts that internet access can be a gateway service that opens up the consumer to an array of other services that they can buy over the internet. It's a two-tier problem, in fact: 1) we need a last mile wireless broadband infrastructure and a way to pay for it; and 2) we need a new user paradigm and business model that is more expansive than our current way of using the internet and doing business. When all that happens, Free(mium) Wi Fi should gain traction. And, the aggressive provider that chooses to be bold, to give away both Internet Access and VOIP in exchange for long-term lock in on some other type service? My bet is that they will kill the competition over time. But I think we still have a long way to go before we see that, as there are too many players right now who see free access or free VOIP as anathema, a non-starter, like preaching "socialist" health care to a conservative. They won't listen. If the choice is between cannibalizing their existing revenues and staying with the status quo, after all, they have a point. The elephant in the room is that current providers haven't figured out a new way of providing value, competing, and making money - their current model is still way too lucrative, after all, for them to be all that creative. And cities are not yet truly pressed to be really innovative, not that many of them. They are waiting on a few to go forward and succeed, then the rest will follow. "The line forms at the right - the timid need not apply....Next!" I wish there were better news, but it looks to me like this will all just take time to sort out...Sigh...
Posted on May 16, 2008 at 10:16 AM | Comments (0) Rumors of Death Greatly ExaggeratedIt seems appropriate to publish this good study that looks at what comes after we say prayers over the dead husk of Municipal Wi Fi 1.0 - aka the Big City Free model... I urge you to check out this report from a few weeks back, for one of the most comprehensive reviews of the current state of municipal wireless in the US. (See Municipal Wi-Fi 2.0: As large-scale, for-profit projects falter, innovative new models emerge. The bottom line conclusion - Municipal Wi Fi 2.0 is seen in projects based on municipal applications and other areas of innovation ... but no more Free Wi Fi, or Field of Dreams build-it-and-they-will-come ... they did (build it), and they didn't (come) Posted on May 15, 2008 at 08:01 PM | Comments (0) D-I-V-O-R-C-EWell, that's it, they're splitting the sheets, the clothes are flying out the apartment window as we speak. Earthlink has called it quits and is pulling its equipment down off the streetlights of Philadelphia. Like me, you no doubt have friends who have gone through a divorce. Or perhaps you have yourself. It's a terribly awkward and painful time. Many outside the relationship see the split coming way before the actual event itself. So gut-wrenching is the process itself that there's a long sigh and a painful denouement when the divorce is actually final. Then, there comes a long period of adjustment to a new paradigm, where the parties recover. But, it's not just the parties themselves to the divorce who must adjust - the need to realign falls on all of us who count ourselves within the sphere of the divorced parties. I've lost good friends to divorce, despite my best efforts - even though I vowed to stay friends with both the man and woman in the divorce - we were close friends as couples, after all - but it most often has proven to be well nigh on impossible and one or both friendships fade slowly away. There's a new dynamic at work in the social fabric. We've lost several families from our church membership in the same manner. But life goes on.
So, with the news yesterday that the split between Earthlink and the City of Philadelphia has been finalized - finally - it feels like a divorce to me. What does it mean for all of us in the sphere of this highly-watched marriage? This first big municipal wireless deal was held up as a model of things to come, after all. We scrutinized this union as it unfolded .. analyzing it step by step. I'm reminded of the Fairytale Wedding of Prince Charles and Lady Di, back on July 29, 1981. It was so beautiful when they came together as Prince and Princess, but so ugly when they split... This feels to me like the second shoe finally hitting the floor. It's time to move beyond this crash and burn of Muni Wi Fi 1.0. The business model failed, but the potential of the technology lives on. It's important that we don't throw out the baby with the bathwater, which many have already done, so eager are they to put the final nails in the coffin. (Let's see how many metaphors I can string together)... Personally, I've already moved on, having processed Earthlink's withdrawal from the industry in a series of posts last year, in August and these two posts in September (see Reader's Digest Condensed Version and Big City MuniFi and Sand Castles - Fun While They Lasted). I urge you to check those posts out for a thorough discussion on what happened and what's in store. What's more appealing to me is to focus on what comes next, because the problems that the Earthlink model sought to address sure haven't gone away, just because this first solution proved itself to be a turkey. I think there are three trends to watch... 1. Public Ownership of a Wireless Network based on Municipal Cost Savings - see my recent white paper, Lowest Risk, Publicly-Owned Networks and the upcoming announcement on San Marcos, TX's plans for wireless broadband (MetroNetIQ is completing an engagement with San Marcos). There's lots and lots more to come on mobile broadband - short and sweet, Earthlink was an experiment that failed, with high visibility and emotion (NOT the end of an era, as many will make it out to be). In the meantime, sit back and enjoy the show, because it will be one hell of a ride.
Posted on May 13, 2008 at 06:58 PM | Comments (0) Big News Week!We can go on for months and, seemingly, years, with relative balance in the environment, then along comes a week with some major disruptions. First, on Wednesday May 7, there was Clearwire's deal with Sprint, which brings renewed promise to WiMAX, no doubt just in time to help the shareholders at Clearwire and Sprint to sleep a little better at night, at least for the short-term. The details of that deal remain to develop, but nobody can discount the disruptive effect. See Forbes and WiMAX.com coverage. Second, on Thursday May 8, we saw another development. It looks like some movement among incumbent cables and telcos regarding the usefulness of unlicensed wireless broadband - see the coverage of Cablevision's decision in Long Island at Daily Wireless, Muniwireless, and Wi Fi Networking News (May 8). Third, the continued bad news on the municipal wireless front, as early business plans unravel. See the Earthlink / Philadelphia squabble here, and for broader coverage on Earthlink's withdrawals, see Dailywireless coverage. These trends all come together when we look at the environment as a whole. Mobility is accepted as a necessary element of broadband communication, and we are seeing the worlds of mobility (wireless) and capacity (wireline) starting to come together. A lot of the argument about what is "right" and what "should" happen often boils down to competing perspectives on the world and the natural world order coming into conflict as this convergence happens. Check out the debate thread over on MuniWireless about a retrenchment in Sydney, Australia from one week ago, which I was clued into (Thanks Jason at Strix Systems!) and couldn't help but join after reading (see my comments reprinted below). This is a fascinating thread, so against my better judgment, I'm jumping in (moth to the flame). First, just because city-wide Wi Fi Mesh hasn't worked yet doesn't mean it won't ever, or that it shouldn't. We're still early in the game, so failures of experiments to date may just be learning moments leading to ultimate success (think Edison and the light bulb and Marconi and wireless - lots of widely criticized failures before ultimate game-changing success). Second, just because Earthlink led a marching band down a dead-end alley doesn't mean that all parades are bad, just that particular one. We should all be more discerning in the future. Third, just because incumbents have been against this trend because it threatened their comfortable status quo doesn't mean they're evil or corrupt (though some certainly are) - it may also be that they've been insufficiently motivated. Things change: witness the news this week that cables are starting to drop wireless zones into their territory, and the jury's still way out on the stimulus effect of the Clearwire/Sprint WiMAX announcement. Fourth, free was never "free," rather it was "subsidized." The right subsidy model may well still be waiting out there to be discovered, and we may well still find a home for free access in the right markets. As long as wireless access provides value, it will find a market, and free will be less and less relevant. There's a lot of confusion in this argument, but there are rational positions still to be taken on all sides. What we need to be mindful of is throwing out the baby with the bathwater...unlicensed wireless technology has a future, we're just trying to figure out what exactly it is. There are more mistakes yet to be made, but they too will bring lessons and we'll all get smarter (let's hope!). Posted on May 09, 2008 at 02:49 PM | Comments (0) From Irving to Irvine in Ten Days, By Way of San MarcosI haven't posted a significant article on this site for 2-3 weeks, and I'm having withdrawals. I'm sitting now in a hotel room in Irvine, CA, after attending a remarkable exercise in regional coordination yesterday, where I helped to present results of a study I've been involved in for the past six months. Orange County is leading an effort to investigate its options for regional collaboration of a wireless broadband infrastructure, and they hosted a Business Summit yesterday attended by about 50 local and regional government leaders. I'll post more on that meeting in the next few days. Last week, I spent three days in Irving, TX, where Broadband Properties magazine hosted a Summit, with the focus of the discussion mostly on FTTH, although a smattering of discussion on wireless options was thrown in. I'll post more on that meeting as well in the near term. Finally, in between these two road trips, I've been wrapping up work on a consulting contract I've had with the university town of San Marcos, which sits just south of my hometown of Austin, TX. I've been engaged with San Marcos in some capacity or another for nearly two years, since June 2006, when I first made a presentation to a staff group. City leaders are now preparing to make a decision on buying a wireless mesh network, with a vote expected at the May 20 city council meeting. I feel like I've earned my PhD in Metropolitan Broadband through my in-depth work with San Marcos, and I'll be sharing what I've learned over the coming months. For starters, I've put together two documents that I'd like to share with the readers of this site (you'll need to register to download these, but I assure you that it's a painless process, well worth the time!). First is a paper titled Lowest Risk Publicly Owned Networks, which is a short (3 page) argument on why public ownership offers particular advantages to a city considering its broadband connectivity strategy. Second is a paper titled Wi Fi Mesh Economics - Costs, which describes the cost elements of a 10-sq. mile mesh network, which can easily be divided by 10 to come up with a cost/sq mi, for help in estimating about what it might cost your city to build its own network. Taken together, these documents offer interested city leaders a strong business rationale to start a metropolitan broadband project. While starting is only a first step, with multiple steps to follow, one must start by taking a first step if one is ever to finish and achieve a worthwhile objective...I've discovered that in 2008, there remains no reason for a city to put off starting a metropolitan broadband project. Do not fall into the common trap of using the cacophony of bad news about municipal wireless and the EarthLink withdrawal from the market as an excuse to put off a project - that's just what it is, an EXCUSE for inaction. In fact, we've now moved beyond prudence when it comes to metropolitan broadband. I believe that it is now imprudent NOT to start a wireless broadband project, given what we know, so strong are the benefits of broadband to a community. In short, the opportunity costs of not starting a project now exceed the costs of starting a project. The prudent city leader must now move beyond study to taking action. Posted on May 09, 2008 at 11:20 AM | Comments (0) Net Neutrality for Non-Science Majors(Nearly 33 million downloads of this video - how does that translate into Gold and Platinum status??) [Note: it's been a busy month for me, as I work to bring the San Marcos network from concept into reality. We're close to a solution and a vote, hopefully by the end of April. I filed this post away last Saturday, and only now got around to writing it up...patience, patience. ] For the casual reader, I think even the term "Net Neutrality" is enough to make the eyes roll and hasten them to turn the page. That topic combines the best of Public Policy, Technology, and Politics. Yeaaaaaaa! So I was intrigued when I read an article in the popular press the other day that actually put an interesting spin on the topic, made it readable for a change...In Beware the New New Thing, NY Times guest columnist Damian Kulash (lead singer for the group OK Go, an Internet music sensation - be sure to watch the video above), lays it out for the time-pressed technophobe in us all. If you haven't been following the debate on net neutrality, you're not alone. The details of the issue can lead into realms where only tech geeks and policy wonks dare to tread, but at root there's a pretty simple question: How much control should network operators be allowed to have over the information on their lines? Let me repeat that key phrase, because he nails the issue in paragraph 3: How much control should network operators be allowed to have over the information on their lines? He goes on to carry the discussion into "Common Carriage" laws - brave soul - and actually states the case pretty plainly that the continued success of the Internet depends upon its continued openness. Most people assume that the Internet is a democratic free-for-all by nature - that it could be no other way. But the openness of the Internet as we know it is a byproduct of the fact that the network was started on phone lines. The phone system is subject to "common carriage" laws, which require phone companies to treat all calls and customers equally. They can't offer tiered service in which higher-paying customers get their calls through faster or clearer, or calls originating on a competitor's network are blocked or slowed. These laws have been on the books for about as long as telephones have been ringing, and were meant to keep Bell from using its elephantine market share to squash everyone else. And because of common carriage, digital data running over the phone lines has essentially been off limits to the people who laid the lines. But in the last decade, the network providers have argued that since the Internet is no longer primarily run on phone lines, the laws of data equality no longer apply. They reason that they own the fiber optic and coaxial lines, so they should be able to do whatever they want with the information crossing them. Just as an aside, I spent nearly two years of my life nearly 15 years ago as a regulatory lobbyist for an electric company, forcing me to sit through interminable hearings at the Texas Public Utility Commission. I cannot forget the detailed discussions in rate cases around electric and telephone companies rights to recover the costs of their infrastructure through regulated rates...so it sticks in my craw when they talk about their "ownership" of these assets - no doubt, as the telephone companies transition to private status, they build more and more of their infrastructure on their own dime. But a considerable amount of the copper wires they currently leverage today to provide DSL were built under the auspices and protections of their status as regulated monopolies, where in a sense, we the public all owned the infrastructure - it was a common good. They managed over the ensuing years through a series of legislative and regulatory victories and deals they struck where they did not live up to their end, to transfer those assets over to the private side where they could use them to produce unregulated income ... So file that one away in the back of your mind as you keep reading. Under current law, they're right. They can block certain files or Web sites for their subscribers, or slow or obstruct certain applications. And they do, albeit pretty rarely. Network providers have censored anti-Bush comments from an online Pearl Jam concert, refused to allow a text-messaging program from the pro-choice group Naral (saying it was "unsavory"), blocked access to the Internet phone service (and direct competitor) Vonage and selectively throttled online traffic that was using the BitTorrent protocol. When the network operators pull these stunts, there is generally widespread outrage. But outright censorship and obstruction of access are only one part of the issue, and they represent the lesser threat, in the long run. What we should worry about more is not what's kept from us today, but what will be built (or not built) in the years to come. The essence of the argument to block traffic is that a privately-held resource is constrained and the owners "have to" block traffic in order to maintain service for all. They "have to" block traffic of a few abusers in order to protect the service levels of the rest of their customers. But this argument presupposes that they are managers of a scarce commodity, victims of fate, in a sense. They create the very conditions that constrain them, then argue for remedies that would further limit competition. Orwellian. In point of fact, the arguments made against Net Neutrality are ultimately based on the availability of a critical infrastructure. The current owners of the infrastructure are banking on maintaining their hegemony over the new network - the bigger, faster one, yet to be built, which will be even more profitable. And they need protection in the laws - they need their leveraged position to be set into concrete - for their plans to come to fruition. We hate when things are taken from us (so we rage at censorship), but we also love to get new things. And the providers are chomping at the bit to offer them to us: new high-bandwidth treats like super fast high-definition video and quick movie downloads. They can make it sound great: newer, bigger, faster, better! But the new fast lanes they propose will be theirs to control and exploit and sell access to, without the level playing field that common carriage built into today's network. They won't be blocking anything per se - we'll never know what we're not getting - they'll just be leapfrogging today's technology with a new, higher-bandwidth network where they get to be the gatekeepers and toll collectors. The superlative new video on offer will be available from (surprise, surprise) them, or companies who've paid them for the privilege of access to their customers. If this model sounds familiar, that's because it is. It's how cable TV operates. We can't allow a system of gatekeepers to get built into the network. The Internet shouldn't be harnessed for the profit of a few, rather than the good of the many; value should come from the quality of information, not the control of access to it. So, if you want the telecoms to be more like the cables, relax and let things happen. But it doesn't have to be that way. Other companies in other industries with a legacy of working in a competitive market readily see a similar situation in a dramatically different way. For some parallel examples: there are only two guitar companies who make most of the guitars sold in America, but they don't control what we play on those guitars. Whether we use a Mac or a PC doesn't govern what we can make with our computers. The telephone company doesn't get to decide what we discuss over our phone lines. It would be absurd to let the handful of companies who connect us to the Internet determine what we can do online. Congress needs to establish basic ground rules for an open Internet, just as common carriage laws did for the phone system. The Internet, for now, is the type of place where my band's homemade videos find a wider audience than the industry's million-dollar productions. A good idea is still more important than deep pockets. If network providers are allowed to build the next generation of the Net as a pay-to-play system, we will all pay the price. Kudos to Damian for making a complex issue plain. It's not an easy thing to do. Takes a creative mind, I guess, to cut through the bull to get to the heart of the matter. I guess last Saturday was a big day for the Internet at the NY Times (the mainstream guys were off for the weekend?), because there was yet another article on the Op Ed pages, this one about the potential to use the Internet for an unsavory practice - digging into your private lives. The Already Big Thing on the Internet: Spying on Users. This article underscores the argument for a robust, well-regulated Internet industry. We need the Internet, but we also need protection from its abuse. Having a variety of providers to go to would provide a market-based protection against those who would abuse the trust of their customers and take advantage of their privileged positions as network owners by digging into our private files. (See Warrantless Wiretapping). And, needless to say, from my perspective, metropolitan broadband addresses both these issues, infrastructure and security, because it provides more robust competition and an alternative means to build out critical information infrastructure. Posted on April 12, 2008 at 09:47 AM | Comments (0) Back to the Drawing BoardIn an editorial this morning titled Broadening Broadband, the NY Times Editorial Board indicates that it reads its own paper (eventually) - see this article from March 22: Hopes for Wireless Cities Fade as Internet Providers Pull Out) and says, in effect, and incredibly, EarthLink should fulfill the commitments it made. To borrow a turn of phrase from my friend, John McCain, "That, my friends, is not likely." But I do give them credit for the last sentence, in which direction lies wisdom... The reality is that cities have to go back to the drawing board, broadband is an essential commodity, a necessity for modern society. They get that right. Let's give them credit. Posted on March 29, 2008 at 04:28 AM | Comments (0) A Dozen Roses, Kid Gloves or a Baseball Bat?
Hate me if you must for inflicting this clip of William Shatner "Singing" - if you can really call it that - on you. I just couldn't resist. It's so bad ... it's good! Somehow, this performance captures - a little - the way I feel about working with Incumbent ISPs. I have to admit, based on my experience so far, I feel somewhat helpless, not unlike the way I've felt with women most of my life, and with my wife these past 18 years...should I just love the incumbent ISPs, simply love them, merely love them, love them, love them? Naaaaaaaaah...don't think it's quite the same thing ... So, my question for all who read this is this - should a new market entrant or a city team try to win over the the incumbent ISP when engaging in a metropolitan broadband project (Dozen Roses)? work with them (Kid Gloves)? or just forgo the pain and move forward and accept the consequences, hoping they'll come around or be pounded into submission (Baseball Bat)? Believe it or not, I lean towards the middle alternative, and here's why...we need the incumbents to be successful...they have so much going for them, and they can do so much harm ... it's to the advantage of the entire community to have an established network operator or better yet, two or more, fall into line behind a community wireless project. Impossible? Maybe, but it's worth a try and here's why... This morning, after writing this two-part post about Sascha Meinrath's recent essay on Municipal Wireless and Best Practices (here and here), I went back to his web site and left the following comment: That said, sensitivity for negative impacts on beneficiaries of the status quo must be weighed and balanced with the needs of all citizens and the benefits to the community at large that come from a progressive project like metropolitan broadband infrastructure. All parties, including the incumbents, benefit when the community gains a new resource like ubiquitous broadband. One can make the strong argument that we have long erred on the side of the status quo, and that it's time we began to err a little on the side of progress, especially when it comes to broadband connectivity. So it is up to the leaders in a community, in both the public and private sector, to explain these purported community benefits in a well delineated vision. And it's up to those leaders to lead the broadband incumbents away from their narrow focus on self-interest to a more expanded assessment of holistic community benefit - I believe they can do that through public discussion and by shining a light on the complex facts of such social change. The sooner that incumbent service providers recognize that they're a part of a community as well as a profit-taking corporate entity, in deed as well as in word, the sooner the impediments to progress will be removed and the sooner the benefits of ubiquitous community broadband will be realized. My more detailed comments can be found on my website MetroNetIQ at www.metronetiq.com - keep up the good work, Sascha! I felt compelled to elaborate on this comment because, you see, policy perspectives and best practices are all well and good - in a vacuum - but get out into a local political environment and try to pursue an objective in opposition to the local cable and/or telecom incumbent - and come back and tell me how that worked out for you. I'm betting that you'll find that their senior management staff are registered lobbyists in Washington and the state capital, that their management staff sit on local boards and commissions, that they run the Chamber of Commerce, that they pay significant municipal franchise fees into the city coffers, that they routinely donate to local charities and sponsor local softball teams and kids' Little League. Let's face it folks, the incumbent ISPs are no dummies, and this is what they do for a living - they ARE the Status Quo, and the status quo is quite good now from where they sit, thank you very much. They make a pretty profit on broadband, and they have no conceivable idea why that should change. In fact, they make so much money from broadband now, just over the last decade, that they've grown to like it and it's become such an important part of their portfolio, that it's even perceived as a threat to them if anything about the current situation were to change. When you're on top of the pile, "change" is not a popular word. "Change" means going down, "stasis" means staying on top. So, they're here, they're an integral part of the community, and you ignore or offend them at your peril. Just ask the FCC...it's the same, from the federal level, to the state level, to the local level - really, when you think about it, managing political outcomes has perhaps become over time their key core competence ... forget managing networks. Though they are good at that, you have to admit. And so I come back to a new way to look at incumbent ISPs. They're important citizens of the community. They deserve respect for what they've accomplished, and for the vital services they offer day-in and day-out. But they also need to be prodded to move ahead, because they are comfortable where they are, and their comfort can become an impediment for the greater good of the community. They look at change with a jaundiced eye - they don't trust it. So I opt for the middle path: forget the Roses, don't even try, begging earns you no respect when approaching a powerful player - they will dismiss you and crush you...and forget the Baseball Bat - if you haven't noticed, they're richer than you, they're better connected than you, they have local market knowledge better than almost any, they have staff who can vote in a block to keep a politician in line ... and they're sitting on a pile of cash, so they can outspend you. So, forget the baseball bat folks. So, what about the Kid Gloves option. I've become a recent advocate of Kid Gloves. Because this is a path of respect, and not just for the incumbent ISP, but also for the metropolitan broadband project promoter. Moving down this path should also help in establishing a valuable link between the powers of the present- the power of the status quo - and the power of the future - the power of change and innovation. Whether they realize it or not, those who hold the status quo need the power of change, because they often face strong internal resistance to change and innovation. And the world they operate in is changing, whether they admit it or not. The smarter ones know that already and will be receptive to a Kid Glove treatment that offers them a way to profit from change, a way to turn lemons into lemonade, a way to get ahead of the competition. So, without further ado, here is something to make you and the incumbent ISP think twice about a metropolitan broadband project that may be coming to their area whether they like it or not. Reasons an Incumbent ISP Should Support a Community Broadband Project 1. Wireless broadband is a new mobile broadband service that incumbents can purchase from the city or provider on a pay-as-you-go wholesale basis (in account bundles) and then resell to current and new subscribers for a profit, but without having to invest capital in the infrastructure needed to provide that service. They may choose a "take-your-broadband-with-you-when-you-leave-the-house" add-on service that incumbents can add to their service bundle. If they were able to buy the service wholesale for app. $5/mo and resell it for $8 - $10/mo, they'd have a clean path to good margins. Let's face it, there could be more benefits to the smart incumbent than risks when a wireless broadband network comes to town. By seeing the glass as half full, by envisioning the opportunity to grow a larger pie, rather than losing slices to a competitor, an incumbent can turn a project in its territory into a major plus, if they so choose. This is, I hope, a glimpse into the future. I'm reminded of Green Eggs and Ham ... in fact, if they try it, incumbent ISPs may just find that there's lots to like about a community broadband project in "their" backyard. Posted on March 27, 2008 at 09:10 PM | Comments (0) Muni Schmuni, Part 2Yesterday I introduced a dialogue on "what's in a name?" and asked "is it appropriate to still call this industry 'Municipal Wireless?'" I highlighted especially a very well written essay by community wireless activist Sascha Meinrath, and we left off still needing to address the five Best Practices that Sascha listed at the end of his essay. The list and my comments below. First, Sascha highlighted the basic conflict in the municipal wireless debate as "liberation vs. lock-in," drawing a comparison to municipal franchising and grants of exclusivity by cities to private service providers. What cities want is an open platform to support public use and new applications. When The Economist reported in January that open networks are necessary to support next-generation networking and the global competitiveness of the United States, it opened up debate about the wisdom of our sole reliance on free-market solutions for broadband networking. What private corporations have implemented are closed systems using proprietary hardware, software and services. Such systems may seem good on paper, but as history is teaching us, their many points of failure makes them unreliable in practice. So Sascha set up a debate on whether a system should be open or closed. I would submit that we are still in the early stages and while we can discuss ideals, we should also be practical: any network is better than no network at all...but, the necessary requirement must be on a practical and sustainable business model. Sascha then went on to suggest his five best practices: Utilize open technology. The smart choice for municipalities is to require open standards that support interoperability and an easily upgradeable modular design. Too many wireless broadband networks in this country use proprietary technologies that are far more expensive and far less dynamic than other systems available today. Open technology alternatives like WiFiDog (Ile Sans Fil), Austin Wireless (LessNetworks), CUWiN (Champaign-Urbana Community Wireless Network), and FreiFunk/FunkFeuer (Berlin/Vienna) may not have the public relations or marketing budgets of proprietary solutions, but that should not excuse municipalities from seriously considering them. The success of the Internet itself is predicated on an open architecture with open protocols, and municipalities would be wise to support these principles in the wireless realm. Build hybrid infrastructures. Infrastructures that support multiple, redundant delivery options are more robust than single-medium solutions. That means integrating fiber and incorporating other wireless systems whenever possible (Wi-Fi, WiMAX, 802.11n, EVDO, and others). Similarly, municipalities can create enormous synergies by interconnecting public-safety and public-access networks without compromising either goal. Single-use networks are far less efficient than hybridized and interconnected solutions, and are often more expensive. Hybridized, redundant networking requires a rethink about how to create reliability. Unfortunately too many decision-makers approach municipal networking with yesteryear's thinking. Prioritize competition. One of the main failings of so-called municipal wireless networks has been the over-reliance on single-provider solutions. Wireless networking is a critical tool for municipalities struggling with the cable/telco duopoly. Open-access networks allow a city to support multiple market entrants, which enhances leverage far more than simply introducing a third competitor. Whether focusing on fiber optics (e.g., the UTOPIA project in Utah), or the wireless realm (e.g., Open Air Boston), municipalities should support an open platform that can serve as a level playing field for many competing service providers. Think holistically. Municipalities must initiate dynamic, evolving digital inclusion initiatives rather than silver-bullet, one-off solutions. What might sound today like an ideal solution for the digital divide may tomorrow become the source of a new divide in speed, reliability or access. Solutions must promote ongoing public engagement and ensure long-term benefits to local constituencies. As examples, check out Minneapolis's Community Benefits Agreement and the Chicago Digital Access Alliance's Ten Principles for Digital Excellence, both of which were drafted by local community members to meet local community needs. Embrace change as the new status quo. When it comes to high-speed Internet access, municipalities should embrace the constructive disruption coming from new technologies, applications and telecommunications policies. Due diligence for municipalities does not mean a one-time review of available technologies and community needs, but rather constant research and feedback. In 2008, we will see the advent of white space devices, open platform spectrum, and distributed device-as-infrastructure networking. Pro-municipal broadband legislation in Congress and the Broadband Census Act, and the growth of initiatives like the CAIDA COMMONS Project, which is creating an alternative, cooperative Internet backbone, will continue to impact the national telecommunications debate and carry with them the potential for transforming the broadband playing field. Municipalities need adaptable infrastructure and continued vigilance to keep pace with rapidly changing conditions and technologies. I would trumpet these best practices, which are well-thought-out and comprehensive, and I'd trumpet also the idea that we should all, both cities and private sector players, begin to pattern our industry development on what has been proven to work best. We should not continue to make the same mistakes and reinvent the wheel, rather we must improve over time - otherwise, we waste valuable energy and time. We should of course experiment and document our experience, we should of course embrace mistakes when they provide a learning opportunity and share the lessons learned. But we should avoid mistakes that are mere repetition of mistakes already made by others - what's the point of that? I'd also invite anyone reading this blog post to visit two websites I've set up in the past to encourage information sharing and best practices. First, there's the WikiMetroNet I set up a couple of years ago for just this purpose. I'll be the first to admit that that site and project has been more or less neglected, as I've focused on my consulting business and this particular blog and website. But we should all be thinking on how we can help each other and accelerate progress, and the WikiMetroNet has a good outline to follow and is relatively easy to post to -this is an open invitation. Second, I'd encourage the interested reader to visit Facebook, which is developing into a some kind of new shadow WWW - really quite remarkable. Go ahead and join if you're not a member, then go over to the Group Page I set up titled "Alternative Broadband." These best practices and those of others only have value when they are followed and put into practice. In a few weeks, we'll have another example, I expect, as the City of San Marcos makes their decision on whether to go forward with their wireless broadband plan. Either way, whether the vote is up or down, we'll be diagramming that project as another example of a Best Practice on this website. Now is the time to step up and get busy in helping to define a better pathway, just as Sascha has done with his essay. Your comments are welcome here! I'll leave the final word to Sascha and his essay... Municipal networking proponents are not opposed to private investment in city-scale wireless networks. But they believe that municipalities have to take more responsibility and control over the broadband networks they're involved with. Regardless of who pays for the physical infrastructure, municipal networks will continue to struggle unless they provide reliable, open platforms for innovation that support diversity at the hardware, software and service-provision levels. Municipalities should choose liberation over lock-in as they continue to address growing Internet needs in 2008. Posted on March 27, 2008 at 10:49 AM | Comments (0) Muni, Schmuni, Part 1I just posted a blog recommending public ownership - see OHIP: Ownership Has Its Privileges - and now here I am posting a blog to discuss taking the "muni" out of municipal broadband. Go figure. Welcome to my world! When I launched this website in May 2005, it was called UnwireMyCity.com - the focus? Wireless and Cities ... but then, that was the focus back then, when the big question was whether any of the 15 or so state legislatures would pass an outright ban on city ownership of broadband networks. We beat back that assault on sanity and basic rights of home rule, and the industry rolled on nevertheless to focus on the Public Private Partnership, where a private partner would build a network and the city would act as a host in a variety of capacities. Cities seemed to breathe a sigh of relief if a private partner would take on the risk. More and more released Requests for Proposals outlining in ever greater detail their demands while refusing to take on any of the risks. That trend reached its zenith, and its inevitable demise last fall with the withdrawal of EarthLink from the marketplace. It was bound to happen. When I redesigned the site 8 months after the initial launch and re-launched in late January 2006, I retitled the site "MetroNetIQ" for a number of reasons. I took the focus away from "cities" and placed it on metropolitan regions, where innovation regarding connectivity would be free to sprout up in any variety of ways, unconstrained by the limits or imagination of those in the public sphere. My experience made me wonder why we would put cities at the front of a parade that had "Risk" written all over it. The alternate broadband world is so exciting, but folks, back then, we were still experimenting with business models, and sometimes there are explosions in the lab. Public officials by and large shy away from taking risks with the taxpayers' money, for good reason. That's not the business they're in. Only now are we starting to identify business approaches that have suitably low levels of risk to satisfy the demands of public officials. Such risk was and continues to be a constraint in this industry. I removed the focus on "wireless," understanding that it was broadband networks that were the key, whether that connectivity came over a wire or through the air - or both - was immaterial. And the IQ part said that it was about doing things the smart way, not necessarily the conventional way. Sometimes those align, but why limit yourself to what everyone else is doing? All this was to say - public involvement is not a bad thing, in fact, it is to be encouraged. But to limit the definition of a new industry as one in which the public leads and the private sector follows was a mistake. What opened up with the combination of new and powerful technologies and unlicensed spectrum was a new business opportunity that empowered creativity out at the edge, where we could experiment with new ways of providing connectivity. Why limit that scope to a straitjacket of criteria determined in city-led RFPs? To their credit, city officials have doggedly pursued a vision and some, like my client in San Marcos, are on the verge of discovering new, sound ways to approach broadband without the risk of earlier models. Well, two years later, I'm glad to see the debate shifting over to my perspective, if by degrees. The recent NY Times piece, Hopes for Wireless Cities Fade as Internet Providers Pull Out, though widely read and copied to me in a variety of emails - yes, I saw it! - was of the "so what" variety of journalism, and widely errant in its conclusions to boot. They are so far behind the curve and off the mark as to challenge their involvement in the "news" business. As usual, the main stream media comes in way behind the blogosphere when it comes to timeliness and accuracy. Glenn Fleishman provides good commentary in his piece the other day at Wi Fi Networking News - see the March 22 post titled NY Times Gets around to Muni-Fi’s Failures, Slowed Pace. His conclusion: Glenn concludes that the reporting is tired and relies on old information to make erroneous conclusions. Which begs the question, is it still true that "any press is good press?" For more accuracy and immediacy, I recommend community wireless advocate Sascha Meinrath, working out of Champagne-Urbana, Illinois - he's one of the deep thinkers in this new industry, and a passionate advocate of community-based wireless solutions. He took on this subject of "what's in a name" in a recent essay. In addition to a wide-ranging commentary on the state of what I call "metropolitan broadband" Sascha outlined criteria for success recently in an intriguing post on his blog titled Municipal Wireless Success Demands Public Involvement, Experts Say. | saschameinrath.com, where he republished an essay he had written for GovTech's Digital Communities on-line magazine. More discussion on Sascha's article after the jump. Most media have it wrong. Municipal wireless networks across the United States didn't stumble in 2007 - high-profile cities where deals fell apart, such as Chicago, San Francisco and Houston, were not going to finance, own or operate their respective networks. These weren't municipal networks at all. The business model that faltered in 2007 was the "private corporate franchise" model based on the deal that Philadelphia and EarthLink agreed to in 2006. It was, in fact, the free market that failed last year - not governments in their traditional role as the builders and maintainers of critical infrastructure. OK, so much for misconceptions on what has happened to date. We're really swimming upstream when the popular press continually misrepresents the realities of an admittedly complex and politically-loaded issue. Sascha goes on to suggest that the definition of a topic matters. A more accurate definition of the industry we're in and the networks that are being built is more descriptive too. Jon Peha, associate director of the Center for Wireless and Broadband Networking at Carnegie Mellon University, addresses these problems in his work. "Unfortunately some define municipal networks as a network that serves a city, and some define it as the city government's network, and people argue about exactly what the latter means," Peha said. "I often write about models for a 'wireless metropolitan-area network' (WiMAN), because it is a broader term that carries no ambiguous baggage." I like that, and I feel it approximates the terms I use on this site - "Metropolitan Broadband" and "MetroNets." Esme Vos, founder of MuniWireless.com, lays out a spectrum of ways municipalities can be involved as an anchor tenant; as a subscriber, leasing out or donating city-owned property on which wireless nodes can be mounted, or leasing out or donating backhaul (e.g., fiber access); as an investor or guarantor of a loan; [and] as the owner of the network (e.g., Corpus Christi, Texas, and Burbank, Calif.). At its heart, there's a battle brewing between "free-marketeers" who favor the government taking a hands-off approach to broadband networking, and those in favor of government involvement to help direct efforts at the national, state and local levels. I ran smack into this debate when I espoused the benefits of public ownership and contrasted those with the short-comings of the Anchor Tenancy model, which is currently the most popular candidate to replace the now-discredited Corporate Franchise model based on EarthLink's design of 2005. My post drew a comment from free-marketeer Hal Hayden, who challenged my conclusions and promoted private sector solutions over those of the public sector. Hal's comment made me realize that we can all too easily slip into a false debate of whether A is better than B, when in fact, there are times when A is better, and when B is better. In a sense, we're both right. There's no winning such an argument, not only because its subjective, determined by one's outlook on the world, but also because it's case-specific, determined by the circumstances at hand. The circumstances will determine whether it makes sense for a city to go with an attractive Anchor Tenant offer or to forge ahead to own the network themselves. In practice, the choice between buying a service from a private vendor and buying an infrastructure to own will be decided by city officials on a case-by-case basis. My point about city ownership is that its a valid alternative to anchor tenancy, and should be considered when no good offers are available to buy service as an anchor tenant. Sascha does well to shine the light on how the public and private sectors can intersect to the benefit of all, when he highlights the birth of the Internet and the World Wide Web. He also highlights how fear can slam the brakes on such positive experimentation and collaboration. Like many, King is not against public-private partnerships, but he supports the notion that the core intent of these networks must be the public good and not corporate profits. "This does not mean that the network cannot be utilized by local businesses to turn a profit, nor does it mean that third-party companies can't be contracted to deploy or maintain a network," King said. "But that the network itself provides services in a neutral fashion to all citizens within the network's coverage area (and the city has some obligation to expand that coverage area to all citizens)." In fact, we're all going to call it as we see it, I believe. While I gravitate to "metropolitan broadband" or "metronets" for short, Sascha veers toward "community broadband" or "community wireless," because that favors his worldview. And he's right, to a degree. A community has to be involved in any effort that has community-wide impact, and a network of this type has far-ranging impacts on a community, not the least of which has to do with cost-recovery, which gets entirely too much press in my opinion. And I'm not alone. Ramon Roca founded Guifi.net, a regional wireless network with more than 5,000 wireless nodes covering much of the Catalan region of Spain. Roca sees the traditional municipal wireless model as often leading to failure for similar reasons as we've seen in the United States. "Like in many other countries, we [have seen] many of those initiatives fail for many reasons: hype, overestimating the technology capabilities, etc.," Roca said. "In Spain [there] have been significant, multimillion [euro] failures, as an example, here in Catalonia, 'Flash10' (15,000,000), Zamora Wireless (about 500,000, sponsored by Intel) ... Barcelona Sensefils." What differentiates Guifi.net, which won Spain's 2007 National Telecommunications Award, from many other Spanish wireless endeavors is that it has found a way to coexist with private companies and municipalities. "The municipal projects don't have to be linked to a single contractor operator and should be able to connect to any other network in the neighborhood, and therefore, be 'open' in the sense of 'open network,'" Roca said. "The only solution for doing so is by considering the network as something open and neutral, out of the assets of anyone. A model where everyone [has] ownership of the physical infrastructure, but not the whole network itself." Roca points out that this ownership model, while seemingly a radical notion is "not very much distinct from the original Internet idea itself." For him, the real question is whether Guifi.net is "a singular exception - or can this mutation also occur and be replicated elsewhere?" This post has already gotten too long, so in my next post, I'll follow up with the rest of Sascha's well-written and comprehensive piece, where we'll recap his "Ideas for Better Municipal Networks." Posted on March 26, 2008 at 07:15 AM | Comments (0) OHIP: Ownership Has Its PrivilegesIt seems as if the debate over ownership of metropolitan broadband networks has come full circle over the past three years, at least it has from my perspective. A lot of folks still think that the role of the city is find a private sector company to own a broadband network, if they've gone so far as to consider broadband as a resource to pursue beyond the status quo of buying services from an ISP. I don't cotton to private ownership any longer, if I ever fully embraced that concept. The reason for my change of mind? Acknowledgment of reality. Consider these five points which are the reality of government and society, and the sixth one I've added as a conclusion. 1. Cities and counties have to provide services and they need to communicate and manage growing costs. That's why as individuals and businesses we pay our taxes and why as a society we tolerate being governed, regulated, guided and managed. 2. We need our critical infrastructure to enjoy our civilization. Roads, electricity, gas, water and wastewater and yes, more and more, broadband, are infrastructures vital to both the private and public sectors. Just consider for a moment what life would be like without those infrastructures if you don't believe me. 3. We need critical services to live in some kind of order. Public safety, fire prevention, crisis management, property and health codes, and social services are the stuff of government. For those who rail against regulation, there are plenty of reminders at hand of the role that government must play in keeping society on an even keel, from the recent collapse of the sub-prime mortgage markets, to the realization that our kids have been playing with lead-laced toys from China, to the recall of beef from sick cows that was headed to our nation's schools...we need government. 4. Complexity creeps in with technology, and broadband has become the backbone for the data that enables our infrastructure, our commerce, our management, and all these vital services we depend on. Even for small towns, complexity and growth need to be managed. For those areas in high growth corridors, there's little doubt of the need for a plan to manage growth, because governments have to build out ahead of growth, or face the consequences. That's reality, folks. 5. Risk is not something to be avoided, deferred or to hand off to another party. Risk is something real and ever present because we live in linear time and cannot know the future. Therefore, risk must be managed, and control is key to that equation. Those who deny risk management either live very conservatively by avoiding risk and see opportunities pass them by, or live recklessly by ignoring risk and suffer the consequences when things inevitably go awry. Without a strategy to secure low-cost access to widely available broadband, cities are left with managing in the old way - by adding more staff where and when it's absolutely necessary and by buying services from vendors. These "analog" solutions are from the last century and they are subject to abuse, price increases due to inflation, and the inefficiencies inherent in analog solutions. In short, these are solutions based in Expenses. In contrast, Investment in digital broadband infrastructure produces returns not available from that old way of doing business. Sure, it's more complicated, but for those cities willing to take the Road Less Traveled, spending the time to investigate and embrace a new way of doing business that takes advantage of new technologies and new business models, there will be impressive dividends. And being a leader is about taking bold risks that make sense, in prudent fashion. The compelling advantages of new technologies give us promise that there will be leaders among us. After the jump, we develop the case for ownership of broadband infrastructure. When this little industry first flew out of its nest, the prevailing model was for the city to own its own network (Corpus Christi, Cerritos, etc.). That made sense then, and I think it makes more and more sense now. But in 2005, public ownership came under assault from industry groups who saw a rising competitor in publicly-owned communication networks. They challenged that model and we saw the momentum in Philadelphia turn away from public ownership in the face of that challenge, hearing the siren song of a privately-owned network, perceptively taking the risk away from the city. The argument against city-owned networks ultimately proved to be a legislative loser, but the tide had shifted and the deals that followed were all about "how the private-sector assumes the risk," with EarthLink leading the charge. Philadelphia's muni wireless network is in a holding pattern as it waits to see what EarthLink's proposed sale of the network will mean to its future. Last week, in a interview with local radio station KYW, city Chief Information Officer Terry Phillis discussed the implications of the sale, calling it "by far the best alternative" for the future of the network. He acknowledged that finding an appropriate buyer will be challenging. Phillis said the buyer "would have to have a financial model that would make sense for them" and that a limited number of customers would likely accompany the purchase. He said he has not seen EarthLink marketing its commercial service in Philadelphia "for some time now." Philly muni Wi-Fi sale is city's "best alternative" Well, we know how that story of risk avoidance through private ownership turned out - folks, we've turned the page and finished that chapter titled "Private Sector Owns the Risk." We're on to a new chapter now... Thank Heaven for small favors. But since last August when the EarthLink pull out began, we've pondered the question, "what is to be the title of that next chapter?" The prevailing wisdom has made it look like it was going to be "City as Anchor Tenant" - where the public sector would share the risk with the private sector player...but there's a problem - a big problem - with that alternative...the private companies who want government to share the risk are in fact engaging in a wholesale transfer of risk in practice, when service providers price their services at such a high rate that have most of the risk handed off to their erstwhile public sector partners. But there was more wrong with the new model than met the eye - we're still in a transition, and I'm arguing that Anchor Tenancy under high service contracts is yet another distraction and dead end... Just for a start - why would anyone turn to one of the least risk-friendly partners - namely, public sector elected officials who are subject to press and political scrutiny - to take on so much risk in order to make an acknowledged risky deal work ... hmmmm, I see a few problems with that. Why would a public partner take on that risk of buying services when it comes with so little control? Why rent a couch when you can buy one for a little more? Usually people rent rather than own only if there is a huge price break for renting, if there are other significant advantages (tax-breaks?) or if they are desperate and have no other alternatives (e.g., lack of credit). In point of fact, Anchor Tenancy when examined a little closer has started to resemble a game of Hot Potato - when you get a twice-burned private partner (as many of the entrepreneurs in this sector are), who seeks to lay off most or all of the risk in the deal to the public partner through inflated service fees, they have to look far and wide for a potential public partner desperate enough to take such a deal. I'd argue that's where the slowdown in this industry lies. The current Anchor Tenant business model isn't selling for a reason - it's not a good deal for the cities. All of a sudden, shared risk became assumed risk, but with no control to make the city better able to offset the risk of the deal. Small wonder there have been few takers. It just won't fly for cities to take all the risk via a long-term service contract yet have none of the control on the long-term development of the network that would offset that risk...control and risk need to go together or the deal won't fly. This recent essay from California - Public ownership of broadband access is best - makes the argument for public ownership in a compelling way, saying that if cities don't step up to take ownership and bring in affordable broadband, nobody will (my underlining for emphasis). Too many cities in California are stuck with slow (or no) broadband access. As the United States continues to dip in international broadband rankings, individual communities have a choice: build their own broadband network or hope someone else does it for them. Broadband may be comparatively new, but these difficult questions of infrastructure have been with us for far longer. One hundred years ago, communities were told electricity was too complicated for municipal meddling and they should wait for private companies to electrify them. Thousands of communities realized that a community cannot wait for essential infrastructure. They accepted responsibility for their future and wired their towns. How little has changed since then. California's Broadband Task Force has released its final report, complete with maps showing some 2,000 communities without any access at all. Many more communities are underserved, offered an always-on connection faster than dial-up, but not by much. So far, so good - lots of cities need broadband. But where do the smart guys and girls in California take the cities in their report? Back to the flawed private sector ownership model, it seems. Unfortunately, the Broadband Task Force has chosen the seductive path of dependence on private providers for these networks. Public ownership is a better plan. Broadband networks are here for the long haul, and our dependence on them will only increase. Many citywide wireless networks are privately owned, depending on city government as an anchor tenant. The network requires city money without offering the city any control. Under such circumstances, owning beats renting. The Broadband Task Force clearly views public ownership as a last resort, allowing community services districts to offer broadband only when a private provider refuses. Once the CSD has taken the risk and built a functioning network, it must sell it to an interested private provider. Public ownership should not be a fallback option. The author goes on to hit the nail on the head: infrastructure is an investment that cities are used to making and with ownership they get control and other benefits that lower the risk. The Broadband Task Force's first recommendation should have been to encourage every community to evaluate its needs and assets to determine whether it would be best served by investing in a publicly owned network. Publicly owned networks can be tailored to the present community and upgraded as needs change. Ownership is about self-determination. Modern telecommunications regulations mean owners make decisions. A city cannot compel a private provider to upgrade the network or mandate network neutrality. Residents have little recourse when the sole private broadband provider blocks some applications or network protocols. A number of large private providers have managed their networks in a questionable manner. These companies have one goal. The law requires them to maximize their shareholder value. In contrast, a publicly owned network should maximize social benefit. If it does not, residents can change it. Try getting AT&T to modify its network management policies. So, to recap, we have these benefits from public ownership of broadband infrastructure. 1. An infrastructure tailored to the specific needs of the community. I would add these benefits of public ownership, based on my recent experience in developing a model for the City of San Marcos down here in Central Texas. A. A new focus on efficiency in public government - ongoing cost reductions in operations through a focus on leveraging digital infrastructure to provide greater efficiency. B. A new diverse revenue source for the city that is not based on a tax. How many of those do we see everyday? The excess bandwidth left over after public sector needs have been met can be sold to the residents and businesses of the community, even the current communication providers. That revenue can be used for network upgrades, new applications and equipment, subsidization of disadvantaged population needs (Digital Divide), and economic development, just to name a few potential ways to spend that money. C. Insurance against a potential shortage of broadband capacity in the future. As broadband use becomes more prominent and as high bandwidth uses grow on the Internet, the availability of infrastructure to carry all that network traffic will become more and more important. Investing now in broadband infrastructure is akin to securing water rights to provide a hedge against future price increases and to secure ready access to a vital resource. I'll leave the conclusion to the author of the essay from California, who puts it well. Investing in broadband networks is an important decision that should come after developing a strong business plan that identifies how the network will sustain itself. Successful municipal networks across the country offer many different models and technologies. From western Utah to tiny Vermont, they also offer reliable fast speeds at affordable prices in areas long ignored by private companies. To be clear, publicly owned networks are a boon to many private companies. Local businesses are too often stuck without the fast, affordable access they need. As members of the community, they are important stakeholders in any publicly owned network. A private company can even be contracted to maintain the network, with policies set by the community. Broadband networks have become essential infrastructure. Depending on a private network may be the easier course of action, but gives away too much power. Network owners make decisions; they do not have to beg providers for faster speeds, lower prices or better customer service. In my humble opinion, the title of the next chapter in the unfolding saga of Metropolitan Broadband will not be "City as Anchor Tenant." The next chapter must be titled "Ownership Has Its Privileges." Vive L'Independence! Posted on March 20, 2008 at 07:42 AM | Comments (1) Emergent Change in a Networked WorldAfter last night's Texas Two-Step (the Democratic double-punch of Primary and Caucus), I'm even more convinced that we don't get it as a society, not yet. I participated in my first-ever caucus at Precinct 345, at my kds' former elementary school gym. We waited until 8:30 (polls officially closed at 7:00 pm) to sign our names on lists for our preferred candidates. About 500 of us grown adults separated into two groups on either side of the room, based on our affinity for either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton (my wife was there to counter my vote for Obama with her vote for Hillary!). After last night's election returns, I think that we all have our work cut out for us as we talk about CHANGE. When I lie awake at night, I fear we have little idea of the grip that the Status Quo has on all of us. That's why I've embraced the candidacy of Barack Obama - I feel that US society, so critical to the way that we all live our lives on this planet, has gone way off the rails over the past decade and we need some dramatic change to get back on track. But that's just me - obviously, there are a greater number of Democrats, at least last night, who believe that Hillary Clinton represents sufficient Change, at least as far as the pure numbers in Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island go. Me, I'm not so sure; I think that as talented as Hillary is, as an early Baby Boomer, she still represents evolutionary change and she's still too close to many of the problems we face to represent the solution that we really need. In a way, she's compromised by the very experience that she touts to urge people to vote for her. Whether our society is really ready for the solutions that we really need is another question altogether. I'm afraid it may not be. Not yet. Obama sketched out a different theory of social change than the one Clinton had implied earlier in the evening. Instead of relying on a president who fights for those who feel invisible, Obama, in the climactic passage of his speech, described how change bubbles from the bottom-up: "And because that somebody stood up, a few more stood up. And then a few thousand stood up. And then a few million stood up. And standing up, with courage and clear purpose, they somehow managed to change the world!" For people raised on Jane Jacobs, who emphasized how a spontaneous dynamic order could emerge from thousands of individual decisions, this is a persuasive way of seeing the world. For young people who have grown up on Facebook, YouTube, open-source software and an array of decentralized networks, this is a compelling theory of how change happens. Clinton had sounded like a traditional executive, as someone who gathers the experts, forges a policy, fights the opposition, bears the burdens of power, negotiates the deal and, in crisis, makes the decision at 3 o'clock in the morning. But Obama sounded like a cross between a social activist and a flannel-shirted software C.E.O. - as a non hierarchical, collaborative leader who can inspire autonomous individuals to cooperate for the sake of common concerns.A Defining Moment - New York Times I think the fact that I'm pulling a quote from David Brooks is noteworthy - he's not my favorite columnist, not by a long shot. But still, he makes a good point - we're seeing dramatic changes in our society, coming into focus this election year, and I can't help but conclude that our politics are lagging behind the curve of social and technological change. Brooks captures the idea of Emergence that I've long trumpeted from this podium. Do take time to check out the Steven Johnson book titled Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities, and Software - I think it must be one of the most readable books I've read and re-read over the past five years and it absolutely influences the way I look at the meta concept of Change, with a capital C. (I can't resist a plug here for the Books section on this website for other good reads!) And while you're at it, go ahead and check out the concepts in The Wisdom of Crowds, another key book, this one by James Surowiecki. And one more - not to leave out Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything by Don Tapscott. If you can find the time to sit down and read these three books, I think you'll understand what I'm saying, and by extension, the point that David Brooks is trying to convey, as well as the essence of Obama's campaign - the Change we need today is different than in other election cycles, and it portends a different kind of politics. But whether the change we need is the change the public will accept remains to be seen. OK, no time to sit down and read? Here it is, then, in three sentences (and I welcome comments from you all who maybe can explain these abstract concepts better than I can)... Emergence: In nature and society, change occurs more readily at the individual level and more effective solutions tend to emerge from the bottom up rather than from some wise top-down action that is based on inspired leadership - we ARE the change we crave, we ARE the leaders we seek, we ARE enough. Wisdom: Experiments show that contrary to conventional wisdom a relatively large group of well-informed individuals (100+) consistently makes superior decisions than does a smaller group of experts (10-20 - the dream team of top advisers we are so used to) - in effect, crowds are consistently smarter than the leaders they follow! Go figure! Collaboration: The Internet and the new Wiki software offer a tool to enable disparate individuals to come together and collaborate as never before, raising the potential of more effective social behavior that harnesses group dynamics more effectively and produces dramatically more efficient results - e.g., Wikipedia, a comprehensive, dynamic on-line encyclopedia of world knowledge that costs nothing for the user yet provides good-enough information, consistently - not perfect, but good enough for first-level analysis - if you don't like the definition, change it, and ultimately, the collection of changes combine to make for a better definition, as it finds its harmonic level. So, my conclusion based on my recent experience these past five years and my readings, is as follows: Our American society, and the global society as well, has been impacted by dramatic change, from geo-political change (9/11), from geo-economical change (global outsourcing), from technology change (Internet, Mobility), and from political change (Bush's Imperial Executive) and has yet to come to grips fully with the deeper meaning of all these changes. See for instance my recent ongoing series On Structural Change, starting with this post. We have a lot further to go with this concept of Change, the theme of this year's election. So now, for something a little lighter, here are some truly bizarre world videos that showcase how we really are one planet and one people, and that what happens in America ripples out to the rest of the world, but with widely divergent perspectives than we have here in the USA. First, I give you Barack O'Bollywood (truly bizarre and intoxicating)... Next, we have a Hillary of a different sort, where Hillary's Bust Bewitches with its Sexuality ... seriously...bizarre in an altogether different and not altogether pleasant way ... And on the more conservative side - how can we really expect change from a candidate who would continue the Bush policies, after all??? - here we have Sen. McCain, as viewed from the Middle East: and to wrap it up, here's Sen. McCain's now infamous, warped Beach Boys quote ... ah, Freud really had it down, didn't he? Posted on March 05, 2008 at 06:58 PM | Comments (0) Own, Rent, Rent-to-Own - New OpportunitiesThe "own vs. rent" debate has a long history in computing and telecommunications. In the early days of computing (1960s and 1970s), most small and medium businesses could not afford a mainframe or minicomputer, and opted instead to purchase computing power and enterprise applications through time-share services. This model allowed smaller firms with limited resources to instead take advantage of these capabilities as services. As computing costs fell dramatically and personal computers became available, a new model emerged that allowed much smaller firms to own and operate their computing environment, and the time-share model of computing is now largely a thing of the past. A similar trajectory played out in enterprise telephony, with the centralized hosted Centrex model being supplanted in the 1980s by PBX. Today, with capital expenditures replacing subscription fees, the IP PBX offers greater control, faster delivery of new features, cost savings and richer feature sets. In the context of municipal and industrial wireless networks, there are two primary technological choices: the organization can build, own and operate its own wireless network, typically utilizing unlicensed wireless frequencies at 2.4 GHz and/or 5 GHz or it can rent connectivity for its mobile workers and applications from a cellular carrier for a monthly fee. As performance and feature-richness of "owned" broadband wireless technologies increases, and cost and complexity come down, the case for ownership versus rental becomes stronger and stronger, just as it did with telephony and computing. Build Versus Buy: Why Municipal and Industrial Here's a great analysis of a new opportunity: owning the tool you need to get your job done. We don't often see such dramatic changes in the way we do business. We tend to go along with small incremental changes from year to year, and so it has been when it comes to telecommunications. This field has always involved billions in capital expense so naturally we have always bought services from a large telecom company. But now, there is new technology out there that challenges the base assumption that telecom is so expensive that you have to buy it from a very large company that has the resources to invest in the infrastructure and tools needed to provide connectivity. That's no longer so. As the saying goes, its only once in a blue moon that an opportunity like this comes along, and Tropos founder Narasimha Chari - that's "Chari" for short - lays out the business rationale for ownership clearly and concisely in this well-written OpEd. I worked with Chari in 2005 when I had a consulting engagement with Tropos - as one of the pioneers, he's been hip deep in this industry and he knows what he's talking about. I'd print this article up and keep it in your resource binder. It's that good! Posted on February 26, 2008 at 10:09 AM | Comments (0) Infrastructure, Again ... let's start spelling it with a small "i" - iNFRASTRUCTURENearly seven months after a highway bridge collapsed in Minneapolis, a federal commission put a jaw-dropping price tag on starting to attend to America's crumbling foundations: $225 billion a year for the next 50 years just to maintain and upgrade surface transportation. That report, like the bridge collapse, should have sparked a serious policy debate everywhere people rely on bridges, roads and transit systems - which is everywhere. It hasn't, and that makes taking on this critical work of national repair even tougher. Of the presidential candidates, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama have plans for repairing the nation's crumbling infrastructure - but no persuasive explanation for how they would pay for it. Mr. Obama would use money saved from ending the Iraq war; Mrs. Clinton would apply savings from more efficient government. Before Another Bridge Falls - New York Times Infrastructure, infrastructure, infrastructure ... generations ago, the word "infrastructure" represented making real progress into the future. Candidates embraced the issue as a positive to help them get elected. Now they run away from it - it's like a houseguest that won't leave - it seems as if they find it irritating, in a word. "Why won't the issue just go away?" they seem to say. By now we should all realize that no amount of ignoring this problem will make it go away. Ignoring infrastructure just makes the situation worse. Whenever a problem appears insurmountable, I believe it's wise to go back and reconsider the underlying assumptions that make it so. Some infrastructure problems won't go away, but other aspects can be reconsidered, such as the need to build more and more roads. Why not move ideas instead of people? Why not address the peak periods and live within our current infrastructure boundaries? We will still need to maintain, but we may be able to avoid upgrading and building ever bigger infrastructures if we focus instead on developing broadband infrastructure and changing the way we manage the flow of people and ideas. The federal panel called for paying for a large part of the bill with an increase in the federal gas tax of 25 cents to 40 cents over five years. So far no candidate has had the courage to suggest that. The next president will have to show a lot more leadership if there is any hope of reversing the damage from decades of underfunding and inattention. Washington invests less than $90 billion a year on surface transportation. That means states and cities have to pick up more of the burden, and more expensive projects go unfunded. Ensuring safe and dependable roads, bridges and transportation systems, as well as water systems, sewage treatment plants, dams and even schools also requires long-term planning. Unfortunately most politicians prefer quick fixes. Representative Earl Blumenauer, Democrat of Oregon, has been pushing for a real national infrastructure plan, and he has a good hook. He reminds anyone who will listen that President Thomas Jefferson's administration wrote America's first national development plan - calling for building roads and canals - in 1808. In 1908, President Theodore Roosevelt charted a second plan, which foresaw the need to invest in electrical generation. Another hundred years later, the country is overdue for a new plan, one fitted for the times. In addition to repairing roads and power grids, it will have to encourage the development of alternative energy and find ways to secure critical sites against potential acts of terrorism. As this discussion gets underway, I urge you to encourage your local, state, and federal government representatives to look long and hard at new ways of doing things, including making investments in broadband infrastructure and finding ways to work with private sector players who would also invest in broadband infrastructure. Posted on February 26, 2008 at 08:40 AM | Comments (0) Cities (at least for now) You're On Your Own
Tonight, Clinton and Obama will debate in Ohio, with one week to go before the March 4 primaries. Will they talk about urban policy? Will they talk about the role cities have to play in making broadband widely available? I wouldn't hold your breath. This NY Times editorial from last week underscores the challenge we face in the US - cities are the most common experience we have of living our daily lives, but they can't do it all. Mayors and city councils truly are on the front lines of policy that impacts most citizens, but their cities need help from state and federal governments, just like ground troops need air support. Continue to neglect infrastructure, and face the prospect of more Katrina-like disasters where large numbers of people live or more collapsed bridges that carry thousands of commuters, as happened last summer in Minneapolis. ... Keep encouraging fossil-fueled transportation, and cities will choke on gridlock, and so will businesses and jobs. It's not like there is no leadership on these issues, it's just not coming from Washington or the presidential candidates. In fact, they might take note with some concern that the national leader on handgun control and a range of other urban issues - from environment to public health - is Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York, who has presidential aspirations of his own. Of course, that is just one city, and it does not change the sad truth that states and cities have been forced to assume more fiscal obligations from Washington while getting fewer of their citizens' tax dollars. There can be no substitute for national leadership. The president must provide it, and Americans deserve to know how the candidates would step up to the challenge. Posted on February 26, 2008 at 08:32 AM | Comments (0) NPR on FCC, With a Focus on Kevin MartinI listened to this news article on NPR this afternoon regarding FCC Chairman Kevin Martin's Contentious Turn at Helm of FCC. For the casual observer, I recommend checking out this link and listening to the article - this is the first in a series of articles on the FCC. If the rest are as good as this one, it should be a good series. Posted on February 05, 2008 at 08:17 PM | Comments (0) Succinct and To the PointIn networks where cities have a financial commitment to build the network or to buy services, these networks are generally being built. The economics of large-city Wi-Fi was distorted by EarthLink's upfront willingness, then echoed by other providers, to build networks at no cost to cities with no commitment to purchase services. NPR on Philadelphia's Wi-Fi Situation Works for me. Glenn Fleishman does a good job of telling it like it is when it comes to metropolitan broadband. Given how different cities are, I'm not altogether sure why so many commenters seem intent on divining patterns from past history. Seems we should look at individual projects on their merits, given the youth of this industry and the relative novelty of the technologies involved. I'm reminded of the concept of "Skin in the Game." Posted on February 02, 2008 at 09:25 PM | Comments (0) Gaze into the Crystal Ball to See the Future of Broadband
Last fall, I participated in an on-line industry survey regarding the future of broadband, sponsored by Telco 2.0. They've processed the results of the survey and produced this Top Ten list - Ten things you need to know about the future of broadband. While the list can get pretty dense - I copied the list after the jump - I think it's worth taking a look at what 800 industry insiders feel the broadband world will look like in the future and thinking deeply on how you feel about these statements. Does this worldview align with your own? Take a moment to gaze into this crystal ball then and see what you think.... 1. Telecoms is a logistics business for valuable data. It's about providing personalized delivery of that data, and removing the customs barriers (such as network provisioning, authentication) to that delivery. This is much more complex (and profitable) than being a dumb pipe, but doesn't mean being an applications or media business (which telcos are notoriously bad at). Posted on January 30, 2008 at 09:55 AM | Comments (0) Two Sites to BookmarkBefore we get into this, I recommend that you click these links and bookmark them, then come back for a brief discussion on why...The Institute for Local Self-Reliance and Intelligent Community Forum. There, got that little bit of work out of the way. Here's why these two sites are worth keeping an eye on. If anything has become apparent over the past year in this new metropolitan broadband industry, it is that cities cannot simply pass off the risk of broadband investment to an outside third-party and get a free ride. And anyone who has been paying attention is onto the fact that broadband will play an ever more important role in a city's affairs over the coming years. So, with those two trends in mind, one has to ask: "How will cities ensure that they have access to the necessary infrastructure to not only survive, but thrive in the coming world that relies on connectivity?" One way will be to hope that private sector companies take care of you. Call this the Hope and a Prayer method of city planning. This is the current defacto standard when it comes to metropolitan connectivity, I'm afraid to say. The alternate route is to become much more sophisticated and knowledgeable about your options and to take matters into your own hands, while moving prudently to avoid unnecessary risk. I call this the Reality-based method of city planning. And if you're part of that school, then you'll want to stay abreast of what the leading cities are doing - via the ICF link. And you'll want to dig down into the details of ownership and self-reliance, via the ILSR link. A great way to get a crash course on the benefits of city-owned networks is to review these Ten Myths About A Publicly Owned Information Network in Minneapolis, and the Facts, which shine a light on the City of Minneapolis experience. For a broader view, check out the recent white paper titled Municipal Broadband: Demystifying Wireless and Fiber-Optic Options. You can get that by browsing the ILSR website or by clicking here (you'll need to register! - easy to do). Some choice excerpts from that white paper below. Newspaper headlines trumpeting the death of municipal wireless networks ignore the increasing investments by cities in Wi-Fi systems. At the same time, the wireless focus by others diverts resources and action away from building the necessary long term foundation for high speed information: fiber optic networks. DSL and cable networks cannot offer the speeds required by a city wishing to compete in the digital economy. Business, government, and citizens all need affordable and fast access to information networks. Today’s decisions will lay the foundation of telecommunications infrastructure for decades. Fortunately, we already know the solution: wireless solves the mobility problem; fiber solves the speed and capacity problems; and public ownership offers a network built to benefit the community. As I've said here on this site many times in the recent past, the future of broadband is about Both Mobility and Capacity. See especially On the Cutting Edge - City Broadband on Steroids from September 2007. Though some have invested in wireless because it is more affordable in the short term, communities should think carefully about their long term needs and what serves them best. Fiber is the future. The question is not whether businesses and homes will eventually be connected; the question is who will own the connection. The network owner decides whose needs to meet: the community or shareholders. Communities have a historic opportunity to guarantee their relevance in an increasingly digital future. Some see publicly owned networks as an economic development strategy whereas others focus on attracting a creative class of citizens. Some are fearful of a pandemic and are ensuring the economy can function with remote workers. Ultimately, these communities have recognized their connectivity is too important to leave to massive phone and cable companies who are legally bound to respond to shareholders first and foremost. In my mind, cities that find a way to make owning a wireless broadband network a feasible public investment are on the right track. They first need to make their case and get their community behind a such an initial effort. Educating citizens and building political momentum will be necessary to create a broad-based effort to support a longer-term, much-more-expensive decision on city-owned fiber. In this way of thinking, Wireless becomes Phase One, which generates excitement, raises awareness, and creates energy. Fiber is Phase Two. Both will be required elements for cities that want to be competitive and want to stand out from the pack - cities that want to be Intelligent Communities, that is. So why not start with the easiest step (relatively speaking, of course!) and build momentum behind the much harder step? While some cities start out with fiber, I think they are the exceptions to the rule. I'd recommend starting with wireless, but making it plain that fiber will need to follow. For more on public ownership and Open Access, more from a how-to perspective, see these recent posts: Making Open Access a Reality and Open Access Diagram. Posted on January 29, 2008 at 09:46 AM | Comments (0) Assembling a Jigsaw Puzzle, No Instructions or Batteries IncludedJanuary 17 is a special day in the Cooper household. Our son Wesley turns 12 today, so there was a small pile of cards and gifts at his place on the kitchen table this morning. I've noticed that the gifts are fewer as he gets older, but more costly. Gone are the toys with batteries. No electronics this year, but that's just because we couldn't find Wii Guitar Hero III in the stores, so he got a picture of one instead, with a promise to go shopping. Birthdays always give me pause to reflect, and I told the kids on the way to school this morning about Wesley's "birth"day, back in 1996. It seems like more than 12 years ago. Happy Birthday Wesley! The other day, a friend of mine lost his job - Ron Sege, as CEO of Tropos, was one of the pioneers with a vision worth listening to - Ron was replaced last week by the board of Tropos, as they struggle to find a direction. I had a contract with Tropos in 2005, and that seems like more than 3 years ago... Ron's departure and Tropos' struggle for identity is emblematic of a greater turning point in this industry. The metropolitan broadband industry has changed irrevocably and now it's trying to figure out what it will become, as are many other struggling companies in this industry. And cities are scratching their collective heads as well. The panacea of a very low cost / very low risk deal for a city has been taken off the table, and that's a depressing thought for many, but it's reality. This change has been apparent for some time among those who follow this industry closely, and we've written extensively on this subject on this website, with special focus starting in August when EarthLink dropped its bombshell on the rest of us, and into September as the analysis continued. The quick summary is available in a September 6, 2007 post titled Reader's Digest Condensed Version. We've been dealing with the fall out since and sorting through the rubble. But is that all bad? Not when you consider that it's hard to see clearly when inside a smoky room. That's what having a "free" option lurking about was like. It was a tremendous distraction. Removing that option has been like a breath of fresh air coming in, like a strong wind that blew away the smoke and let us all see reality for what it was. We have a new set of technologies that have the potential to become a new set of tools for cities and the citizens they serve. Right now, I have a weight bench sitting out on the back deck, Wesley's new birthday present. Well, to be more accurate, we have a pile of parts that will one day be a bench, we still have a task ahead of us to put the bench together over the next week. But because of the instructions, we have a very manageable task. That's a goal we're trying to get to in this industry - a repeatable and predictable process with a set of instructions. We're getting closer and closer, and that's where an experienced consultant comes in handy - this is hard for a city to do on its own, even if they had those mythical instructions.
In new wireless technology, we have a set of parts that if put together creatively, offer a solution for many of the problems facing cities. The difference is that my son's weight bench came in a box with a set of instructions, but these new technologies don't. Lacking a set of instructions and assembled parts in a kit, many fail to see how these disparate parts can be put together into something that represents a solution. Few of us in this industry even perceive the way forward. Many believe that the Anchor Tenant model is the key, where cities will sign a long-term service contract to take on the risk of a project, so that a private company will build, own and operate a network - I think that's a dead end, because it's still too expensive, which makes cost recovery, the primary concern of conservative city leaders, very risky indeed. In a word, that's one tough sell.
Up to now, lacking an instruction manual, the task has really been more like putting together that jigsaw puzzle that some of us pull off the top shelf of the bedroom closet at Christmas time - it gives us something to do with all those extra hours and extra house guests. We go through a familiar pattern when we put together a jigsaw puzzle, at least in my house we do. 1. Inventory of status quo. Turn over all the pieces so we can see what we have. Solving any problem becomes easier with a methodology as described above. I went back and found this list from two years ago - see And one of the very first posts on this site talks about planning resources. In my next post, I'll describe how a set of instructions could be devised to make metropolitan broadband work. Posted on January 17, 2008 at 09:18 AM | Comments (1) Trains on Tracks v. Cars on Highways: Closed v. OpenA long, long time ago, the national railroad system would pass for High Technology. Railroads were king. In time, regulatory agencies were formed by governments to control the market power of these monopolies. Location of tracks meant everything - towns that were passed up saw commercial potential wither. When the new technologies of the Automobile Age came along, startups formed to work out the kinks. But as the industry matured, companies multiplied, and startups turned into major employers, things changed. The Model T became a transportation option for the masses, and the owners and drivers of all those cars and soon, all those trucks, demanded ever better paved roads and highways. Slowly but surely, the open system of cars & highways began to replace the closed system of trains and tracks as the preferred human transportation model, except in dense corridors, where commuter trains persist today. But railroads continued to be an option for moving freight cheaply, even as the trucking industry rose up. Multimodal transportation evolved and these closed and open systems found ways to coexist, sometimes because of government efforts and controls, but often despite government management. Our history of physical transportation of atoms and molecules in our rail and road networks has lessons to teach us if we will listen. When we look at information transportation of bits and bytes in our telecommunication systems, we should think about how things transpired with transportation systems. When it came to making decisions on transporting physical material, whether in the form of raw commodities, manufactured products in boxes or real-live human beings, those deciding took advantage of multiple options that made the most sense for their priorities - choice was good. Ships and airplanes today complete the system, offering tremendous flexibility for businesses and consumers. We see this choice as a natural, and wouldn't have it any other way. But when it comes to telecommunications, it's as if our brains have been put on hold. Information material in the form of information bits, voice bits, or video bits is still treated as if it must flow over the closed networks of the big telecom provider, on their terms and conditions. (Not to leave Big Cable and Big Football out, in a true, Open System, I don't think that I would have missed watching the Green Bay Packers and the Dallas Cowboys, the way I missed them this week.) The prevailing sentiment and conventional wisdom still assumes that the large closed networks of Big Telecom and Big Wireless, often one and the same - collectively, the "railroads" of today - are the only options that matter. The bottom line for me is this: We have a collective lack of imagination when it comes to broadband, IP applications, and digital content. We're stuck with Old World thinking in a New World. Still, for the most part, those who trumpet Verizon, AT&T, and the rest may be right, at least for now, that is. Alternatives to conventional broadband are still so new and so small as to get little attention. The winds of change are in the air, however, and the potential of Open Networks, like water on a stone, is having an inexorable effect on the Status Quo. Steeped in the Gospel of Open Networks that drives the Internet, Google has set its calculating eye on telecommunications, specifically, .the upcoming FCC 700 MHz spectrum auction in February. It's big news this week, then, the recent steps that Verizon took to allow handset makers to interface in new ways with their network. Is this a legitimate start of a trend to open up their network? Don't know that, but apparently it's big enough news to get an editorial mention in the New York Times. There is a deep common sense behind the openness that is being forced on the world of mobile technology providers. If nothing else, it unleashes the twin powers of consumer choice and consumer desire. It gets carriers out of the business of telling us what tools we should want on our cellphones, and it frees cellphone manufacturers from the restrictions placed upon them by the carriers. The logical end of mobile openness is a set of shared, even convergent standards that may mean faster communication for consumers using any phone, any software, and any carrier. And that is where the real revolution in mobile computing will begin. A Cellular Sea Change But the potential of the Open Network still has a long way to go to impress those who control large telecommunication companies. It took a lot to get Verizon to this step, most especially, an FCC listening to some of the arguments of Google. Note the language in the editorial above, "openness that is being forced on the world of mobile technology providers." Like the Times, I'm not convinced that their heart is really in it, not yet. Just look at what it took to get them to go this far, and also see how their less progressive cousin, ATT, views such moves. Neither was Stephenson [AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson] willing to give ground when asked about Verizon Wireless's recently announced plans to open its network, divorcing the handset from any particular service. (See Verizon Tears Down the 'Walled Garden' .) "I thought it was overblown," he said of the reaction to Verizon's announcement. "The industry's headed that way, right? The wire line network, over time, became open-access." Stephenson noted during the talk that open networks would emerge if the market demanded it - but later refused to acknowledge Verizon's move as evidence that the market was demanding anything. After the talk, he told Light Reading that AT&T hasn't seen any demand for an arrangement like Verizon's. In fact, AT&T's network is as "open" as they come, Stephenson claimed. "You can take a Nokia Corp. phone and connect it to our network, just put in your own SIM [subscriber identity module] card. We don't see customers do that. They want the phone subsidized." Applications for AT&T's wireless network can be written in Java, he added, citing that as further evidence of the network's openness. Stephenson likewise downplayed Google's Android platform, which aims to provide an open-source operating system and development environment for mobile devices. (See Google Makes Mobile Move, Google: Android's Not Evil, and Analysts: Google Plans Lack Substance.) "Here are all these people that make large, carrier-class operating systems. And here's a new entrant who's never built a carrier-class operating system." Still, he said, AT&T will consider using Android if customers demand it. AT&T Parties Like It's 1999 While I have no crystal ball, I suspect that bigger changes are underway than we can even imagine right now. For instance, when I hear AT&T's Stephenson deny the significant changes we all see happening, using words like "carrier class," I can't help but hear the dismissive tone of the railroad titans of 100 years ago, as they derided the potential of the rickety Model Ts when compared to their mighty locomotives. The upcoming 700 MHz spectrum auction has brought pressure to bear on the nation's communication ecosystem, pressure I think that neither the FCC, AT&T nor Verizon quite anticipated. We'll know in early February whether Google's impact will extend beyond this current phase as the owner of new spectrum, or if their primary impact will have been to bring in pressure from the outside to force change, at least temporarily. Only time will tell how long established firms like AT&T can hold on to what they have; they have so much going for them nowadays. But the evolution of physical transportation showed us that Open has advantages that Closed lacks, and also, that Open and Closed can ultimately coexist in an efficient system. It need not be a choice of Either/Or, but more, a question of ever greater choices and lower costs. For all that history shows us, why should we continue to deny the potential in change? If we had the same attitude back then about the Open Network of automobiles and roads that we have today about a possible Open Network made up of alternatives to phones and telecom networks, I'd be rushing out the door right now to run to the station, because I had a train to catch and I had to keep to their schedule, rather than getting in my car and driving away, whenever and wherever I damn well please.... Please tell me what makes Telecommunications so different from Transportation? Other than the fact that we have very powerful telecom companies who slow change down, that is, to maintain their control until they are forced to accept change, bit by bit... Posted on December 01, 2007 at 12:48 PM | Comments (0) Pearls of Wisdom make up a Broadband NecklaceIf I could summarize and pull out the Pearls of Wisdom that fell out from my conversations yesterday, they would make up a string that looked something like this. You'll find some original thought in this list, some retreads. Interesting conversations happen not only with other industry insiders comparing notes, but also with smart people outside the industry looking in. 1. For Alternate Broadband to succeed and thrive, we'll need creative solutions to at least these three issues (deals that lack a solution to any one of these three issues have a high fatality index - some may make it, but most will not): 2. Technology Change is moving faster than Cultural Adaptation. On the one hand, some technology is entering a mature phase, which means that costs are coming down and acceptance is hitting the mainstream (e.g., desktops, storage, cellular voice). On the other hand, the introduction of innovative new technology continues to occur more rapidly than the mainstream culture is able to adapt, so that we see are pockets of early adopters and large areas of slower adoption. What's more, societal institutions, such as laws and mores, will need to adapt to these changes, in some cases, but in other cases, it is the technology itself that will need to adapt. Either way, such adaptation takes time and it's ugly as it happens. On the one hand, more patience is needed, on the other hand, some parties need a kick in the pants. As much as we want things to move faster, the future will take a while to happen, and that's probably for the best (but once it starts to really take hold, watch out, rapid adoption is likely). 3. Opportunity abounds, even as risk remains high. There are ever more opportunities to accommodate these changes, and there is another Google lurking in the wings - some companies will solve these riddles. The challenge for investors is in discerning which particular idea has legs. Areas to watch include: 4. We need less hype, more reality. The market has been too harsh and impatient on the new Alternate Broadband industry, whipsawing it in both directions. While riding the Gartner Hype cycle up, it has raised expectations beyond the capability to deliver. When the slide to the trough happened, it dashed hopes beyond reason. Alternate Broadband, from Wi Fi Mesh to WiMAX to BPL, has been neither as good as described, nor as bad as feared. 5. Four Different Story Lines are emerging, use these to connect with others when discussing Alternate Broadband 6. Four Alternate Broadband Business Models hold particular promise; combining two or more into one project compounds the benefits. As in any new endeavor, but especially in a private-sector competitive market, the smart and the quick end up capturing most of the lessons learned sooner and are thus able to gain early market share advantage. Whether they are then able to sustain their early success and grow into the large and the powerful before they get swallowed up by the bigger fish is one thing that makes these new markets so exciting. Posted on November 29, 2007 at 04:29 PM | Comments (0) Two Great Conversations Highlight All That is Good Right NowI'm a lucky guy. I have a great family and great friends. I still have my health, more or less. I manage to keep the lights on and the bills paid, so far. I spend my time deeply involved in a fundamentally important industry in a time of great change and opportunity, and have a good shot at making a difference in life. I have a Passion that drives me forward and energizes my life. And, I get to live in a beautiful spot on the planet, in an open society, within a dynamic and vibrant community. I love living in Austin, the only place I want to be in Texas, which has to be one of the best states in these United States, which is still despite all its many warts and current problems, a country that is a beacon of hope for the world. And from everything I've read about what we know today, in this unimaginably large Universe with billions of galaxies and untold solar systems and planets, the Earth is pretty unique as planets go in its ability to support intelligent life. Whether through some kind of great accident, twist of fate, or Grand Plan, looked at this way, we're all pretty damn lucky, I guess. I hope by now that you're not thinking I'm secretly BiPolar, and this happens to be one of my Good Days...it is, but that's not because I'm bipolar ... in fact, yesterday was one of those better days that highlight all that is good in my life, and I can only hope I have many more days like that ahead of me, because I know there will be plenty more of the other kind that will challenge my patience and will. I woke up this morning reflecting on two really good conversations I had yesterday, with two friends I hadn't spent time with for quite a while. And just the week prior I had a great lunch with another friend I had known since 1970, home for the Thanksgiving holiday. And I'm starting to get the emails and invitations of the season, which promise to reconnect me with many more friends and relatives whom I see all to rarely. So, let the holidays begin, a time when we reconnect with old friends, in breakfast meetings, lunches, Happy Hours, dinner and Holiday parties, office receptions - let's all celebrate our connectedness and the richness of our lives! I'll have to dive down on those conversations in a second post, but for the record, I met my friend Eric Rothfus for lunch yesterday. Eric's one of the more fascinating guys I know - a successful serial entrepreneur, venture capitalist, MIT grad, electronic engineer, vintage computer collector, and fellow Cub Scout dad. Given my Liberal Arts approach to life, Eric and I are in a sense two sides of a coin, which makes for stimulating conversation. Not long after lunch, I had a phone call with Greg Richardson, founder of Civitium, a principal consulting agency and driver of the nascent Municipal Wireless industry. Greg and I hadn't spoken in a while, and he and I always have good conversations comparing notes on how far this Alternate Broadband world has come. Greg's insights on the current events of the past several months are without equal. Sharing thoughts on where the world is going and having an opportunity to help shape Change and Progress are what energizes me. Yesterday's conversations highlighted for me that there is still so much work to be done, yet so much potential in where we are today regarding technology and cultural change. I've been tremendously influenced in my life by the thoughts and writings of Joseph Campbell, a professor of comparative religion who spent his life mapping the world's myths and integrating Eastern and Western philosophies - Campbell's interviews with Bill Moyers, captured in the PBS videotape series The Power of Myth in the 1980s, are a must-watch, I recommend them. His classic The Hero with a Thousand Faces inspired George Lucas' Star Wars saga, enjoyed by billions on the planet, in no small part because the storylines of Anakin and Luke, the Empire and the Rebellion, track great themes in world literature. The universal Hero Myth that Campbell documented and studied is the foundation for the best storytelling in Hollywood screenplays. Campbell's principal admonition to his students throughout his career was to "Follow Your Bliss," pithy advice that's easier said than done. Still, if you make the pursuit of passion and fulfillment your guiding light in life, you're guaranteed both a challenging and fulfilling life. It's The Road Less Traveled, tough going, but worth the work in the end. I've come to realize in the past five years that my life Bliss is helping the world better understand Community, and building strong and healthy communities starts and ends with good Communication. Most of what energizes me, from my participation in a small Episcopal church community, from my leadership in Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts, from my membership in my kid's school communities, and in my daily work with city leaders and communication specialists, has to do with making communities work better, and there's no end in the improvements possible in this area. Most communities are dysfunctional in one way or another, and because they're living and breathing entities, they're dynamic, fluctuating in their levels of optimization, in need of constant fine tuning, maintenance, and care. Seen in this context, Broadband is about much more than the Triple Play - Voice, Video, and Internet Access - much more than cheap phone calls, abundant entertainment options, or even surfing the Web and getting access to emails more conveniently. Broadband is becoming the connector that makes our lives worthwhile. I'd summarize it thusly: Broadband is the foundational infrastructure that enables communities to function in today's world, and life in community is the only life worth living. In my view, the broadband network - today's Internet - is like the electricity grid. It has become a fundamental requirement for the civilized society we live in. Think that's an overstatement? Just imagine a world without the ready access to Energy and Information that we currently enjoy. Many parts of the world lack both ready access to electricity and information, living their lives daily, both literally and figuratively, in the dark. I can think of no more fulfilling life than working to extend the broadband network as far and wide as the electric network has reached. In fact, when you think of it, that goal is too limiting. We can and will push out the information network farther than the electric network, because wireless technology will let us put access to information everywhere that a person can walk while carrying a mobile device. We can't do that with the electric network, although batteries are the substitute, I guess. And when much of that information we access has to do with connecting to our communities and making them more effective, then that is a very exciting prospect indeed! This is the beginning of an extended Holiday Greeting to you, my reading community. I don't know you, but I feel connected to you, and I appreciate your continued readership. Posted on November 29, 2007 at 08:56 AM | Comments (0) Ahem ... The Word is "ExaFlood"A flood of new video and other Web content could overwhelm the Internet by 2010 unless backbone providers invest up to $137 billion in new capacity, more than double what service providers plan to invest, according to the study, by Nemertes Research Group, an independent analysis firm. In North America alone, backbone investments of $42 billion to $55 billion will be needed in the next three to five years to keep up with demand, Nemertes said. The study is the first to "apply Moore's Law (or something very like it) to the pace of application innovation on the 'Net,"the study says. "Our findings indicate that although core fiber and switching/routing resources will scale nicely to support virtually any conceivable user demand, Internet access infrastructure, specifically in North America, will likely cease to be adequate for supporting demand within the next three to five years." Internet Could Max Out in 2 Years, Study Says For more on the potential inadequacy of the Internet as bandwidth-hogging applications proliferate, see my sort-of recent post EXAmine This: A Growing Gap in Capacity Demand and Bandwidth Supply? Posted on November 28, 2007 at 02:57 PM | Comments (0) More from the "You Get What You Pay For" FileSometimes when I start a post, there are more titles that come to mind than insightful analysis. A sampling of aternate titles for this post that came to mind: Anyone Who Is Surprised, Please Raise Your Hand The Other Shoe Falls So, after more analysis, EarthLink has decided to turn the faucet all the way off. What does this mean for the rest of us? Not much, I think. It's like the impact of news on stock prices - we already devalued EarthLink's impact on this industry, some of us as long ago as this spring. We wrote an awful lot about EarthLink's first major announcement of pull back in August (peruse the Archives for the second half of August and the early part of September). More interesting developments will be in smaller towns, like San Marcos, where we have an active positive process underway, focused on municipal applications, Digital Divide, Economic Development and a Win/Win Public/Private Partnership. (See San Marcos Texas Progress Report) More interesting developments will be in regional coordination, like in Orange County, where the county and the business council will analyze wireless broadband and host a summit to encourage integration and interoperability, where we have an approach best characterized as Regional Coordination, Local Control. (See SCAG Wireless: Wireless Broadband Reigns in Southern California) This is not to say that the aftermath of EarthLink will not be interesting and educational, but less I hope, for the morbid fascination of watching a good company go down for the count, and more to highlight that the industry is moving in a new direction and to offer lessons for interested public and private sector players. Because, they have a lot to soak up, as we move Alternate Broadband in a new direction, as I discussed in a post last month (See Phoenix MetroNets, Rising from the Ashes). For more detail on this latest news, see some of these articles I especially recommend Greg Richardson's analysis at his corporate blog (See Breaking up is hard to do - good title, Greg!). Greg has been perhaps the most intimately involved with some of these big city wireless deals that are likely to be the most affected by the recent actions of EarthLink, so his analysis carries a lot of weight. Note the common thread in these analyses. Stay tuned, stay informed, Raise Your Network IQ, Feed Your Head. Avoid the mainstream press and surface analysis, which is often more misleading and confusing than it is informative. More to follow. Posted on November 20, 2007 at 09:25 AM | Comments (0) Government as a Layer CakeYou're born, you take shit. Just as an aside, this is one of those movies you'll want to watch two or three times. I watched it first on DVD and could only make out about half the dialogue, so strong were the Cockney accents. I watched it a second time with the subtitles on - I kid you not! - and finally understood the plot, then immediately watched it again to get the full effect, this time with subtitles off. The movie's loaded with foul language and violence - I think that's what they call realistic in the drug gangster environment - but it introduced me to Daniel Craig, the latest James Bond, and it was a compelling story. It also introduced me to a concept called the Layer Cake, brutally described above. This Gangster Layer Cake involves power over others ("taking shit") and in some senses, the parallel is there when we move through the layers of the Government Layer Cake (note to self - resist comparing politicians to gangsters...) If we use accessibility as the means to compare layers of government, then the farther up the layers you go, the less accessible your government representatives are. Talked to your Congressman, Senator, or President lately? No? But odds are, if you really wanted to and you lived in a town that was small enough, you could get a meeting with your mayor or council member. Yesterday morning, I made some bold proclamations in one of my more strident posts in recent memory (Time to Challenge Some Bad Thinking about the Role of Government). I guess I woke up with an attitude. Here is the bolded list from that post: * Government is not THEY, it is US. Clearly, such general statements are not enough, not by a long shot...they beg questions and responses like - Government exists at a variety of levels (layers in a cake), so before we start talking about the Role of Government in broadband infrastructure, we should at least define which government, which layer we're talking about. There's a different level of interface, a different role to play, and a different strategy for interfacing with each layer. Each layer generally has an executive and a deliberative body.
1. At the bottom, easiest-to-get-to layer is Local Government, mayors and city councils. I guess the first question is "Does Government have a role to play, at any level?" While others may choose a debate on this question, I'll forge ahead and say "Yes, of course." But the challenge that follows is "If so, then what role can Government play, and what role should each layer play?" This analysis will take some time, so I'm going to close this post and revisit this topic soon, to compare the layers of government and investigate such aspects as: Your thoughts? Posted on November 17, 2007 at 09:32 AM | Comments (0) I Know You Are, But What Am I?[Alvy and Annie are seeing their therapists at the same time on a split screen] "We all look at the world differently." Was there ever a more significant statement? Don't believe me? You must be very, very young, never married, never had children, etc... Although this is such a foundational Truth about the human experience, we still often slide right by it and expect others to see the world as we do. We're surprised when they don't. We're all somewhat egocentric, I think. It's natural. Convinced of our own perspective, we have a tendency to dismiss those with different views ... they're wrong, they're idiots, they're evil. It takes an effort to put oneself in another's shoes. This phenomenon is so universal. We even see it played out in recent events regarding broadband policy. The US Appeals Court recently affirmed an FCC decision from two years ago that placed internet access as an information service, outside traditional telecom regulation. (Dip into the MetroNetIQ archives here). Check out the reporting on this legal decision. MuniWireless - U.S. Appeals Court affirms the broadband duopoly says it all in the title, where their viewpoint is that "It's Nearly All Over But the Crying - the stinking incumbents win .... again." The writer expresses frustration that is based in the lack of political power. These two articles are a little less editorial, but draw similar conclusions. The Register: Appeals court rubber stamps FCC's DSL (de)regulation and Multichannel News: Telcos Don't Have to Share. The latter is a Cable Industry publication, so it carries a certain slant. We have a tremendous problem here in the United States, because such highly entrenched positions on these telecom and internet issues lead many to feel that we lack fair government oversight of a critical industry. The opposing stakeholder groups have dramatically different world views, which leads them to see the same event through a very different set of lenses. Why do they think this? Because there's a consistency in government action that confirms a decided preference for evolving from the status quo. Sure the formal regulatory, legislative, and legal processes provide for input, but the decisions and actions of government describe a pattern, so as to make predicting the next decisions fairly reliable - they rarely diverge from a script that has the incumbent telecom and cable broadband providers enjoying ever more lax oversight and regulation, in the hopes that they will build a 21st century broadband infrastructure. Things are likely to keep going down this path, nothing is imminent to make anyone doubt that. But for those of us on the short end of the stick, it's difficult to look at the results of this policy and see this method producing the desired results. It seems we all have two paths to pursue in the face of such differences - either one or more parties seek to beat out those whose opinions and perspective differ from their own, to prove their point to a government regulator or lawmaker, and so gain a WIN. Or, the parties can choose to find a way to accommodate differences and find a middle path that will work for both sides. But without government leadership, the second path is not chosen. Guess which path we're currently on... Stephen Covey in his Seven Habits of Highly Effective People describes this common scenario, showing how "Seeking a Win/Win Solution," Habit No. 5, is consistently more effective at fostering interdependence than is the much more common Win/Lose approach. In fact, he argues that the unanticipated, but far more common outcome of parties seeking a Win in a Win/Lose scenario is in fact, Lose/Lose. And that's where we find ourselves today when it comes to broadband policy - the whole nation loses because of the acceptance of a Win/Lose paradigm as our foundational condition for the discussion at present. Being stuck in the Win/Lose paradigm fosters conflict and leads us to expend a tremendous amount of resources in supporting hard positions against an opposition. Cooperation matters when it comes to broadband policy because as long as we're all looking at the same situation and drawing dramatically different conclusions, we speak different languages, we don't understand one another, and in the end, we'll have an incredibly hard time finding ways to work together. And as long as we are unable to work together, there will be Winners and Losers chosen by government regulators and lawmakers, often based on criteria other than merit. As long as stakeholders are left out, we'll have slower adoption of new technologies, less experimentation with new business models, slower penetration of broadband infrastructure, less economic development, lower revenues and a lower standard of living. In short, by narrowing our options to fit this evolutionary status quo model, we short-change the nation - in other words, by pursuing Win/Lose, we get Lose/Lose. Keeping a closed mind, my attitude influences my reaction to this US Court of Appeals ruling. It's easy to imagine me asking "How/Why should I work with someone who is either a) completely wrong on nearly every issue; b) an obvious idiot; c) an evil person with suspect motivations?" Better to label those who have a different view as the enemy and attempt to defeat them. There's one small problem: this particular enemy is not easily defeated and they don't go away. That's the challenge we have today - we have to work within the system to get what we need, but those of us who challenge the status quo and seek reform are not currently working from a position of strength sufficient to bring those with power to a different way of looking at things. If you're starting from a position of strength and have a Win/Lose attitude, you craft a strategy to leverage your strengths. You see a battlefield, you anticipate your opposition and you kill it off or buy it up. You insinuate yourself with the rule makers, you control the industry the best you can, and you design it so that it favors your approach. If this is a battle and you are fighting to win, that makes sense. However, by excluding others from the game, these giants are left with an insular point of view, they have less access to the creativity and innovation that these upstarts bring to the table, and they ultimately end up creating a slower economy where there are fewer revenue generating opportunities. On the other hand, if you're starting from a weaker position, you avoid face-to-face battles, you argue for equity and hope for Fair Play to win out. You promote rationality and make reasonable arguments to the "Decider" (dare I use that word?). When this doesn't work, you pull back and focus on niches where you can keep hope alive, waiting for that better day when conditions may change. It's disheartening and many are sorely tempted to give up. "Why bother, what's the use ... it's a rigged game." But since we're in a global market, those countries and societies that are This is the true tragedy in the current situation - not that the incumbents win, or that we are stuck with slow (or no) broadband - the true tragedy is that our future is being kept from us. Without a ubiquitous 21st century broadband infrastructure, our society will not experience the full potential of the Internet and its accompanying technologies, until much later. We may get there, some day, but in the meantime we'll have lost tremendous ground to other countries and societies that are more progressive than we are. Who can begin to calculate the lost opportunity in such a delay? Imagine a middle path, where we enjoy enlightened leadership that steps out and guides us down a policy-making path that fosters inclusion, that harnesses innovation regardless of its source, that seeks a common definition of the problem, that requires an open approach to solutions and provides for a feedback loop so that all learn from experience. When it comes to broadband, as long as we continue with the current paradigm, we're doomed to go slow and be limited by the creativity and efforts of the incumbents. Until we change the way we look at the nature of the broadband problem, we'll not be able to get everyone on the same page, nor will we be able to reach any synergy (Covey's Habit 6, by the way). Again, who knows what we're missing out on by not working together? Understanding these Truths About Interdependence is one of the key issues in finding a way to be effective as a society, as an economy, as a body politic. I'm afraid that for at least right now, we're stuck in an ineffective mode and the results we can expect are fairly predictable. MOTS .. More of the Same. Posted on November 06, 2007 at 01:14 PM | Comments (0) Speed Matters (So Does Price)
"Here he comes, driving Small Hopes and Lady Mac." The cry went up from a number of gentlemen .... had been waiting for some time, watching the road cityward, for the appearance of Mr. William H. Vanderbilt, who was momentarily expected....While they were waiting, something was said about the celebrated bay horse, Edwin Forrest, now in Mr. Robert Bonner's barn, and who a little over a year ago was an unknown factor on the trotting turf. This past summer, he got a record of better than 2:16, and it is believed by many that he is the fastest trotter in the country. This is saying a good deal, and may reasonably be doubted, when one comes to remember the fast-going Hopeful, and the equally fast, if not faster, Rarus. In any event, however, either one of the three can trot a mile at a speed equal to over 26 miles an hour, or faster than most railroad trains travel. Speeding the Roadsters, Fast Trotting Above Central Bridge, NY Times, November 17, 1878 One challenge I have with any discussion about broadband is that this technology is all still so relative. Any discussion of speed is certainly dependent on individual experience and what is within the realm of the imagination. Speed has always mattered to man, and those with money have always gone faster than those without. While we're talking today about data network speeds, it wasn't so long ago that the discussion was about how fast a human could go. While visiting Colonial Williamsburg this summer, I had the pleasure of hearing an actor playing the role of Thomas Jefferson to perfection. The scenario, in the garden behind the governor's mansion one sunny afternoon, was that it was 1807 and Pres. TJ had just ridden his horse down from Raleigh, to be with us in the waning days of his presidential administration, to reflect on changes in the 31 years since he had written the Declaration of Independence. He started his talk by observing that democracy had not changed that much, especially when you considered that the privileged few still rode on horseback while others had to walk. He had, he told us, ridden his horse at an average speed of four miles per hour, while people walking could expect to cover on average about two miles per hour. So, he observed, "Here we are 30 years later, and we still live in a three-mile-per-hour world. Perhaps from the view of the man on foot, we haven't come so far after all." That was striking! Two days later, I was at the Biltmore Estate in Asheville, NC, built at the end of the nineteenth century by George Vanderbilt, grandson of Commodore Cornelius Vanderbilt, and son of William H. Vanderbilt, the horse-driving speedster in the image above. (Biltmore is an incredible place to visit, by the way). On one of the bedroom walls was the Currier & Ives Print above, with a caption that detailed the 1/4 mile, 1/2 mile, 3/4 mile, and 1 mile split times of the trotters. Again, isn't it fascinating that achieving such speeds was such a big event to be so remarked upon, only 130 years ago? I guess when people of that day compared the speeds they were able to get to what Thomas Jefferson had described, 70 years earlier, then that was some progress. But really, times hadn't even changed that much, from 1807 to 1878... But boy have times changed since then. When I ask someone today "Do you have High-Speed Internet Access?", I'm likely to get a highly variable response, because any two people are likely to hold two different definitions on what "high-speed internet" really means. Just ask someone on dial-up in rural America and someone with access to a fiber network and compare notes. Then ask any American - rural or urban - and any Japanese user, and prepare to be amazed, because the average speed in Japan is dramatically higher (and the price, cheaper). That's just what this website does - The Importance of Universal Internet Access - Speed Matters - compare internet access speeds. It offers an intriguing tool to measure your access speed, both download and upload, then compares it to speeds found elsewhere. It's an eye-opener, check it out. I ran the test on my home network (2638 down, 433 up - aDSL), then ran it again at a client site, where I have access to a faster network (3660 down, 3590 up). See the results below, and compare them with what you get, and get your friends to do the same. How else can we stimulate a dialogue on broadband in this country if we don't base it on some realistic data, like what we are able to achieve in speed? And then, how that compares on a global basis? That is the real test, after all, down to the personal level, what network performance it is that you experience. We should not be assessing how much things have improved, and feeling good about things, if we don't know what people experience, and indeed, how much things could have improved beyond our expectations. When we benchmark, we should set our sights on the best speeds and the best prices possible, then challenge ourselves to do better. When it comes to broadband, I believe we are at once too ignorant and too complacent here in the United States.
Posted on November 05, 2007 at 12:49 PM | Comments (0) Formal Rulemakings, Informal Rule Breakings: Our Federal Government At Work on Our BehalfWhen I see things such as these, I have to sigh. As the French say, "Plus Ca Change, Plus C'est La Meme" Here's an Inside Look at How Inside Information Works (Only for Insiders) A stray item caught my eye on a political blog, leading me to this interesting report just released by the U.S. Government Accounting Office September 2007 - GAO: FCC Should Take Steps to Ensure Equal Access to Rulemaking Information. I recommend this short report to anyone curious about the federal regulatory process - it includes an especially good primer on how the FCC does its job, in theory - valuable background information. But then it describes how the FCC staff and commissioners interact with the industries they regulate, and other stakeholders, in practice - even more valuable current events data - read on. A Rulemaking in a state or federal agency is a formal process whereby the agency amends or makes new rules, which then comprise the regulatory body of work they use to regulate industry. It's a big deal. Legislatures, like Congress or state legislatures grant the executive branch agencies this authority to make rules to "execute" or "administer" the laws that they enact. Rulemakings can be quite lengthy and complicated processes, and can have a tremendous impact on a regulated industry's prospects. The time right before the decision is made by the regulatory board is a time of high drama, and the meeting rooms are often packed with interested parties anxious to hear how the regulators will finally rule. From the Report: FCC's rulemaking process includes multiple steps as outlined by the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 (APA) and other laws, with several opportunities for public participation. 1. FCC initiates rulemaking in response to a statute, a petition for rulemaking, or its own initiative. Any person may petition FCC to amend rules or create new rules. This gets interesting, and it's a fascinating look by a highly reliable and credible source on how regulated industries work the process to make sure that they exert as much control as they can over their regulators. I used to do "regulatory interface work" - that's a regulatory lobbyist, in so many words - for a large investor-owned electric utility company in front of the Texas Public Utilities Commission, so I have some distant experience on a related front. This report took me back about a dozen years, and it's very plausible. The report describes interviews the GAO conducted with stakeholders who have regular contact with the FCC. The GAO looked at four case studies - four completed rulemakings. The interviewers met with the following stakeholders:
The interviews uncovered what can only be called the improper release of information by FCC staff just prior to Rulemakings. The key finding: Nine out of 12 stakeholders admitted to having access to agenda information in advance of the public release of such data. However, we also were told by 9 of 12 stakeholders - both those involved with our case studies and stakeholders who regularly participated in FCC rulemakings - that they knew when proposed rules were scheduled for an upcoming vote well before FCC released the agenda to the public because they hear this information from FCC bureau staff and commissioner staff. This advance information is not supposed to be disclosed outside of FCC. As the report describes, there is an official release of the Meeting Agenda where the Rulemaking decision may or may not be on the agenda, just one week before the actual meeting. As this report describes, an FCC rule prohibits any lobbying of decision makers one week prior to a decision - the "Sunshine Period." And to their credit, no such rule breaking of the Sunshine Period was found in terms of meeting during that one week period prior to the rulemaking decision. But there was access just prior to that week. No doubt, this FCC Rule is intended to prevent any interruption with a well-designed regulatory process, whereby the Commissioners can make their decisions based on the facts, the arguments, and the recommendations of staff. As soon as the Public finds out about the agenda, it's too late for an interested party to have any last minute access to a decision maker. But that's not the case for the insiders, who just find out sooner, by virtue of hanging around and listening, or by virtue of relationships they have on the inside. So then, they can get in their meetings before that one-week window begins. As this report describes, in contrast to the Official Rules, there is the Unofficial Reality of how the process works. A few weeks before the Agenda is published, the draft agenda is circulated among staff so they can prepare for the meeting. So there, in practice, is an unofficial release of the agenda, for insiders only, through back channels. This special access to information gives these insiders valuable advance warning, during which time they can schedule high level visits in front of regulators to "lobby" for their point of view. I'm sure that the commissioners are generally surprised at the timing of such meetings (heavy irony here). The gist of this article, for me, is that when staff play favorites with lobbyists with whom they share a social relationship, in this case, by releasing information selectively, they give their friends an undue advantage in the regulatory process. It's about a lot more than a friend helping another friend out, as I'm sure that is how it is understood inside the clubby culture of a regulatory agency. You can't help but become friends with people you work with on a regular basis, see at meetings, even go out to lunch with, even if there are separate checks at the end of the meal. And that is exactly the work of the lobbyist, to use their skills and influence to gain access, to both information and decision makers, and to position their ideas and arguments at the head of the line. It really is hard to overstate the significance of this type of behavior, which undermines the entire process as its designed to work. It's what is meant by "insider" access. Sure, the lobbyists don't always get their way, and this release of information may seem like no big deal on the surface, but this informal practice gives the professional class an advantage, and that makes a big difference in results, over time. Their client's POV gets heard more often by regulators, consistently, and in this case, just before a decision is to be made, when timing is everything. That's more than can be said for the poor outsider who follows the rules, writes a lengthy argument well in advance of the actual rulemaking decision, perhaps gets a visit with commissioners, also well in advance, but then is prevented from communicating immediately prior to a Rulemaking. This report shows without any doubt that - It's a stacked deck. And that's the way of the world inside the Beltway. If you don't want to read the entire report, here are the "money" paragraphs below. However, nine stakeholders - both those involved in the case studies we reviewed and other stakeholders with whom we spoke who regularly participate in FCC rulemakings - told us that they hear this information from both FCC bureau staff and commissioner staff. One stakeholder - representing a large organization that is involved in numerous rulemakings - told us that FCC staff call them and tell them what items are scheduled for a vote. In contrast, a number of other stakeholders told us that they do not learn this information and do not know which items are scheduled for a vote. These stakeholders, who generally represent consumer and public-interest groups, told us that they do not know when FCC is about to vote on a rulemaking or when it would be best to meet with FCC staff to make their arguments. In contrast, stakeholders who know which items have been scheduled for a vote know when to schedule a meeting with FCC commissioners and staff because they know when FCC is about to vote on a rulemaking. FCC officials told us that, for stakeholders to successfully make their case before FCC, "timing is everything." Specifically, if a stakeholder knows that a proposed rule has been scheduled for a vote and may be voted on in 3 weeks, that stakeholder can schedule a meeting with FCC officials before the rule is voted on. In contrast, a stakeholder who does not know that the rule is scheduled for a vote may not learn that the rule will be voted on until the agenda is announced 1 week before the public meeting. However, once the agenda has been announced, the Sunshine Period begins, and no one can lobby FCC officials about the proposed rule. As a result, the stakeholder who learns that a rule has been scheduled for a vote 3 weeks before the vote can have a distinct advantage over a stakeholder who learns about an upcoming vote through the public agenda. Our case study reviews and discussions with multiple stakeholders showed that some stakeholders know this nonpublic information and, as a result, these stakeholders may have an advantage in the rulemaking process. The report concludes with a recommendation that the rules be reinforced and followed, and No Comment from the FCC: Recommendation for Executive Action To ensure a fair and transparent rulemaking process, we recommend that the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission: Agency Comments We provided FCC with a draft of this report for their review and comment. FCC had no comment on the draft report and took no position on our recommendation. A final note from the report, in the background section: The FCC was established by the Congress in 1934 with the task of "regulating methods of electronic communication to foster a competitive environment, with an emphasis on the public interest." 73 years later, would you say the intent of Congress is being followed? Do we have a "competitive environment?" Do you feel that the "public interest" is emphasized? While I continue to hope for improvement at the federal level, and will not let go of that hope, stories like this lead me to focus my efforts on the local and regional level. Sad to say, at this point I have no faith in my federal government to represent my interests as a U.S. citizen. It is painful to write that down and see it in print. Posted on October 05, 2007 at 01:11 PM | Comments (0) Three-Minute Coffee Break, Tickle Your Funny BoneSometimes, all this policy stuff, technology, buisness, etc. can get a little dry. Need a break? I challenge you to take this three minute break, watch this video, and not crack a smile. Humanity in all its wacky glory, on display on You Tube! WARNING: Turn down your volume first, because the video starts immediately after you click the link and hit the site! See Save the Internet!, take a break, and smile a little. This is a wacky world we live in. Posted on October 05, 2007 at 10:15 AM | Comments (0) Broadband in America: a "Wicked Game We Play"What a wicked game you play Nooooo-body loooovves nooooo one Chris Isaak - "Wicked Game"
"Do we have the political will to address the issue of Broadband Infrastructure before it's too late?" "Are we so fragmented as a society and so complacent as consumers and citizens that we will accept the status quo on Broadband Infrastructure as inevitable?" "Does anyone outside our industry really care about this topic?" "Do those who have the power to find a solution have the incentive to find a solution?" Leading to this cynical question: In other words: "Can we act proactively, or are we left with reactive solutions as our only option?" On top of this blog topic, which has me wondering, I read this in the Sunday paper today, reprinted from the LA Times on September 27: Clash over Internet access tax heats up. The article details the conflicting discussion in Washington about continuing to exempt Internet access services from the taxes that currently are piled onto telephone and video services. It's a mess, with conflicts everywhere. I'm not sure how they can make policy on taxing services when they can't even agree on what the Internet means to them or where it is taking our society. Before you get discouraged, let's just acknowledge that there will be no EASY way out of this broadband infrastructure conundrum - this taxation discussion only serves to highlight that we are indeed in a crisis, and we should acknowledge that. I would argue further that progress outside the US and the steady march of technology already combine to create a figurative GUN TO OUR HEAD, leaving for a minute the issue of tax policy at various levels of government and in various geographies. In the issue of what Broadband means to us as a national government and as a national community, we have a sense of urgency that is there for the taking, if it is as yet unacknowledged by our political leaders. But let's probe further on the problem we face. I would argue that these and other questions regarding broadband infrastructure are characteristic of a phenomenon that social theorists call "Wicked Problems." We have to work together to solve such problems, or else we punt them down the road and they get worse. (See also my recommendation earlier today for a national dialogue that can lead us to a National Broadband Policy here). The concept of "wicked problems" was originally proposed by Horst Rittel (a pioneering theorist of design and planning, and late professor at the University of California, Berkeley) and M. Webber in a seminal treatise for social planning. Rittel expounded on the nature of ill-defined design and planning problems which he termed "wicked" (ie. messy, circular, aggressive) to contrast against the relatively "tame" problems of mathematics, chess, or puzzle solving. Wicked problem - Wikipedia So a preliminary conclusion from this assessment is It will take a lot of time and effort to get this dialogue underway, but I'm convinced that we need some public acknowledgment that we are in a crisis when it comes to lacking a national broadband policy and a world class broadband network, both wired and wireless. Until we have a consensus on the problem, we're going to haggle endlessly on the solution. A dialogue leading to consensus on the problem is a big step to reaching consensus to the solution. But, then - there's the Rub. See this interesting analysis below by the CogNexus Institute. Problem wickedness demands tools and methods which create shared understanding and shared commitment. Because the group or team's understanding of the wicked problem is evolving, productive movement toward a solution requires powerful mechanisms for getting everyone on the same page. There will be volumes of facts, data, studies and reports about a wicked problem, but the shared commitment needed to create durable solution will not live in information or knowledge. Understanding a wicked problem is about collectively making sense of the situation and coming to shared understanding about who wants what. CogNexus Institute: Wicked Problems Jeff Conklin, Ph.D., founder of the CogNexus Institute, has even written a book about working through Wicked Problems: Dialogue Mapping: Building Shared Understanding of Wicked Problems. For now, I think it's useful to look at their white paper titled Wicked Problems and Social Complexity (well worth the time - recommended!). While his book and white paper address the issue of complex problem solving in the context of an internal organization problem, I would suggest they offer helpful insights for this national problem (we're just not starting with any shared corporate mission or shared paycheck source! - although we all are in this boat together, in a sense). The gist of the paper is that solving a complex or "wicked" problem requires collaboration. Collaboration requires a shared view of the problem and an agreement to work together to solve it. Fragmentation and Social Complexity work to thwart best efforts to achieve collaboration. I think this approach offers a good way to understand what we are talking about when we talk about the need for a National Broadband Policy. Step One will be to have everyone acknowledge the need for such - at least, to get as broad a consensus as possible to acknowledge the underlying issues that lead us to suggest such a need in the first place. In Dr. Conklin's words, "The antidote to fragmentation is shared understanding and shared commitment." Collective intelligence is a natural property of socially shared cognition, a natural enabler of collaboration. But there are also natural forces that challenge collective intelligence, forces that doom projects and make collaboration difficult or impossible. These are forces of fragmentation. The concept of fragmentation provides a name and an image for a phenomenon that pulls apart something which is potentially whole. Fragmentation suggests a condition in which the people involved see themselves as more separate than united, and in which information and knowledge are chaotic and scattered. The fragmented pieces are, in essence, the perspectives, understandings, and intentions of the collaborators. Fragmentation, for example, is when the stakeholders in a project are all convinced that their version of the problem is correct. Solving a complex, "wicked problem" then requires a different approach and different problem solving tools than a rational approach to solving a traditional problem. One tendency when faced with a complex problem is to work harder and apply linear tools that we have had previous success with - it's a very rational, if doomed approach. See the image below.
In contrast, consider the diagram below, where the jagged lines involve practical experiments with solutions that reveal nuances of the problem, so that both the nature of the problem and the solution evolve over time - and as this paper explains - they evolve together FOREVER. In other words, with a wicked problem you never arrive at a solution, because the nature of the problem is that it is dynamic.
The paper goes on to describe how multiple competing solutions can muddy the waters of the iterative solution/problem approach in the second diagram. This is where social complexity enters the picture, because complex problems most often occur in a socially dynamic situation. Things get further complicated when there is an element of technical complexity. We face all three of these fragmenting forces when we consider how to develop a National Broadband Policy. See the diagram below.
The white paper really starts to get interesting when it gets to the section on how complex problems are typically dealt with, describing two typical reactions: Studying and Taming. A hint - neither is effective, according to Dr. Conklin. Studying the Wicked Problem seems rational - "This issue is so complex, we need to form a task force to study it and come back to us with recommendations." That is, in fact, in the CEO's job description, isn't it, to form task forces to study problems? The catch with this approach is, the studying process often can take so much time and consume so many resources, and the ever present risk is the dreaded "Paralysis by Analysis." While a little studying can be helpful, this solution path quickly reaches its limits. On the other hand, Taming the Wicked Problem generally gets the group of stakeholders pretty quickly into "The Games People Play." Tying in our problems with broadband policy, consider these cases below, keeping in mind our current executive (FCC), legislative (Congress), and judicial (Supreme Court) regulatory and legal approaches to telecommunications problems in general, and to broadband infrastructure in particular. Taming Methods 1. Lock Down the Problem Definition. The risk is defining the problem too narrowly, with a solution in mind, all the better to be able to declare victory. SUPREME COURT BRAND X AND FCC DECISION TO REMOVE OPEN NETWORK REQUIREMENT (PROBLEM WAS "TOO TIGHT REGULATION.")? 2. Assert that the Problem is Solved. Combining artful definition of the problem (see above) with mustering of ample evidence, this is another way of making the problem go away (but not really). CELLULAR COMPANIES CLAIMING TO OFFER WIDESPREAD AVAILABILITY OF "BROADBAND"? 3. Specify objective parameters by which to measure the solution's success. Involves locking down the problem, then measuring success objectively, leaving the real problem over in the areas not measured. DEFINE BROADBAND AS 200 KBS AND UP, COUNT BB AVAILABILITY IN ONE PLACE IN THE COUNTY AS AVAILABLE EVERYWHERE IN THE COUNTY? 4. Cast the problem as "just like" a previous problem that has been solved. This approach usually ignores or filters out differences from previous situations, to make the problem simpler and more like what was previously addressed with some success. THE PROBLEM IS CAPITAL AVAILABILITY, WE NEED A RURAL LOAN PROGRAM LIKE THE UNIVERSAL SERVICE FUND (USF) OR THE RURAL ELECTRIFICATION AGENCY (REA)? 5. Give up on trying to get a good solution to the problem. I think that this is where many in the FCC and the Congress are currently - keeping their heads down and hoping someone else will come along to solve this - LATER? 6. Declare that there are just a few possible solutions, and focus on selecting from among these options. Limiting the solution set has the appearance of making the problem simpler, but is an artificial construct. IT WILL BE EITHER CABLE OR TELECOM THAT BUILDS THIS NETWORK? Moving beyond these false methodologies, Dr. Conklin suggests that there is one major hurdle to avoid in overcoming these forces of fragmentation (wicked problems, social complexity, and technical complexity) - namely, the tendency to place blame. The notion of fragmentation points to all of these problems, but it is pretty abstract. Because it points deep into the culture and practices of project work, it is difficult to observe fragmentation directly. There is, however, a more observable indicator of fragmentation: blame. Instead of seeing the systemic nature of project challenges and the value of social diversity, we tend to see a big mess, to view it as the result of incompetence, and to blame each other for it. Until we can move beyond blaming "incumbents" for causing this problem, blaming "incompetent bureaucrats and corrupt politicians" for failing to drive wise public policy, blaming "upstart fly-by-night companies" and "socialistic governments" for seeking to put the public sector in front of the private sector, blaming "free-riding IT content companies" for seeking to use networks without paying for them - I could go on and on - until we can move past this Blame Culture, we will not be any nearer to forging a common National Broadband Policy that we can all live with. I'll close with Dr. Conklin's summary - he puts it better than I could. The antidote for fragmentation is coherence. How, then, do we create coherence? In organizations and project teams - in situations where collaboration is the life blood of success - coherence amounts to shared understanding and shared commitment. Shared understanding of meaning and context, and of the dimensions and issues in the problem. Shared commitment to the processes of project work and to the emergent solution matrix. Coherence means that stakeholders have shared meaning for key terms and concepts, that they are clear about their role in the effort, that together they have a shared understanding of the background for the project and what the issues are, and that they have a shared commitment to how the project will reach its objectives and achieve success. Coherence means that the project team understands and is aligned with the goals of the project and how to reach them. Coherence means that a wicked problem is recognized as such, and appropriate tools and processes are constantly used to "defragment" the project. With increased coherence, more collective intelligence becomes available to deal with change and complexity. Coherence means that despite social complexity there is a sense of ability and confidence in crafting shared understanding and negotiating shared meaning. I'm going to get this book and dive down deeper on the potential of shared understanding, shared commitment, and dialogue mapping. I think this approach holds great potential for bringing together the multitude of viewpoints that arise whenever the issue of National Broadband Policy is brought up. If it's going to be a "Wicked Game We Play," then we better start the discussion with a set of shared rules. I just hate it when my family breaks into an argument about the rules and how to play the game, and loses sight of the fun we have when we play together - with a shared understanding and shared commitment that we've set aside time to play a game in order to have fun. For too long, we've avoided this discussion on our shared interests in building a 21st century broadband infrastructure, but the circumstances are forcing us together to figure out the Wicked Problem of Broadband and how to get a National Broadband Policy. Posted on September 30, 2007 at 03:44 PM | Comments (0) Way Past Time for a National Broadband Policy"The mindset that we have ... to work under [at the FCC] is 'don't worry about it, the marketplace will take care of this,'" said FCC Commissioner Michael Copps. "While we all revere the marketplace, there are some things that cannot get done by themselves." "We have consolidation, lack of competition ... prices are shooting up, there are no alternatives for small businesses," said Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein. "One way to start is a summit on broadband" that would include the public and private sectors, Congress, the executive branch, agencies like the FCC, he said. Where is Bush's National Broadband, Senate Asks Earlier this week, FCC Commissioners Copps and Adelstein appeared before a US Senate Small Business Committee convened by Committee Chairman John Kerry to discuss how improved Internet access would help small businesses. This discussion begs the question of the lack of a National Broadband Policy in the United States, and shines a light on the lack of leadership we labor under on this issue. This topic is an issue begging for leadership, as we meander around the issue, busy within our own little spheres of influence, but without a game plan to unite the nation and allow us to forge ahead, as have other countries with stronger leadership on the issue, such as South Korea and Japan. What makes them special on this topic? They have focus, we don't. Well, it occurs to me that the timing is right for this issue to be picked up by one of the many talented and politically motivated would-be leaders in our country. The 2008 presidential campaign will kick off in earnest at the start of 2008, with the first primaries, a mere 3 to 4 months away. Many see this campaign as unique in modern history, given that no sitting incumbent president or vice-president will be running for re-election, and that there is a likelihood of Democratic Party victories at both the executive and legislative branches, potentially changing the political direction from a long march towards more conservative policies to a re-emergence of a more progressive direction. In short, this election cycle portends dramatic change on the horizon and new consideration of issues such as Health Care, Climate Change, Energy Independence, and our area of focus today, National Broadband Policy. But these issues will have to fight for attention with the Iraq War and Terrorism, two dominant and critical issues that have sucked up most of the political energy in this country for far too long. I'm not saying they're not important, it's just that we need to get on with the business of running a country as well. See Tom Friedman's article in today's NY Times for a similar view: 9/11 is Over. Setting aside the divisive topics of War and Terrorism for the moment, there is no denying the theme of Change in the air. This presidential campaign, and the myriad lesser campaigns that we will see waged next year, represent an opportunity for our nation to finally have a discussion on a broadband policy and strategy for the United States. Despite President Bush's call in 2004 for ubiquitous broadband by the end of 2007 (and that goal has not been achieved, by the way), we're no closer to having a strategy to build such a national infrastructure, or even consensus on a policy to provide us a more principle-centered debate. Commissioners Copps and Adelstein the other day called for a National Broadband Summit to bring that focus. While that's a good start, I'm not sure that will be enough - we're so far behind (see this slide deck on Canada's National Summit on Broadband Deployment III in October 2004). There remains the need for considerable education of both the body public and governmental leaders at all levels. We need a full court press, one that might start with a Summit, but would need follow-on national, state, and local incentives to raise this issue up and ratchet up the priority levels. It's not for lack of trying. Witness the recent letters sent by the Community Broadband Coalition to both chambers of the U.S. Congress on September 23, representing the collective view of 25 different organizations and companies, ranging from the American Library Association and the National Association of Counties to Google, Intel, and EarthLink. The letters urge passage of Senate Bill 1853, the Community Broadband Act of 2007 introduced by Senators Frank Lautenberg, Gordon H. Smith, John Kerry, John McCain, Claire McCaskill, Olympia J. Snowe, Ted Stevens, and Daniel K. Inouye and of House Bill 3281, which was introduced by Representatives Rick Boucher and Fred Upton. The letters urge Senators and Representatives to co-sponsor the legislation. Community coalition pushes for national broadband policy These are steps in the right direction, but we will need more than that to stimulate change - we need a very public debate - the time has come for a fair and balanced discussion at all levels of society. I admit it's a challenge. The current ideas and discussion by leaders in broadband innovation and creativity and thought leaders in the emerging alternative broadband industries cover a wide spectrum. Unfortunately, the alternatives to the status quo of the incumbents and their supporters in government often fall on deaf ears, or the message becomes mixed. When we hear "MuniFi Fails" as we have over the past month, instead of "Progressive experiments move the ball forward," which is the nature of experimentation, the wrong message is conveyed. Policy makers need to hear a louder voice with a clear concise vision as an alternative to the de facto broadband policy we have had for the past decade: the incumbent view of evolutionary change. Let's take a look at the The Status Quo, (which I admit is not necessarily all bad, just not what it needs to be). Broadband has experienced explosive growth over the past five years, both worldwide and in the US, as Internet access increasingly has come to mean broadband, rather than dial-up. The lion's share of broadband in the US (> 98%) is provided as a premium service by our nation's large telecom and cable companies over their existing infrastructure (telecom's twisted-pair copper for DSL, cable's coax for its broadband service), an extension to the other voice, data and entertainment services they traditionally provide. The Supreme Court and the FCC in the summer of 2005 made rulings that enabled these companies to close off their networks to third-party providers, effectively securing their market dominance in providing critical broadband access. Whether a policy of building on the status quo, relying on incumbents and freeing them from regulatory constraints, will truly serve our nation well in the long run is in the end a matter of perspective. For better or worse, the current momentum of Internet development and broadband policy is heavily weighted towards the viewpoint of incumbent telecoms and cable companies. They have tremendous cash reserves, dominant political power, and the benefit of pre-existing infrastructure as a sunk cost, not to mention the institutional momentum and market inertia they have on their side. Clearly, the incumbent telecoms and cable companies believe the system is working and that it should continue on its present course. And as huge, important industries, they have the ear of powerful politicians and government leaders, where they focus their considerable resources for influence at the local, state and federal level, the better to maintain their economic dominance. If there is to be a discussion on national broadband policy, they plan to control it and influence it to reflect their interests, and they have a proven track record in modern history of successfully controlling the debate when it comes to telecommunications policy. There is, however, a small but growing challenge to the status quo when it comes to broadband. Consumer groups, high tech companies, and local governments, and others are giving voice to a competing view, raising the complaint that a) the infrastructure is inadequate to meet future demand, which will require fiber optics instead of copper and coax; b) bandwidth and speeds offered in the US are inadequate to meet the needs of up and coming applications, much less present day needs, and the gap is widening; and c) the prices paid in the US are kept artificially high due to the lack of competition and choice. To make their case, critics of the status quo point to the growing demand for capacity (e.g., the coming Exaflood) and the inadequacy of broadband infrastructure. They cite broadband progress in other countries and the declining position of the US in worldwide rankings of broadband penetration (from 4th in 2002 to 15th in 2007). It's time for a Second Opinion to gain a louder voice. Whether one sides with the current champions (the incumbents and their supporters) to continue the status quo, who see the need for less regulation to free up the incumbents, or the challengers (those agitating for change) to support an alternate path, who see the need for greater diversity of options, it is hard to dispute the growing importance of broadband to our nation's digital economy. The critical nature of this infrastructure to our 21st century economy demands a broader more open debate. To continue down the present path of outsourcing strategic decisions on broadband infrastructure, services, and pricing to the present incumbents is to hand the keys to our future to a group of powerful corporate interests that have competing loyalties. It's time for the patient to seek a second opinion, the current treatment is not curing the disease. In 1955, GM Chairman and CEO Charlie Wilson made a famous proclamation: "What is good for General Motors is good for America." Whether that statement was ever true, it reflected national sentiment about the world's largest corporation at the time. And in that era, AT&T was dominant on the telecommunications front. It would seem that our de facto broadband policy of supporting incumbent strategies continues in that tradition 50 years later, still looking to large corporations to steer our economic future. But even though we could pause and marvel at technological progress over the ensuing six decades, our current broadband situation challenges continuing with the predominate regulatory approach - today, one could easily say: "What's good for telecom and cable incumbents is not necessarily what's good for America." At a minimum, we should have this debate and arrive at a policy that is good for all of America, not just for incumbent interests. If we are to remain competitive with other nations forging ahead with broadband, we must be better informed, we must listen with an open mind to a second opinion that challenges the status quo, we must weigh our options, and we must come together to chart a middle path. The direction we take should honor and build on the best of what the incumbents still have to offer us, while accommodating and adding in new and innovative thoughts, technologies and approaches to optimize our national broadband prospects. We must crack open the closed windows of policy making to let in fresh air and new thoughts. A Second Opinion is needed to provide policy makers with background facts on how the rising broadband Internet is changing the rules of the telecommunications industry. We need an examination of new digital and radio technologies that challenge the current method of regulating spectrum, for instance. We need a fresh look at what is currently happening out in the laboratories of innovation across the United States. We need to listen more to those who are actively working to make a difference for our broadband future, if on a small scale at present. These innovators are the voices of the future. If we truly desire to compete in the global market, we cannot continue to hold up the industries of the past at the expense of the industries of the future. That path is a recipe for mediocrity and gradual decline, and the preliminary results are already in on that strategy. Let's recognize that fact, leverage our considerable advantages (including both the incumbent strengths and the diversity of innovation) and mobilize to do something about it. Like I've said before, anything interesting starts with a conversation. Let's start talking about National Broadband Policy and a Winning Strategy, so we can broaden the debate and enlist all the energy now sitting on the sidelines. We need to build a 21st century digital infrastructure for the US to support a better future for all citizens in the US. Posted on September 30, 2007 at 07:41 AM | Comments (0) EXAmine This: A Growing Gap in Capacity Demand and Bandwidth Supply?The "ExaFlood" Dliemma, A Digital Divide of a Different Sort Recent research reports have suggested that data growth may be greater than the planned Internet infrastructure can handle. While some have challenged the precise numbers, it is clear that the amount of data traffic, especially video, on the Internet is growing at an accelerating rate. This will soon create a situation in which billions of gigabytes of data - exabytes - will transit the Internet each year. The Exabyte Internet promises to bring new services, applications and opportunities to both consumers and businesses in America, but it will not do so automatically. In addition to investments in additional infrastructure and capacity, there will need to be innovations in core technologies and network management, flexible strategic plans and a national broadband policy that supports investment and innovation over regulation and a continuation of the status quo. David McClure, US Internet Industry Association in Broadband Properties: The ExaByte Internet On the second day of the Broadband Properties Summit 2007, a panel discussion on the ExaFlood (see the Featured Item in the top left corner of the Home Page for more information) kicked off the second day's events. On the panel: Larry Irving - Co-Chairman, Internet Innovation Alliance; David Kozischek - Manager, Strategic Technology, Corning Cable Systems; and David P. McClure - President & CEO, U.S. Internet Industry Association (and author of the above article). But before you get off and running with this posting, I'd urge you to check out the FTTH Council Video on the ExaFlood - a snappy little video that provides a quick overview of the themes of this discussion. It only takes a few minutes, and it's quite well produced. Note that the ExaFlood and Net Neutrality debates are - inevitably - interwoven, and predictably, political. It will take some work to pull out the facts from the propaganda and marketing, but, what the heck, that's what I'm here for, right? It will doubtless take more than one posting, but this is a fascinating topic that we will hear more about as time goes on. As I wade into this loaded debate, I'll give it the good old college try (which hopefully is better than my University of Texas Longhorns did yesterday against the University of Central Florida Knights. Sheesh. But that's a different story altogether...) Another preliminary note: I'm adding some new terms to the Glossary to be clear on bits, bytes, gigabytes, exabytes, etc. More on the Keynote discussion after the jump! So, Bret Swanson of the Discovery Institute gives this debate a name (i.e., "exaflood") in his Jan 2007 Wall Street Journal editorial, entitled The Coming ExaFlood. As you read this article (and the others on this post), you pretty quickly realize there is a political agenda here, as there usually is when we talk about coming shortages and the need for a change in public policy (and/or government spending???). The key point driven home in this fascinating keynote panel discussion was that not one, but several signs indicate a growing issue, if not a coming crisis. I guess that depends on your viewpoint, whether it's an issue, a crisis, or a market opportunity. Guess which one I prefer? The sign posts are certainly there that something big is coming down the tubes (pardon the puns, henceforth). The signs include: 1) the dramatic growth in Internet traffic to date; I believe those three main constraints are not in dispute. What's in dispute is how those constraints should best be addressed, and whether this phenomenon constitutes a crisis or not. 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 to finance network construction. There is significant distrust on both sides of the argument, and lots of history. But back to the approaching shortage of bandwidth - if you buy this scenario - it reminds me a little of debates about the coming oil shortage as we approach Hubbert's Peak, which of course is a widely discussed theory about approaching finite limits of oil production on the planet. Or projections of world population growth and coming shortages and famine - see also the Limits to Growth by the Club of Rome and Thomas Malthus. But 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 it can be seen as manageable, at least it is, IMHO. My Bottom Line The ever growing demand for bandwidth is quite real, but I also believe that it can be incremental and need not be a crisis, but we will need much greater attention and more creativity. This scenario makes a strong argument on all sides to build out real broadband infrastructure (100 Mbs - 1Gbs) ASAP. That means fiber in all its forms - nothing else will get us those speeds and be truly future-proof, or in this case, Exa-Ready. And it means letting go of limiting the number of players in the infrastructure business. We need more energy and creativity to accomplish this Herculean task. And that is the thrust of conferences like this one, I believe, to raise the hue and cry and get people motivated and busy. This is a project no less exciting than building the railroad network was in the 19th Century. I would add that 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 are at little risk of overbuilding (certainly out on the edge we are not), and we will see an unending need for bandwidth in the foreseeable future. We have a long way to go, but we are up to the challenge if we open our minds to new approaches. Drowning in the ExaFlood gives an interesting counterpoint to this suggestion of a coming "flood" of data transmission shortage. Tim Lee makes the argument that we are talking 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 and the rationale for government to get out of the way (of course, author Tim Lee is a fellow at the Libertarian Cato Institute, so he would think along those lines.) Still, I recommend you bookmark Tim's website The Technology Liberation Front. I especially enjoyed the artwork with Communist overtones, very 1980s Gorbachev and all that... Finally, see also Bring On The Exaflood by Bruce Mehlman, former assistant secretary of commerce under President Bush, and our own Larry Irving, former assistant secretary of commerce under President Bill Clinton. These guys should know what they're talking about. Oh, and they are both currently co-chairmen of the Internet Innovation Alliance. I'll give them the last word here: 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. Posted on September 16, 2007 at 06:23 PM | Comments (1) If You Call that Choice, You Must Not Get Out MuchEarlier today (Sept. 6), the Justice Department filed comments with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) opposing Net Neutrality. The DoJ, supposedly the protector of consumers and guardian of competition, said that "market forces" were sufficient to do both of those jobs. That view, of course, is nonsense. Perhaps the DoJ failed to recall that there are no "market forces," and that the market for broadband services is controlled by two industries and that consumers have very little choice. Just how little choice we have was made clear to me earlier this summer. Our Internet Policy Is A Disgrace: Here's The Proof I've said all along that we have little to no national leadership when it comes to broadband policy. What we do have, masquerading as a legitimate policy, is a de facto policy of leaving it all to the large cable and telecom companies to provide the services we need. For some, the status quo is just fine. But for others of us, the status quo is woefully deficient and we have set the bar incredibly low. We can do better. In this alternate reality, a duopoly is considered a competitive market. And it's a stretch for that viewpoint to work as well. The FCC has to define broadband very liberally (above 200 Kbs) to even arrive at an assessment that we have a functioning competitive market at work here. So when the US Department of Justice weighed in last Thursday on the FCC Request for Comments regarding Net Neutrality, I could only see it as somewhat bizzare, because the comment period has long since passed and their claims of a competitive market are so closely aligned to the incumbents' positions as to give one pause to reflect. I have to admit, I haven't spent a lot of time covering these federal issues because, well, frankly, the pace is excruciating, the outcome is fairly "foregone," and I truly believe that the real action in alternate broadband is at the local, not the federal level. Nevertheless, I read this piece above and a few others late last week and it made me scratch my head. To wit, here is one federal agency of this administration (DOJ) commenting to another (FCC) after the period for comments has closed. What Up Wid Dat? Surely, that is fairly uncommon? My conclusion is that DOJ considers themselves either a) outside or above the rules; b) in a special class, where deadlines don't apply; or c) they really prepared their comments early, but either the dog ate them, or they misplaced them behind someone's desk, and just found them and rushed over to the FCC. Huh? "Hey, it fell through a crack, OK?" Bottom Line - They just don't care, even about appearances, any more. Surely, my comments would hit the circular file if I had filed them at this point. I was gratified then to have this comment in particular show up, because it offers some good links to market data in Canada and Great Britain. It'll make you see red. This is a helpful comparison of our "competitive" market with truly functioning markets in Canada and Great Britain that provides good perspective. Here's a hint. In a functioning competitive market, you generally find an abundance of choices when it comes to the product at hand, and it's not hard to find them. Here's my conclusion. We don't have an abundance of choices when it comes to broadband. Not like in Canada or Great Britain. Ergo, we don't have a competitive market, and we're up a creek... Posted on September 09, 2007 at 08:19 PM | Comments (0) Reader's Digest Condensed VersionOK, I think I'm ready to tie up the loose ends after 10 days of processing. Here's my Reader's Digest Condensed Version of What Recent Events Mean and Why Muni Fi is Here to Stay. 1. The demise of Big City Free Wi Fi was a market correction that was long overdue. 2. Public sector applications still need a wireless network. Large cities should focus on applications and realistic solutions. Smaller cities should continue to engage with private sector providers and seek synergies. There is a lot more work to be done to determine sound business approaches based on municipal applications, and we should study success as well as failure, and share success where we find it. Instead of looking at Muni Fi as a one-size-fits-all technology miracle-in-a-can, a realistic assessment would see it as but one tool in a toolbox that will enable creative solutions for some of our problems. Just as we shouldn't throw it away because of recent market corrections, neither should we try to turn it into more than it really is. We should value it for what it can do and make it a part of a more comprehensive approach to solving the need for Last Mile Broadband Infrastructure for all. Down with Hype, Long Live Reality-Based Approaches!! Posted on September 06, 2007 at 08:31 AM | Comments (0) Big City MuniFi and Sand Castles - Fun While They LastedHere on Labor Day week, the unofficial "End of Summer," it struck me that a good analogy for the demise of Big City MuniFi amid EarthLink's pull back last week (see my various postings over the past 10 days) is a Sand Castle building contest I took part in back at the start of summer. I wrote about the contest in a blog post titled Inspiration at the Beach. At the time, I used the team building event to tell a story about creativity and emergence: It was a fun exercise, and for me, it showed both the organic nature of creativity and the concept of emergence. From a kernel of an idea and a vision, the team went on to create personal touches and add flourishes that only came to mind as they built the tentacles. I couldn't have imagined a better outcome. In hindsight, the effort of building sandcastles, and the contest itself, show themselves in another light. We build sandcastles not only as expressions of creativity but also to pass the time while laying around on the beach, more than likely enjoying a cool beverage and snacks. We don't intend for them to last, the joy is in the building. Same with that contest, where the value was in the team bulding exercise. The untold part of the story was my walk on the beach at sunrise the next day. The tide had washed away the five massive sandcastles, leaving large mounds of sand and some remnants that drew the curious as they strolled the beach looking for sand dollars and shells. My point: who is surprised to see a washed out hulk of a sand castle on a newly sunlit beach at 6:30 am? Nobody, because sandcastles are a widely used metaphor for something temporary, because of their ephemeral essence - here today, gone tomorrow. To the more practical (cynical), they are a waste of time and an exercise in futility. To the artists among us, they are a glorious splash of creativity and beauty, unique as temporary statues made in a shifty medium in a high risk environment. I'd lump the ice sculptures I saw at my nephew's wedding reception in the same category. Beautiful and dazzling, but bound to melt. "Wait just a minute," you may be saying, "Haven't MetroNetIQ and all the other promoters of metropolitan broadband and municipal wireless spent the last three years trumpeting the potential of these creations, and now, you're calling them sandcastles??!!" There is a clear distinction in our minds, one that needs to be understood for us to move forward. As experiments and catalysts, these large-city projects had inherent value and beauty, like sandcastles. But also like sandcastles, they were never meant to last. They were fatally flawed projects because of the underlying fundamentals, which I'll lay out below the jump. 1. EarthLink was uniquely desperate, and took Big Risks because they expected Big Rewards. As a non-facilities based ISP in early 2005, EarthLink was in a bind. They didn't have a broadband network, but they needed one, and in a hurry. They were losing dial-up subscribers and their revenues were dropping, with no end in sight. Then in Summer 2005, the Supreme Court in the Brand X decision, and the FCC following, allowed cable and telecom companies to close their networks to third-parties. See Pass the Brand X, Please and DSL Ruling Will be a Landmark. So when EarthLink's contracts expired, there would no longer be a guarantee that they would have access to the network facilities they would need to provide their customers with broadband, the new direction for the Internet. Their customers were converting to broadband, and without facilities, how would EarthLink be a player in a changed market? Their answer was Big City Muni Fi, and EarthLink began a high-risk experiment to build out large cities with a new type of network that they would own. It was a unique set of circumstances that made a large risk - huge citywide unlicensed wireless networks - seem like the way to go. Perhaps it was for EarthLink, but not for many other companies. The pull back applies more to circumstances at EarthLink than to a general market failure. 2. Cities' over-reliance on EarthLink and a unique set of circumstances. The game changed when EarthLink came to Philadelphia and said "we will build this network you want for free - no out of pocket expense for the City." As long as somebody else was taking the Big Risk (EarthLink et al), it looked like cities would get a Big Reward without betting a comensurate amount. That is a rational process, if the circumstances hold, but as many suspected, they were not meant to last. But the prospect of free Wi Fi was so enticing, many city leaders wanted to believe that it was possible to get something for nothing, and they felt the political heat to get after it, so they suspended their disbelief and charted a course to see if they could get the same deal. But EarthLink had limited resources to begin with, and only a few cities could get a deal like that, if indeed the deal lasted. So the gold rush was on, a race to get a free network. When the music stopped, you didn't want to be left standing. Quick, get an RFP out on the street. The mistake on some cities parts was not in pursuing their Plan A, but rather in not having a sound Plan B - developing a rational study of the underlying problems that called for a Wi Fi solution, principally, the Digital Divide, and spending time and effort to develop a set of alternate plans should the Plan A fall through. That's where we're back to now. The mistake here was in starting off a new risky venture with very large cities, rather than multiple experiments in smaller cities. The other mistake was in focusing on Digital Divide and residential Internet access, and in hoping to get something for free, or way below market value. That says nothing about smaller cities, or cities that pay for infrastructure they value, or projects that are based on sound business planning. 3. The process took longer than anyone expected. Nobody ever accused city's of going too fast in their procurement processes. And that goes double for large cities and large projects. When it came to large city Wi Fi, the politics came into play and slowed things down even further. EarthLink's plan to build out large city networks had several flaws, but a big one was in putting most of their eggs in just a few baskets. In partnering with the largest of cities, where their deals would be subject to intense public scrutiny and at risk of being held hostage by one or more political groups with an agenda, they faced even greater risk of having their project sidetracked. See San Francisco especially and its delays amid political rancor. The mistake was in thinking that this would be easier than it proved to be. But just because something is difficult, doesn't mean it's not worth doing, it just means that fewer people will be motivated to undertake the task. As with any gamble, there's always the chance of losing. That's why it's called gambling. And as the saying goes, " the bigger they are, the harder they fall." By shooting for the moon with a focus on very large projects, EarthLink rolled the dice and took a fatal step. By getting caught up in hype and betting on getting something for nothing, some of the larger cities spent unnecessary effort on a low-probability outcome and hoped for an easy ride. I can look at the snapshots of sandcastles I've built on summer vacations past, see the sunburned shoulders and happy faces, and cherish the memories of the good times had with my small children, now growing up way too fast. Those memories and good times are the value I gained from those activities, as the sandcastles themselves never made it past the next incoming tide. Similarly, we can take a second look at the energy and creativity of the past three years and take a closer look at the potential of new technologies and new business processes. We can change some of the disproved assumptions and try some new experiments. There is no reason to stop trying to find solutions and there is no reason to castigate ourselves and others for trying to make a positive change. But we should not regret the loss of a fantasy, and a return to reality. The most important thing is to see these past three years in the glowing wisdom of hindsight. We have good memories and great lessons learned - there is no wasted effort if we analyze what went wrong and maintain momentum to bring in broadband in new ways. Let's not lose sight of the value that was created by Big City Wi Fi projects, nor lament for too long sandcastles that are now washed away. Posted on September 06, 2007 at 06:46 AM | Comments (0) How Important is Broadband? Why Should We Care Enough to Change our Current Thinking, Anyway?Every few weeks it seems, there is another news article about the sad state of broadband penetration, availability, and rates in our country and how consumers in other countries seem to have it better, in some cases, much, much better. Today in my local paper, the Austin American-Statesman, there was yet another article, this one entitled "Japan Speeds Ahead on the Internet." No longer a new story to me, but it keeps getting retold. When I read these articles, I wonder "Just where is the public outrage?" How do we so calmly accept being so far behind in something so very important to our individual and collective futures? Then when I think about it, most people have far less concern about infrastructure than I do. Infrastructure, whether it's paved roads and bridges, the electric power grid, the telephone system (landline AND cellular), or broadband access, is just one of those things we increasingly take for granted in our modern society. And yet .... Without strong leadership on the issue of Broadband Infrastructure, it's hard not to become cynical and depressed - it's hard to imagine things changing much in the near term. It's hard to see a way out of our current situation. Why is that? Well, it has to do with things like Conventional Wisdom, Urban Myths, the Big Lie, Cultural Change, Force of Habit, Inertia, and Sacred Cows. When it comes to Broadband Infrastructure, doesn't it seem like one of those "frog in the pot, with water slowly coming to a boil" situations? That Conventional Wisdom about the dangers-of-complacency-in-the-face-of-slowly-developing-trends-with-a-large impact? (Urban Myth warning: turns out, the frog will in fact jump out of slowly heating water, that is, if given half a chance - poor frog!). Often something that is repeated over and over takes on the veneer of truth, even if it's not literally true, just because it's so familiar, and it makes so much sense - it's intuitively true, if not based in fact. Perceived as Conventional Wisdom, instead an Urban Myth is born. Such can be helpful for society, as in the case of the slow boiling frog story. When the underlying message really is true and beneficial, even though the actual facts of the story are wrong, the myth is powerful and bears repeating. Personally, I find this one amusing, and certainly tolerable - actually quite funny that so many people will swear that it's true, when it's not. Ask around and see for yourself. On the other hand, such a practice becomes harmful, as in the case of the Big Lie, when for propaganda purposes a deceptive storyline is cynically and intentionally repeated over and over and promoted in the press as either fact or legitimate competing opinion, all in an attempt to sway public opinion or delay action detrimental to a special interest. We see too much of that these days, either through venal corporate forces or lazy press/consumers. Variations on the Big Lie persist for the simple reason that it can be a quite successful technique. A notoriously unaware public can be helped along to believe something to be true when it is in fact false. And when that happens, it matters less whether something is true and more whether most people believe it. Even when conventional wisdom rules, it can be an Idiot. I find this practice neither amusing nor tolerable. It's obnoxious and incredibly frustrating. Still, it's harder to buck conventional wisdom than you think. For instance, how many people among the general populace, if you say "Citywide Wi Fi," will add "Free" to the front, so much has this combination been repeated in the press? Happens all the time when I explain what it is that I do for a living. So, what to do about the state of broadband in this country? If most of the public, awash in numerous TV and print ads for Triple Play services and cellular phone service, believes that they're getting a "deal" from their current service providers amid duopoly and/or oligopoly competition, does it matter that the reality of the situation is different? If Force of Habit and Inertia keep consumers from asking for more, from expressing dissatisfaction with the status quo, should we care? This is where I see the idea of a Sacred Cow coming into play. In today's conservative American business climate, the idea of a government solution being preferable to a private sector one is beyond the pale. Just bring up that gem in a business HH and see how far you get. But the fact is, the private sector solutions in telecommuncations, more particularly, in broadband, have been a spectacular failure in this country. We are far less innovative in telecom that we are in IT, for instance. Much less is spent on R&D, and far more on government lobbying, when you compare IT and telecom. In fact, they are almost a mirror image of each other. The reality of the situation is that broadband services in other countries that have taken a different approach are - well, there's no other way to say this - WAY BETTER than what we have here! And many of us "voices in the wilderness," have been making this point over and over and over, mostly to a brick wall, it seems. Federal lawmakers only seem to have an ear for large private sector solutions, despite a track record of private sector failure when it comes to broadband. (FCC spectrum management policy, FCC broadband policy, etc.) The chart in this article, Broadband prices per megabit around the world, is a case in point, and a good place to go for a quantified look at what Asian and European consumers are paying for broadband. So how does my fairly typical $39.95/month 1.5 Mbs cable broadband service compare? Personally, I'm not thrilled to learn that at that rate, I am paying about half the going rate in Slovakia, or one-tenth the rate in Myanmar, not when I see that I'm paying twice as much as the rate in Poland and ten times the rate in Finland. As an American consumer, I'm used to an efficient consumer market giving me some of the best rates and best choice in the world. Turns out, when it comes to Broadband, that may be the Conventional Wisdom, but it's really more an Urban Myth or Big Lie (the same goes for health care options and pricing, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms!). It's not a pretty picture when one becomes aware of the facts. But most either don't know, or don't care to know. After all, if 98% of those in the US who get broadband do so via a handful of large telecom DSL and cable BB providers, and most can't be bothered to really fully understand the implications of this situation, where are we left in terms of pressure to change the situation? And anyway, it can easily be seen as rational consumer behavior, given that most consumers don't have realistic alternatives to getting broadband from cable and telecom providers. So, if the public is happy, or at least, unmotivated to change the situation, does it really matter? It should, and it does. This is where leadership comes in, or rather, where it is absent. Our leaders should be taking the reins and correcting this situation. It's not happening at the federal level. I still hold out hope at the local level. Robert Cringely, writing his column on PBS.com, is less optimistic. This summer he had a good series on broadband infrastructure, and one month ago he presented a rather bleak outlook, concluding Game Over. He concludes that DSL and Cable won't get us there, dismisses cellular as technologically inadequate, and sweeps right by Wi Fi Mesh and WiMAX. That's where we differ. For if we are to ever get back to a leading position in broadband, or at least an adequate position to support a 21st Century economy, we must place some hope on local government innovation. I may share Cringely's lack of faith when it comes to national policy, the FCC, and the large cable and telecom providers, but I still have faith in small-town America to come through for us. There's enough innovation, money, and most importantly, incentive in our nation's smaller towns to craft solutions that can be adapted to the more dense urban areas. I remain optimistic, if only because the alternative is too grim. Broadband Infrastructure has become too important an issue to leave to the "professionals" anymore. It's time we had some competing alternatives working out in the hinterlands. It's time we took back some of the control over our broadband communication destinies. And the technology is available now for getting started. Imagine when urban consumers can visit their country cousins on Thanksgiving and Christmas and see a far more attractive broadband climate than they enjoy in the big city. Is that possible? Not only possible, forces are at work to make it reality. It's my hope that more and more city broadband consumers will see red when on holiday, and then carry their dissatisfaction back to their city homes and demand better options, and that entrepreneurs will respond. I see the solution to America's Broadband Dilemma coming less from the top down in urban areas and more from the bottom up in rural areas. I suspect I'm pretty lonely in this assessment at this point, but hopefully things will begin to change as evidence to support this thesis becomes available. I'll discuss more details on a provocative vision for change in the approach to broadband in the US in future posts. Posted on September 03, 2007 at 04:00 PM | Comments (0) TGILDW - Thank God It's Labor Day WeekendPheww. While I have the EarthLink Withdrawl in perspective, I'm still concerned about the ripple effects on the industry. I've blogged a lot this week, trying to put events in perspective. So, I'm looking forward this late Friday afternoon to the start of Univ of Texas Longhorn football season tomorrow evening, and a nice Labor Day. TGILDW! I thought I'd take one last stab at perspective before I quit blogging for the week though. Nearly two years ago, I cited these fundamentals in a PTI Seminar Keynote, when asked to answer the question "The Future of Community Broadband - Why? How?" (I posted links to these materials in my recent blog, Amid the Hype Crash, Hope Floats.) Pressure from the Technology Environment How? Transition to Wireless in Stages Pioneer Stage - Cities Experiment with Municipal Networks Clearly, I think the industry got things backward when it shifted its focus to big city deployments after EarthLink began to get all the attention, when city leaders expected to get their networks risk-free, and when most of the press connected "Free" and "Wi Fi" so consistently. This is a market correction, not a market failure. Market corrections are part of an experimental phase, after all. One might also argue that we are still in Step One of these Ten Steps. In fact, I posted a comment on MuniWireless this afternoon, Muni Wi Fi: The Paths Forward, included below. This short comment pretty much captures my attitude about things this week. I've been posting on these events on MetroNetIQ. The principal bottom line conclusion I can make after a long week is that considerable noise, press, and attention in this industry flowed to EarthLink after they announced they would build the Philadelphia network on their nickel. Since that date, cities lined up in the hopes of getting their "free pony ride," and that seemed to be all that the main stream press wanted to cover. Collectively, those of us who sought to shift the conversation to other models, to multi-purpose networks, to models where cities paid, etc. could not get much attention, when all the buzz was about "free" Wi Fi and ever larger big city networks in SF, Houston, Chicago, etc. While I feel for EarthLink and all their problems, I'm breathing a sigh of relief, because like a strong wind that blows away the sand to reveal what lies underneath, we can now hope to get some attention for more sound business models and other applications that were relatively ignored before. Let's hope so, because underlying technological drivers have not changed. We still need more broadband, cheaper broadband, mobile broadband, disaster broadband, and rural broadband; incumbents will still be slow to provide it, and Wi Fi Mesh and WiMAX still have a role to play. We need to move away from thinking only of citywide networks to think of Hot Zones, away from single purpose networks to think of multiple niche applications sharing a network, away from residential access revenues to think of industrial access revenues from AMR and other distributed infrastructure monitoring, sensor devices, and video surveillance support, to name just a few. We need more creativity and imagination, and finally, a lot more patience. Our thinking to date has been too one dimensional. Posted on August 31, 2007 at 04:05 PM | Comments (0) A Modern Conundrum: Too Much Information, Too Little TimeAs a municipal wireless consultant, I read multiple blogs and on-line news sources daily. I'm expected as a professional to understand in-depth the issues that comprise my industry, and those issues change daily. As a political junkie, I also have about 20 political blogs and news sources bookmarked on my Firefox web browser. When I have free time, or when I need a break, I often surf these sites as well (I have to admit I probably spend more time over there on those sites than I should). As I look back on the reporting this week regarding EarthLink's pull back and big city reactions - I've covered the issue pretty thoroughly in my past five posts - what we might call the denouement of Act One in the play, "How Will We Connect With Each Other?" - I'm struck that were I the average Joe on the street, or even, an educated public policy maker, I'd still be confused as to the issues and what the bottom line is. I certainly wouldn't understand with any depth or detail what the stories meant, or the underlying issues and nuances, certainly not at the level that we do inside this industry. For better or worse, in the Age of the Internet, we are more or less stuck with having too much information and too little time to process it. When we drink at this fire hose of information, we're limited by the time we have to consume and process. It's what we would call a hard constraint in a business analysis. So we rely on professional journalists to interpret for us, and on insiders and consultants to share their perspectives in Op/Ed pieces and magazine-length articles. These days, more and more, we also depend on Blogs, which can be at once more immediate, but also suffer from a lack of editing and a preponderance of opinion. I've charted out territory on this website that's a little unique, because I prefer to write longer posts than the average blog, more in-depth than the average news article, and yet more frequently than the average magazine. What's not unique is that my blog comes loaded up with my opinions. No editor, and I like it that way. It's free to everyone, so readers vote with their browser. I recently resubscribed to the Economist, a publication I value for its sound reporting, smart approach, and on-target analysis. They go deeper on issues and provide a non-American perspective, and as a weekly, they stay very current. Ironically, I don't find the time to read as much of each issue as I'd like. And on my blog, you'll note that I often quote Glenn Fleischman, publisher of Wi Fi Networking News, as one of the key analysts in the industry. These two threads came together this week with an article in the Economist penned by Glenn, entitled appropriately enough, Municipal Wi-Fi | Reality bites. I found it to be well written and very timely, a good summary of this week's events, better than I would have written. This morning, I scanned Daily Wireless, a blog written by Sam Churchill up in Portland, OR. I've known Sam for four years and I'm continually impressed with his reporting: he provides a prodigious amount of information in his daily website - no doubt, it too is a valuable resource. But like any blog, the reporting and facts on DailyWireless come bundled with Sam's opinions, which were front and center in his piece this morning, Not Dead Yet. I felt compelled to call Sam to task on his posting this morning, and to highlight a couple of mis-statements that would otherwise lead a reader astray. First, Sam's opener is bold, but flat out wrong, when he states: That's a very bold, and somewhat snarky position to take, IMHO. It's all encompassing in nature and I don't know what purpose his statement serves. Is he really casting doubt on the whole population of pundits with his assertion? First, Dvorak wrote an opinionated piece in 2005 that debunked free citywide Wi Fi (good), but also cast aspersions on free Wi Fi in local venues (wrong), and even on WiMAX (premature). His analysis was flawed, certainly to the point were I wouldn't offer it up as the sole "accurate prediction" as Sam did today. Fact is, broadband infrastructure remains a complicated proposition and it's still premature to say anyone has accurately predicted anything. And, as far as I'm concerned, so what if they did. We all provide analysis and correct it as we get more facts. It's not wrong to offer up your opinion - its what we do on blogs, and nobody has a crystal ball when it comes to Broadband. In fact, the wonders of the Internet and digital information let you make the determination for yourself. Don't believe me? Just go check out the writings on a variety of websites, and I suspect you'll find a lot more critique of the conventional wisdom than Sam lets on. See Sam himself on DailyWireless where he has offered valuable commentary, as have I on MetroNetIQ, certainly Glenn Fleischman at Wi Fi Networking News, Daniel Aghion and his colleagues at W2i, Esme Vos and her colleagues at MuniWireless, Karl Edwards at Excelsio Communications, Craig Settles at Successful.com, Eric DaVersa at NetLogix (I could go on and on). All these pundits and industry experts at some point in the past two years offered up the need for sound business plans, reasonable partnering practices, and multiple application strategies as keys to success in this new field. While we may not have staked out bold positions that criticized EarthLink or forecast gloom and doom regarding the big city visions, we did provide sound analysis that offered up alternatives and warned of potential hazards of overly rosy scenarios. Fact is, we hoped these projects would be successful, even as we claimed all along that cities needed to provide anchor tenancy in realistic Public Private Partnerships, that equipment makers needed to address the issues with indoor signal penetration and inadequate network design, and certainly on this site, that multiple smaller projects would provide more feedback and lower risk than a few very large projects (that last piece has been a mantra of mine "Small is Good, Simple is Better). Second, Sam passes over most of the insight offered by Glenn in the Economist piece and goes to an issue he knows well - the details on the Portland situation, since it's in his backyard. His simple statement "Meanwhile, Fleischman gets his facts wrong in the Economist," is misleading - Glenn may indeed have missed a nuance on one tiny piece of his article regarding one deployment, but by and large, his reporting is highly accurate, IMHO. Finally, Sam's statement - "Everyone wants Free Wi Fi to work." - completely took me by surprise. Huh? For too long, people have conflated Wi Fi and Free, and here Sam does it again! It would be accurate to say "Some to this day persist in promoting Free Wi Fi" or "In a perfect world, we'd all rather get things for free than pay for them, but surely, we don't expect that - its a fantasy." Or even "Everyone wants more options and better Broadband Infrastructure," or something to that effect. I don't know where Sam gets such an opinion to make such a bold assertion - I for one don't share it, never have. So, I offer up this example to describe how confusing it can be to get at the truth in this industry. The issues are nuanced and complex. There are competing viewpoints galore. Rapid changes in technology and multiple levels of political influence mean that the situation is highly dynamic. Even as we value certain sources of information, sometimes they get it wrong. There is no way to make this particular complex issue simple, and so there is no substitute to go to school on the issue and get smart - as I say in the heading on this website, for 18 months now: "Raise Your Network IQ, Feed Your Head." For my part, I'll remain a skeptic to conventional wisdom, but I'll also keep reading DailyWireless, Wi Fi Networking News, MuniWireless, and the Economist, and all the other sources I count on. I'll compare what I've read to my own internal sense of the world, and in so doing, I'll sort out the wheat from the chafe. I recommend that those serious about this technology and industry do the same, and always, always, take what you read in the press and on-line with a grain of salt. Everything is written with a bias and a POV. Challenge what you read and what you know, and compare notes with colleagues to get at the Truth and to stay current. And when necessary, for Pete's Sake, when you're ready to commit funds or make an important decision, spend the money to hire a qualified consultant in order to gain expertise, insight, and a pipeline to an industry. It will lower your project risk and ensure a better outcome than going it alone. Posted on August 31, 2007 at 11:24 AM | Comments (0) Head in the Clouds, Feet on the GroundThere's been a surreal quality to the events of this week for many of us, maybe just a surreal climax to a somewhat surreal four years. See, many of us all along watched in fascination as the main-stream media tried to explain what was happening in the wireless broadband industry to their main-stream audience as an extension of the DSL and cable broadband access so many were used to. It was far more sexy to talk about a potential conflict between public and private sectors, or how wireless could impact the Triple Play plans of incumbents, or my personal favorite, how we could all have FREE access to the Internet, or get on line while sitting on a park bench. Only problem was, there was no sound or robust business case to any of those plans. So now, when those plans tank, or waver, as they were bound to, the main stream press all but writes an obituary for Municipal Wireless. In a word, this is an over-reaction - they are still getting the story wrong, in order to tell a more simple story. Better to not tell the news at all, than to mislead, IMHO. Ironically, the main stream press slowly became actors on the stage itself, as they helped to drive the focus and attention of the industry to the large scale deployments they reported on, projects that were based on a shaky business case of a single use - residential and public broadband access. Their coverage was like warm Gulf water under a hurricane, increasing the spin of the Hype Cycle. We all knew it, but who am I as a lone consultant to challenge the power of the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal, much less the Market, with a capital M. The fact is, we were all too small to individually impact the direction the market took, and once it took off in that direction, we were obliged to tag along. We didn't choose EarthLink as the poster child for this new industry, but it was irresistible to ride their coat-tails where we could. I bet if you took a poll, we would say that we were glad they were there, because the industry got more attention. And we regret their retrenchment. I talked to many a disgruntled service provider over the past two years, as they filed their RFP responses, complaining all the way that the business models demanding free this and free that just didn't make sense. Revenue had to come from somewhere, after all. So, we kept plugging away with our message of what we saw as the Truth, that there was tremendous potential in the changes we saw happening. But it often seemed as if nobody was listening, or they would only hear what they wanted to hear. It's as if Wi Fi Mesh were a new Swiss Army knife that had been unveiled - Ta Daaa! - it could enable a slew of niche applications, all significant in their own right, if a little more complex to understand and a little more difficult to communicate and launch. Sure, Wi Fi and unlicensed spectrum in general had its bugs and flaws, but it was innovative and it was disruptive. Yet everyone continued to talk about the fantastic uses of the Swiss Army Knife as a, well, as a pocket knife. "See how it holds an edge, and boy, can you whittle with it!" Wi Fi Networks were seen primarily as a means to connect to the Internet, and their primary purpose was to offer an alternative to DSL and Cable broadband, which was too expensive for many to afford in mostly duopoly markets. That shifted the focus to holes in coverage, the need for bridges in window sills to get an indoor signal, etc., which did not put Wi Fi Mesh in the best light. The versatility of outdoor wireless broadband technologies always meant that the networks they enabled could serve several purposes. They could be as large or small as you needed, they didn't require any streets to be dug up, any IP application could run on them. They were modular and scalable. Most notably, they could be used to support niche mobile broadband applications for industry and public sector users. With enough deployments, the bugs would be worked out. After all, cellular service was hardly perfect when it rolled out, much less now - "Can you hear me now?" I've talked about several new innovative approaches that have become available because of these new technologies on these very pages since I first started blogging in May 2005. But uptake on these applications was slow, as long as the buzz was all about getting an RFP out on the street, so a city could get a FREE network built by a third-party service provider. After all, just how interesting would it be to go out and buy a pony, if there was a free one waiting in the wings. "I'll take my chances and wait for the free pony, thank you," many municipalities seemed to say. And after all, as long as that was an option, who could blame them. I'd have done the same. So, while Wireless Mesh networks could indeed provide broadband access, that was not at all their best feature. We'll see more and more of these articles now, and let's hope that cities will respond. For instance, see today's Moving Beyond Single-Use Public-Access Models - Government Technology and What Now for Muni WiFi?. Being a technology innovator is no picnic. Pushing out the envelope to provide better service at lower cost will require creativity, patience, and persistence. Mistakes will be made, but errors and flaws will lead to product improvements and lessons learned, if we are deliberate about it. Experiments will need to be conducted and analyzed, and the results should be shared and discussed. In this way, as we all work together to push the ball forward, we will all benefit from industry progress. Keeping one's head in the clouds is a metaphor for keeping an open mind and staying innovative. Keeping one's feet on the ground is a metaphor for staying rooted in reality. Doing both at the same time is a stretch, if you'll pardon the pun, but it's the only way to make progress. It may take longer than we'd like, but that's Reality with a capital R and it doesn't suck as bad as it may seem right now. Posted on August 30, 2007 at 07:11 PM | Comments (0) Picking up the Pieces, Many New PathsExpect to see all sorts of reactions as cities digest the changes on the municipal wireless scene. Just how city leaders react will no doubt be very subjective. Factors that will guide their decisions include how far along a city is with their plans, how they expected to use the network, and how bold and committed the leaders are. Perception of risk will be a key factor. For those cities who had counted on a free ride (Chicago, Cleveland), recent events may be quite discouraging, because they point to cities bearing more of the costs and risks of network projects. For other cities that had already counted on paying their way as anchor tenants (Houston), these changes should not dissuade them from their plans, because there is a lot more to this industry than EarthLink, notwithstanding the large role the company played. Best off are cities that had made plans already for wireless applications such as public safety video, automated meter reading, or mobile data access for municipal employees (Corpus Christi, San Marcos). Where these applications are part of a practical business model to improve delivery of city services, a wireless network has a strong business case. Some of these, particularly those just starting out, may still pull back, if only because some cities see risks differently. But I'd expect to see more and more of these type projects, and that's good news. As we see in this clip, Chicago is pulling back. They had planned on a low to no-cost network to satisfy Digital Divide concerns, probably working with EarthLink, so recent events have proven very disruptive to their plans. Who knows what is next for them. On the other hand, we see Houston regrouping and moving forward in an uncertain direction. They've settled up with EarthLink, exercising a penalty clause in their contract that has EarthLink paying Houston $5 Million (lots of dough for a company trying to save money) for missing deadlines. EarthLink now has an option to move forward under a revised plan with the city or bowing out altogether. Houston can consider other options and that is intriguing. Whatever happens, the city will keep the $5 million, and the city should use it to bridge the digital divide, perhaps by building smaller "Wi-Fi bubbles" over public spaces, the mayor said. Personally, I think we'll see more of this - I like "Hot Zones," "Islands," or "bubble zones," as Mayor White calls them, because they allow for experimentation at less expense, and they are accessible - they let the public catch up with the idea of radio broadband. After all, its a new concept for most people and will likely take time to be fully absorbed. One by one, we should expect to see many more cancellations and delays as these changes are digested. But I also hope that cities will decide to carry forward their plans amid this uncertainty, because infrastructure plans take time, and delays may only serve to derail projects that showed promise, with or without an EarthLink in the picture. Unnecessary delays and cancellations will be a tragic outcome of this restructuring, if unavoidable and to be expected. The silver lining to this cloud, and I'm a silver miner, is that while there may be fewer projects, there will be more serious projects, and that's good news for the serious players in this industry - they will be better able to focus their limited resources on projects with higher chances of success. Posted on August 29, 2007 at 04:01 PM | Comments (0) Amid the Hype Crash, Hope FloatsDaily Wireless provides a good summary today of current news on municipal wireless, as does Wi Fi Networking News "August 28: Metro Shake-out: Chicago Cancels Wi-Fi, EarthLink Lay Offs, Kite Networks Deal Goes South(west), SkyPilot Layoffs Alleged" and MuniWireless, of course. I spent a lot of time on the telephone yesterday, comparing notes with friends and colleagues. A lot of the comment can be summarized as "Yeah, depressing." and "Well, it was about time." and "After all, we've been waiting for the shoe to fall." In other words, many, if not most or nearly all of the consultants and industry insiders have been watching the progress of the much-ballyhooed large projects and scratching their heads. It just didn't make sense, no matter how much we all wanted the projects to succeed. There were signs along the way that all was not right with the big city networks - in early August, NPR raised a red flag on Philadelphia (Philadelphia's WiFi Program Off to Shaky Start), and several weeks ago, the Toronto network was highlighted here. And it seemed that too much chance of success rode on the back of a single company, as EarthLink, began to look somewhat desperate to succeed with a model that was unproven and in an area where they had little experience. Call it the Earthlink Model, if you will, where residential subscriber revenue made the business case and big city government officials negotiated not only for free access for their citizens, but also for a share of profits. How much blood can you squeeze from a turnip? Yet in the existing networks, those few that had already rolled out, expected revenue just was not flowing in (See this article from July), and other projects, though inked, were not beginning on time - bad signs, for sure. Amid all the noise and hoopla and press regarding these big projects, however, there were myriad smaller projects that sought to mirror the big city approach, but also other smaller projects that were more soundly based on government applications first. So, there's more to the story than these headlines will tell, over the next weeks and months. Yesterday's market adjustment reminds me of the fall of the dinosaurs, so long ago. It's as if the big dinosaurs have been knocked out suddenly by the comet, and amid the dust and darkness, the little mammals, far less glamorous but with better survival skills, will have room to experiment and grow. So, does this spell the end? For some who pinned their hopes on this doomed business model, it does. But is this watershed day really cause for doom and gloom? I would argue that embedded in any market correction are the seeds of the next market phase. We can lament the passing of the fantasy of Free Public Wi Fi for the masses in large city networks, perhaps we should, because it was an exciting ride - OK, let's have a moment of silence for just that. ................................................................................................................................... REQUIEM IN PACE - ATLANTA But before moving on, let's all first offer up our respect to the efforts of the many brave souls over the past four years who managed to raise awareness and give us all a vision of a world that could be, a different way of looking at how a society can communicate when using new technologies and new approaches. Let's start with EarthLink and those large cities who had the courage to offer up a new vision, and take the political risk to promote change. And then let's roll up our sleeves and draw lessons from our failed first attempts, all the better to extract success from early failure, as so many others have done with other technologies in the past. For every Microsoft, there is a Netscape, for every Dell a DEC, Compaq and Gateway. Now that we have that out of the way, (and let's hope we do, soon), I suggest that all those who still care about - a) compelling new municipal applications that bring new government efficiencies and enhanced levels of public service and public safety; b) enhanced regional competitiveness; and c) a more robust market of competitive alternatives to the current DSL, Cable, and Cellular privately offered broadband options - pause and take a deep breath. It's time to let go of something that we never really did have (i.e., an opportunity to get something for nothing), and then look again more soberly at what we do have. Reality may suck, but hey, at least it's real and it will be here tomorrow - funny how reality has a knack of being dependable that way. And the situation is not half bad, when you put things in perspective, given the advances in technology and the raised levels of public awareness that we all enjoy, compared to just a few years ago. We're all smarter, a bit wiser, and better equipped to take control of our individual and collective destinies when it comes to broadband. So, back to the Hype Cycle analysis from yesterday's blog. 2. "Peak of Inflated Expectations" It was never a smooth ride up to the top of the peak, after all. As you no doubt recall, throughout the fall of 2004 and into 2005, initiatives at the state level tried to bar cities from owning or operating such networks. Those threatened by these new trends supported state legislation to outlaw public wireless networks, Not sitting idle amid the growing interest among consumer advocates and assertive public officials, incumbent telcos and cable companies got busy in 2004 and 2005 and challenged municipal activist trends that promoted public broadband networks. Many debated the role of the public sector when it came to telecommunications, with some challenging whether public had a role at all. Amid the debate over the role of the public sector, the challenges inherent in the technology and business model continued, but a combination of lots of investment capital, market opportunism and competitive dynamics drove the industry hype. While early success in campus wireless deployments made sense for Wi Fi Mesh technology, and early stage small city deployments showed much promise, the siren song of larger and larger deployments proved irresistible to equipment vendors, service providers and city leaders, and that's the primary direction the market took, for better or worse. They fed off of each other and the Hype Cycle was off and running. Private sector service providers like EarthLink, MobilePro, and MetroFi worked with equipment pioneers to outdo their competitors in meeting and exceeding the desires of the pioneer cities and aggressive public officials. Don't we all just love Monday Morning quarterbacking? It's not hard to see how this happened, certainly, in hindsight. And I don't fault any of them, as a matter of fact. These guys were engaged in pushing out the envelope, and I knew many of the players personally. I saw very few hucksters, although there were a few, no doubt. The industry drew mostly honest, interesting, curious and brave entrepreneurs, from what I could see. It was and still is a very talented group of individuals who toiled to execute on a vision that was not always clear - somewhat cloudy, if you will (sorry, the puns just keep on coming). Even as I supported those pioneers on both the private and public side who sought to change the world and make a difference, I wrote a lot about the developing industry here on these pages, continuing to suggest alternatives to the conventional wisdom and prevailing sentiment regarding big city deployments and free wireless access. Often it felt a little lonely, as it seemed that my prescription of multiple small projects and experimentation was far less sexy and interesting than the big city projects that got the attention of the Wall Street Journals and the New York Times. I urge you then to go back and browse the many essays and articles on this site. Check out some of the alternative approaches outlined on these pages. I hope it offers some solace to the negative articles you are likely to read over the coming days, because these events are newsworthy. For a start, here's a slide deck I offered up at a PTI Seminar in September 2005, nearly two years ago, along with the accompanying white paper. I was asked to opine on the "Future of Community Broadband .. Why? How?" While I talked about municipal broadband networks, keep in mind that they may easily come in a different package than the citywide networks that were in vogue back then. A lot can still be accomplished with smaller, more focused networks that come with a sustainable business model, and the projections I made two years ago still hold. It was a fun time, and I think the ideas from two years ago are especially relevant in light of recent events. I haven't looked at those slides in a while. What's compelling to me is that none of the fundamental dynamics that supported my projections have changed. All that has changed with recent developments is that the Large City Networks Lead model has been severely challenged. I never thought that it made sense to put all one's eggs into one basket. After all, we know that portfolio theory says that to manage risk better, you invest in lots of small risks and then count on a collective success over a broad base of experimentation. We just took a wrong path, IMHO, and now we are correcting. I think such perspective gathering and a return to fundamentals and reality should offer us all hope for the future, and that's where I hope we begin to focus, on what we can do, rather than putting our energies into lamenting what we have lost, when in fact, we never really had it to begin with. It was a vision of what could be, a chimera. Even if it had continued further, it was never sustainable to expect a company to continue giving free access to cities and citizens. The costs had to be recovered, somehow. When it comes to the prospects for Municipal Wireless and Metropolitan Broadband, let me offer up a continuing message of hope, because I truly do believe that the best is yet to come, still, despite the current set backs, and those that are sure to follow in days to come. The fundamental dynamics that support alternative wireless broadband approaches are still there. They promise success, amid the rubble, for those that keep an open mind and get down to business. Let's pick out the winners from the losers, make plans, and get back to work. We owe ourselves nothing less. Posted on August 29, 2007 at 11:03 AM | Comments (0) From Innovation to Interest to Enthusiasm to HypeWhile I'm in this introspective vein, let's reflect on my experience since I started in this industry in June 2003. I'll try to map out this cycle, because my entry as a wireless entrepreneur pretty closely tracks the start of this roughly four-year old Municipal Wireless industry - what I call by the broader term Metropolitan Broadband. (I suspect this analysis will prove a little long for one article, so I'll likely chop it up a bit into more postings as it comes together.) 1. "Technology Trigger" According to Wikipedia, the original 802.11 standard was passed in 1997, then amended in 1999 to create the 802.11a and 802.11b standards, which led to a steadily declining price for chip sets. That same year, several of the technology companies that had worked on the technical standards formed the Wireless Ethernet Compatibility Alliance (WECA) and branded the new technology Wi-Fi. In 2003, they changed the name to the Wi Fi Alliance and moved their global headquarters to Austin. This marketing innovation accelerated the impact that the technology innovation would have. I first saw Wi Fi in conference rooms on the Dell campus in 2002. As a vendor representative, I would be busy looking for an outlet to plug my laptop in, while the Dell staff had Wi Fi laptops they could take from cube to conference room and back. "One day, I'll have to get a wireless laptop," I thought, not without some envy. That day came the following spring, when I left my corporate job to go out on my own. With a new Dell laptop, and a slide-in 802.11b network card, I was active on the coffee shop circuit, talking to angels and VCs. So I could gain Internet access from my living room - big improvement, since that was also my office at the time; but also, I could get online wherever I could find a Hot Spot. And in Summer 2003, they were popping up all over Austin. I had gone from Innovation to Interest, and it had affected me at a personal level. This was an intriguing development. The innovation of Wi Fi was first manifest in business campus environments like the Dell campus, and residences, then later in coffee shops, led by T-Mobile and Starbucks, and in hotels and motels, where companies like Wayport were busy deploying and managing Wi Fi. But these early deployments all charged users for access, and in Austin, paying for access was considered well, not very bright, unless you had the corporate credit card, because there was a budding social movement afoot to make free Wi Fi ubiquitous, and it was working. God Bless Austin. As a broke entrepreneur, I took advantage of free coffee shops as I researched the wireless industry. Here a pause, because in hind sight, this tying together of "free" and "Wi Fi" proved to promote more and more hype. "Imagine a world, where broadband access was available by radio through the air, wherever you were, and it was so cheap that it could - no, make that should - be given away for free!" These were the seeds that would lead to the move into the Hype Cycle, being sown way back in the early days. It was all about hot spot proliferation back in 2003, but there was a small group busy working on a broader vision of mesh networks and outdoor access using unlicensed spectrum. More on that later. This Economist Case Study on Wi Fi from 2004 is a good starting point to understand how we got so excited about Wi Fi to begin with. Wi Fi was refreshing and new, and its popularity took everyone a little bit by surprise. So when I started my company in Summer 2003, without a clear idea of where it would take me, I just knew that Wi Fi changed the rules and would lead to disruption. I had moved from Interest to Enthusiasm. No matter how many business plans I put together, I couldn't get the Hot Spot model to work, and I turned my attention to Rural Broadband, electric utilities, and municipalities. In that direction I was convinced there was compelling need, a sense of urgency, and the potential for a paying customer. Originally designed for indoor use, Wi Fi became even more intriguing when it was first put out in an outdoor environment. Wi Fi Mesh startups like Tropos , BelAir , Strix and SkyPilot sprung up like mushrooms in the forest after a good rain, and proceeded to gain early attention when they deployed Wi Fi outdoors using meshing software that would allow the technology to cover broad areas outdoors - without a spectrum license! Here was more fuel for the Hype Cycle, as equipment companies received funding and had a short time to get out and make things happen. I remember well the event put on by PTI, Tropos, and the City of Corpus Christi back in October 2004. These were true pioneers. At the time, I was consulting with Austin Energy, and we were looking into new broadband communication technologies to support innovation and efficiencies inside the $1 Billion public electric utility. Whether it was Wi Fi, preWi MAX, or BPL, we were interested in understanding how we could use such technologies to run a more efficient electric utility. Our visit to Corpus was enlightening and gave me an early view of where this technology could go. And I also met the Tropos crew, who gave me keen insights into how their technology was being deployed in small deployments, and would soon be deployed city-wide, like in Corpus Christi, Oklahoma City, and it was hoped, Philadelphia. But all was not rosy, especially with the challenge this new approach posed to existing interests and conceptions about the role of the public sector in telecommunications. November 2004 was a watershed time in this new industry, as the City of Philadelphia made clear its plans to build a citywide data network using Wi Fi Mesh. Also from November 2004, this article - Why Ask Wi? The Wired City in History questioned San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's foray into municipal wireless and captures the mood of the time. In response to pioneer mayors, not just in Philadelphia and San Francisco but also in Chicago, Houston, and elsewhere, who expressed keen interest in getting a "free" deal on wireless broadband infrastructure, a cadre of equipment vendors and service providers, such as Earthlink and MetroFi, lined up to grab business. Could these mayors and CIOs strike a deal with a willing service provider? As a non-facilities based ISP, Earthlink was highly motivated to find a broadband infrastructure solution. Other start ups were eager to execute on the vision of the pioneer public servants, and there you have it - for all the right reasons, a series of rational decisions was leading to an irrational conclusion: we were moving from Enthusiasm to Hype. The focus of the market and all the excitement seemed to be sucked up by the big city deployments, and the potential for $100 million deals. The competitive market drives the process, and I'm not sure it can be avoided. In a few short years, we had gone from Innovation to Interest to Enthusiasm to Hype. These were smart people, willing to take risks and make things happen. I wrote a blog last year defending these pioneers, friends of mine Are Boosters Liars? No, They're Pioneers and We Need Them. If you check this out, note that even then I was commenting on misgivings I had with market direction, even while praising the pioneers. I've often wondered if MetroNetIQ was a part of the Hype. Maybe a little. One man's "hype" is another man's "marketing." But I'll show in the next blog how my vision of smaller deals and application orientation has consistently been somewhat apart from the hype of large deals and free Wi Fi. It's a fascinating tale, how so many players - the equipment makers, the service providers, the government officials, the consultants, the press, and the public - worked independently without a shared script, to create an environment that we can now label a Hype Cycle. For those in the middle of it, it has at times seemed like a tornado - you could not ignore this whirlwind and still participate if you were a part of this industry, and you certainly couldn't stop it. You could either choose to play or sit out. Wisdom of the Crowds, indeed. So, as they say, "Hindsight is 20/20." Next up is a closer examination of Hype and my challenge that it may not be seen only in a pejorative light: The Bright Side of Hype, if you will, as only an optimist like me could paint it. Posted on August 28, 2007 at 04:13 PM | Comments (0) Looking up from the Trough of DisillusionmentIt's been a long summer hiatus - ages since I posted. I've been busy, and frankly, needed to take a little time off to regenerate. It's good to be back. And this is what I come back to - Earthlink, pulling out of Houston??? - This Houston Chronicle article from a week ago cites Earthlink's lack of progress, and the potential for a lawsuit from the City of Houston. Can it be?? There's a lot more where this comes from. But more on that later. (I'm not panicking, not by a long shot). How can I read recent posts like Glenn Fleishman's Wi-Fi Networking News (scroll down and see especially August 15 Metro Round-Up: Flounder for Breakfast; SF's Bottoms-Up Network; Long Island Select Provider; Short Delays in Minneapolis, St. Louis Park; August 17 Counterpoint to Muni-Fail: Outside Out, Not Outside In; and August 18 Future of Houston's EarthLink Network Unclear; and August 23 Alexandria, Arlington, Virg., on Hold While EarthLink Ponders for a good review of current events) and not conclude that Something Major is going on in the industry. My argument is that we're entering Phase Three of Gartner's Hype Cycle, which I'll explore herein, and in later posts. The past two months have been an introspective time for me, and busy on the work front as well. I just turned 50 a few weeks back, and so did my wife yesterday. We took a long holiday break - a family car trip to Washington DC, Colonial Williamsburg, the Biltmore Mansion in Asheville, NC; and New Orleans. I'm happy to say that despite all the activity and closed quarters over nearly 4,000 miles of highway, no limbs were lost, no egos were bruised, no kids were given away, and our marriage is still intact. In fact, it was a lot of fun, and refreshing at the same time it was exhausting (hold it, is that possible?) OK - mentally refreshing, physically exhausting. A side benefit of the trip was even more food for thought, and time to contemplate - our nation has been through harder times than now, and they're still struggling in a mighty way in the Big Easy. So this has been an introspective summer for me, and it provides a good backdrop for these dramatic times in the municipal wireless industry, more on that in a bit. Like all of you, I've had high points and low points in my life. And no doubt like all of you, I prefer the high points. But that's what life is, whether it's business life or personal life - a series of peaks and valleys. The key to success (and happiness), IMHO, is knowing when you're in a peak or valley, and taking it in stride, anticipating the next peak (or valley). I'm happy to report that while I'm not standing on a peak at this particular morment, I'm sure not down in a trough either - in fact, I believe that I'm heading into a peak. Things are going relatively well. At this stage in life, it's fascinating to look back with a little perspective, and it's a valuable exercise to identify some touch points for going forward for the next 50 years - I'm an optimist, after all. Hopefully, I can learn a few lessons and avoid some of the hard knocks I took along the way. While each of my physical, mental, and emotional scars has its own story and each was well earned, that doesn't mean that things were necessarily pleasant at the time. Wounds may turn into scars over time, but they still sting on point of contact. And when wounded, its so easy to lose perspective and think one's world is crashing down around one. So, let me say, "Thank God for perspective" - as the saying goes, "Time heals all wounds." (Not to mention its corollary, "Time wounds all heels.") So, how does this rambling set of thoughts apply to what we're seeing in the municipal wireless field? As recent press articles like this one in Business Week (Why Wi-Fi Networks Are Floundering) challenge the validity of Muni Wi Fi, I'd suggest that it's time for a little introspection on this front as well. Bottom Line for me is that I view recent events as more of a return to reality, and yet another step forward in the Hype Cycle (see below). While I'm happy to report that in my personal life, I'm heading up another peak, I'm afraid that we are moving into a valley in the municipal wireless industry. Thus the title of this post, "Looking up from the Trough of Disillusionment"). So, given all this depressing news, I think a pause to look back at how far we've come and where we currently are in the metropolitan broadband industry will help put some of the more alarmist opinions in perspective. I feel a need to sort things out right now, as I get accosted by some op eds on the Internet, and helpful "friends" and colleagues forward such articles on to me, telling me "I told you so," "Wi Fi sucks," "cities don't belong in telecom" and other versions of that familiar refrain. Well, my sole reply has been and will continue to be: "Your conclusions are premature. It's still way to early in this story to draw the curtains." Fortunately, Gartner provides a valuable tool to support such a conclusion, and to help in a more objective evaluation. They've named their tool the Hype Cycle - this link offers a helpful list that summarizes the stages of the Hype Cycle. Suffice to say that we've all seen this cycle before, and here we go again, in our little industry. As you review the list below, see if you agree with my conclusion that we're moving into a new phase now. And that we have a lot more ahead of us, promising more excitement, if a different kind of excitement. See my application of the Hype Cycle, below and in the next few posts. What are the 5 phases of a Hype Cycle? 1. "Technology Trigger" 2. "Peak of Inflated Expectations" 3. "Trough of Disillusionment" 4. "Slope of Enlightenment" Clearly, these Wi Fi Mesh networks have failed to meet expectations, which some believe the fault of the technology and the business models, while I prefer to say the expectations were flawed to begin with. Sit back and watch press coverage continue to track this retrenchment, and watch conventional wisdom-based pundits comment that the whole thing was flawed from the beginning. And then watch a rebirth over the next year, out in the trenches, and hopefully, out of the spotlight and early stage hype that all these large city deployments have generated. In the next few posts, I'll track how I think we got here, building the case to show that the industry is not going to dry up and blow away, and in fact, these may be positive developments we're seeing, only the beginning of a new phase in the industry... Posted on August 27, 2007 at 11:37 AM | Comments (0) Broadband at the Edge: Now a Public Utility?What comes to mind when you think of the words "public utility?" I bet most people think of water, electricity, and sewers. Giving it a little more thought, I think of services that are essential to a society, valuable to all or nearly all the population, services that are most effectively delivered over an infrastructure that most often looks like a natural monopoly. Traditional examples that come to mind are water/wastewater, electricity, natural gas, telephony, and cable TV. Wikipedia, on of my frequent Internet resources, confirms this description of a public utility, adding that "public" utilities serve the public, but can be privately or publicly owned. When it comes to providing essential services, societies have demonstrated considerable flexibility in ownership, and myriad examples of both public and private provisioning of utility services are out there for us to contemplate. So, what about broadband Internet access? Is broadband access really an essential service? And why does it matter what we call it, and whether or not it has now become a “public utility?” How we define terms creates a foundation for our paradigms and ultimately, our reality. And a lack of a common understanding on terms hinders debate in society. So it is important that we have this conversation, sooner or later, hopefully, sooner. If we determine that broadband is essential to modern society, just the act of drawing that conclusion should elevate broadband from its current status as a premium, highly valuable service. That alone would create a greater sense of urgency when it comes to infrastructure, wouldn't it? When a service is a utility, it has a broader base of support, by definition. So the question for us to ask is this: "Is broadband now essential?" I guess that would be a subjective question, but there's a strong argument that in any developed society it is, because of its role in facilitating digital communications and commerce. I've got a more simple answer. For those who currently use it, just try to imagine life without it. The more you use it, the more essential it becomes. But before I draw such conclusions, a quick look back at the origins of broadband is revealing. (I'm looking through an American lens for this analysis). These Internet and access issues came about only quite recently, in historical terms. According to the Internet Society, in A Brief History of the Internet, the Internet arose from the ARPANET, a US Defense Department-funded project to connect individual research networks. After that catalysis by the feds, organic growth took over. By 1990 the ARPANET was decommissioned, and by 1995 the term "Internet" was adopted. But the key point I take away from reading this history is this: The Internet is as much a collection of communities as it is a collection of technologies, and its success is largely attributable both to satisfying basic community needs and to utilizing the community in an effective way to push the infrastructure forward. From such community origins, the Internet enjoyed dramatic, unprecedented growth as an emergent network, with its dramatic expansion driven from the bottom up. So by the mid 1990s, the Internet starts to look more like what we know today. But last mile access remained somewhat crude. Remembering dial-up makes me shiver. A data modem let one use telephone lines to connect, but it was slooooooow. Remember this adage? "WWW = World Wide Wait." Maintaining the status quo, telecommunication companies focused on selling extra phone lines to residential consumers and relatively expensive T-1 lines to businesses. In so doing, they missed the initial mass uptake of broadband (hindsight really is 20/20). Competing cable systems brought consumers an improved, faster data service over cable TV infrastructure, where it gained the names "high-speed Internet access" and "broadband," based on its ability to carry lots of data at high speeds. Looking at the introduction of first cable, then DSL broadband, the rapid adoption of broadband where it has been made available is further evidence of its essential nature. This move from slow to high speeds has made broadband as qualitatively different from dial-up as the move to the automobile was from a horse drawn economy. But at this very early stage - remember, we are only ten years into the Broadband Era, a mere blink of an eye when it comes to history - it's too soon to rest on our laurels. We are an impatient society, with tremendous pressure to adopt technology and innovation to remain competitive. We must acknowledge that the extension of broadband last mile infrastructure has failed to keep up with the demand for the services the infrastructure enables. Why is that? First, FCC policies set the bar low and make the situation appear better than it is (calling 200 Kbs broadband, while Japan enjoys 20 Mbs as a broadband standard). Second, private sector companies go where the money is, so the result in coverage is more than likely urban and far from universal. At a higher level, the result is that availability of very high speed services compared to other countries is relatively minimal. While the telco/cable duopoly argues that progress is being made, society grows impatient. So, back to the utility question. Why take a utility approach? Being argumentative, I might ask, why not? After all, continuing to do the same thing is unlikely to give us different results, is it? How long do we wait for the duopoly approach to bear fruit? Treating broadband as a utility must be seen as a viable alternative to the status quo, especially in the non-prime markets. While private companies did indeed provide the energy and initiative behind this first wave of broadband extension, and we should give them their due, much more is possible. Driving broadband service over their existing networks made for a good start, but choosing between cable and DSL broadband need not remain our only option. In fact, doing so is bound to limit the expansion and adoption of broadband as the task of extending the network grows tougher. As a society, we need a fresh approach, another alternative, and thinking in terms of a public utility is a practical way forward. Broadband service is essential to residential, business, and government consumers. For those who enjoy broadband at work and home, a return to dial-up is truly unthinkable. For those who have yet to experience broadband, we know what awaits them - it’s a one-way service, you don't go back. New customers will take the service when it becomes available at the right price, because they need to communicate with their loved ones and their customers, and because Internet-delivered services and IP applications have become the norm of modern society. A utility approach is highly efficient because it spreads costs out over a broad population and allows a long-term cost recovery period. By letting go of the duopoly paradigm, which has served us well so far, but has its limits, we free ourselves and society of its limits. By recalling models from the past, we see how we brought about our other essential services, from water and wastewater to natural gas and electricity. We have models to draw on to extend broadband to the last mile. Under a utility paradigm, we accept that it is the role of all society, not just its telecom and cable providers, to finance and build the infrastructure necessary to provide broadband service to all consumers at an affordable rate. That approach drove the penetration of electricity and later, telephone service, and such a universal service model brought about dramatic economic development benefits. And by accepting diverse methods and technologies to provide such ubiquitous service, as a society we can harness the power of a portfolio and iterative feedback loops to manage risk and exploit innovations. Broadband at the last mile around the globe has been most successful so far in tightly knit societies with dense populations and where there is strong national government guidance and leadership. An American approach could be, must be different. We're too big a country, and we don't like heavy central control at the federal government level anyway. We do have an independent streak, though, which we should tap into. Extending broadband on such a scale to cover the nation would mirror the extension of early electric and telephone networks, which were seen as utilities to be provided to all citizens and businesses at affordable rates, because they were essential to society. So is broadband. I would urge this debate to be joined far and wide. Where broadband infrastructure is slow to build out, why not try a utility approach? It's worked before. Posted on July 14, 2007 at 11:20 AM | Comments (0) A Declaration of Independence for Broadband ConnectivityIt's hard to believe that another year has come and gone since last Independence Day 2006! Here we are on July 4, 2007. Last July 4, I published a Broadband Declaration of Independence, capturing my initial thoughts about the role of communication infrastructure and the need for a new way to look at things. Four days later, I refined my thoughts into a more cohesive document, publishing it as Declaration of Independence for Broadband Connectivity 2.0. I revisited those essays this morning and I'm struck by how consistent my thoughts are one year later. The gist of the argument is that there comes a time when a people, a society need to take a hard look at where they are and where they seek to be, and take a stand to make the changes they need to get to their collective objective. My argument is that we have arrived at that time when it comes to broadband connectivity, but much of the population is "stuck" in the current paradigm of service providers (mostly large corporations) and service consumers. All well and good if this paradigm is serving us. But it's not. While I'm a big advocate of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," I believe we should as a society acknowledge how the current paradigm for broadband connectivity fails to provide us with what we need, and how we can as a society address that failure. So, for my readers in the US, Happy Fourth of July / Independence Day to you all! I hope you have a great time, with barbecue, beer, and fireworks. According to our family discussion ten minutes ago, it looks like we'll be going to the downtown fireworks show in raincoats and galoshes. Should be an adventure. For my global readers, please check out the essay below and see if it fits for your country and society as well. Enjoy the Declaration below, which I think is worthy of a second read. A Declaration of Independence for Broadband Connectivity Connectivity is vital to individuals and communities Big business and government have been slow to adapt The system that would give us ubiquitous broadband is broken A national dialogue on connectivity independence is needed Political will is necessary to make a paradigm shift Collective action is key to changing the paradigm Cities, Chambers, and Neighborhoods have roles to play to create a new network In a highly dynamic environment, a portfolio of small players is less risky than a handful of large players Natural systems use collaboration and competition to deal with uncertainty, so can we with connectivity Infrastructure is only a path to applications, which provide solutions and value We should start the natioal discussion with this declaration and these principles for connectivity independence 1. Complexity v. Simplicity in Design. Wired or wireless networks are complex, to a degree. Complexity doesn't go away with independence, but a new business model and paradigm can embrace more simplicity, challenging existing "rules" and traditional assumptions. Occam's Razor, for instance, would imply that the optimal solution may well be the simplest solution. We should be free to pursue more simple solutions to connectivity. 2. Professional Operations. The rules of physics, however, impose some boundaries on simplicity: initially, these networks will not be simple to deploy or maintain - they could be owned by the customers in cooperatives, but they will need to be managed and maintained by professionals. Network operators may come in a variety of forms, from traditional telcos to a network of smaller firms using standard operating processes, to a new large company or an existing large company - keys to professional operation will be network expertise and financial stability. 3. Local involvement. Local involement is important: limited partnerships with local investors funding the networks and recovering their investment from cooperative dues with interest holds potential. Nobody understands a local area better than locals, making them the best boosters for local infrastructure and a new approach to connectivity. Limited partnerships would give local business leaders a lasting incentive to make new networks successful. 4. Corporate Sponsorships. National, regional, and local sponsors can support network infrastructure deployments, not unlike the sponsors of neighborhood baseball parks whose signs line the outfields. Such sponsorships, similar to those that supported the development of US commercial TV network infrastructure fifty years ago, and public broadcasting since, indicate a model to emulate. 5. Comprehensive Stakeholder Buy-In. Such alternative network infrastructure approaches do best with widespread buy-in. Wireless neighborhood demonstration networks represent a low-hurdle and as such, are a good transition to the fiber networks that would provide the ultimate connectivity. Time and numerous local demonstrations should capture the imagination of the masses. Starting with a massive number of small wireless networks is the best way to get the most people familiar with a new broadband paradigm. Posted on July 04, 2007 at 02:29 PM | Comments (0) Getting By With a LITTLE Help from Your Friends at USDADeputy Agriculture Secretary Chuck Connor today announced the availability of $8.9 million in grants for communities without broadband service to provide residential service and connect facilities such as police and fire stations, health care, libraries and schools. "The Community Connect Grant Program has proved to be effective in reaching those rural communities where broadband service is least likely to be deployed," Conner said. "Connecting residents and essential community facilities improves local services and the protection of the citizens of these communities." USDA ANNOUNCES AVAILABILITY OF $8.9 MILLION IN BROADBAND GRANTS Looking for help from Uncle Sam when it comes to connectivity? Don't hold your breath, this is what passes for a Rural Broadband connectivity strategy. Read the USDA press release and do the math - when you divide up $8.9 million - and where did they get that number? Loose change they found in the USDA sofa under the cushions while vacuuming? - with a minimum of $50,000 and max of $1M, you get at most 188 projects with minimal funding each - yawn - or 9 projects with nearly $1M each - of if we assume a back-of-the-envelope average of $200,000 per project (avg cost of a turnkey mesh network of 1 sq. mi, fully loaded), you get 45 rural projects, or less than one per state. This must be seen as some sort of experiment, right? I'm depressed.... Posted on July 04, 2007 at 11:49 AM | Comments (0) What's a "Small" Town to Do? Start with HospitalityNEWTON, Mass.--When it comes to building the infrastructure that makes public high-speed Internet access possible, companies are keen to take on projects for large cities. However, smaller cities are another story. During the past 18 months, MultiState Associates, a consulting firm for lobbyists, has compiled a database on more than 2,000 communities with populations of 60,000 or more interested in developing municipal broadband or wireless services. The database includes cities in the early stages of public broadband interest, not just those that have put out requests for proposals (RFPs) to companies. Its data shows that while thousands of towns are interested in developing municipal networks, few vendors are willing to take on small projects. "I think towns are putting out RFPs faster than the industry can respond. I mean, there are several thousand cities pursuing this; there are only so many vendors pursuing smaller cities," Mitch Gorsen, vice president at MultiState Associates, said in an interview. Bringing public Wi-Fi to small-town America Is this a crisis? I don't think so. First, I'd say its very positive that so many city ofificals have caught on that there is significant potential for them in this new infrastructure. The question will be how they address the market realities and what they do with all that interest. Second, I'd point out that tracking cities of over 60,000 in population, while interesting and no doubt compelling, is still limiting and misses an even bigger picture. There are many more "small" towns of a lesser population, say, from 25-60,000, that have much to expect from these new wireless technologies as well, although they may not appeal so much to the larger vendors. Third, the jury is still out on whether the vendor community will step up to partner under new rules of the road, how they will find a new role, and what those public private partnerships - PPPs - will look like. I think we'll see a variety of PPPs emerge this year as a result of these changes. Fact is, we are in the very beginnings of this new industry, and though much has been written recently about growing pains, disappointments, and problems in these first deployments, after all, isn't that sort of thing to be expected at this early stage? What will be interesting over the next year is to see how the private and public sector deal with the opportunities and risks they encounter as they move forward. What's driving all this interest from all these small towns? It's pretty plain to me - broadband has become an essential service - many think it is rapidly becoming a "utility," and I agree. Problem is, that new status has yet to sink in - it's not yet acknowledged as a utility and most approaches to bringing in more broadband so far don't treat it as such. What these myriad city officials recognize is that broadband has not only become a useful tool to make their administration task more effective, but it has also become an attractive service. When city officials take steps to ensure that their cities have this service available, they're demonstrating hospitality, not unlike a host does when they make sure their guests are comfortable and have what they need during their visit. Hospitality, after all, is a key ingredient that is vital to making a city stand out from the rest of the pack. Hospitality is a great place for cities to start when they think about broadband - towns both big and small, should be asking themselves, "What steps, both big and small, can my city take to use broadband as a tool to make my city/town more welcoming?" The state of this new industry is a topic under intense discussion these days. Here's a sample of some of the industry press I've run across in the past few days. In Municipal Wireless a Questionable Business Model? Nope...Been There, Seen That!, industry veteran (and my good friend) Eric DaVersa picks up this hospitality theme in a different way. He notes the similarities in market development between cities bringing in broadband access options and what hotels did a few years back. As you will recall, we saw broadband access brought in by Hospitality Industry pioneers as a premium service, only to have it evolve quickly to an amenity that is offered for "free" in order to make their venues more attractive and competitive. The same progression can be expected in the muniicipal wireless industry, as early adopters seek to cover their capital costs with business models that require payment - initially. But as the technology becomes more affordable (lower costs) and the service becomes more widely adopted, it becomes an expected amenity widely offered to attract visitors. Sound argument, worked for air conditioning back in the early 20th Century in the South. The recent MuniWireless Conference in New England became a forum for this discussion as well. Andy Oram, an editor at O'Reilly Media, offered a succinct commentary that challenges the direction the municipal wireless industry took over the past two years, and suggests that cities will need to add to their technological strengths if they are to adapt and take advantage of the potential of this trend. Every city is unique. You cannot bring in a consultant and just expect solutions to fall into place. The geographic and demographic details of each region make all the difference in the world as to what solution to choose. Just to give a feel for the mind-boggling diversity of subtleties a town has to look at, here are a few I've heard of: * What local, state, and federal rules govern the use of poles So, we find ourselves at a cross roads, in need of a map. Not sure if this trend is for real? See this article cited in GigaOm - 53% of US Homes have broadband, which confirms the progression of broadband and ties progression of broadband to income. And we're not done yet. We've learned over the years that any technology trend can be spurred on to mass acceptance by a Killer App, in this case, I predict the Killer App driving adoption of metropolitan broadband will be VOIP telephones being used on citywide wireless networks. Cities that have a Wi Fi cloud will offer their citizens a very attractive option in addition to simple broadband access - residents as well as visitors will be able to significantly reduce their cellular phone bills by using a dual-use cell phone, but switching over to the LAN when under the local wireless cloud. The future, it's coming. Substantial Market Niche Emerging for Wi-Fi/Cellular Phones A recent survey of US early adopters by high-tech market researcher, In-Stat, found that almost half of those respondents planning to replace their cell phones want Wi-Fi capability. To meet the growing demand, there is an avalanche of dual-mode phones in the pipeline. By the end of this year, the Wi-Fi Alliance will have certified more than 100 different models of Wi-Fi/cellular phones. In the years ahead, dual-mode VoIP-capable phone systems will have increasing competition from other technologies, like femtocells for cellular coverage, but widespread Wi-Fi deployment and the variety of Wi-Fi/cellular handsets offers Wi-Fi/Cellular based systems a significant head-start in the market. Other technologies, such as WiMAX and Ultra Wideband, are also poised to enter the handset market, but Wi-Fi fills a unique niche that WiMAX and UWB cannot match. Recent research by In-Stat found the following: In-Stat e-mail update June 13, 2007 Posted on June 13, 2007 at 10:30 AM | Comments (0) Earthlink Sneezes and the Municipal Wireless Market Catches Cold? Not so Fast ....I felt the need to share my opinion on this one. Esme Vos wrote a piece on MuniWireless regarding the recent announcement by Earthlink. Titled, "EarthLink to evaluate performance of muni Wi-Fi business," the article carried the shocking news that Earthlink is operating like a well-run publicly traded company. Namely, they intend to pursue business practices that are in their best interest and have no intention of going off willy-nilly, chasing every Tom, Dick, and Harry municipal RFP. This is news? Here's what Earthlink said, according to the San Jose Mercury News: EarthLink Inc. said Thursday it will study the performance of its municipal wireless Internet networks in four cities - Philadelphia, New Orleans and California's Anaheim and Milpitas - before deciding how to move forward with similar Wi-Fi networks elsewhere. While more cities are expressing interest in striking deals with the company, EarthLink is "not yet able to establish that comfort level" that the investments are really profitable, said Kevin Dotts, EarthLink's chief financial officer. That doesn't mean EarthLink is pulling the plug on cities under contract, like Houston, which would eventually be the nation's largest network at about 600 square miles, Dotts said. Instead, the company wants to review a range of factors to determine where it would be most profitable to invest what Dotts estimates are up to $40 million a year in capital expenditure. Esme provided good analysis, if I can summarize here: the day of the free lunch is over - Earthlink is not withdrawing from the market, but they will be selective in their market focus, and will show a preference for large, dense, broadband-using cities. No kidding. I'm not suprised - these projects cost money, and Earthlink has access to a lot of money, but there is a bottom to that barrel of cash. Sadly, Earthlink has provided much of what we would call excitement in the first phase of this new industry. Many times I have thought - "Thank God for Earthlink." So when they announce that they have enough to chew on, thank you, and will be taking a more - shall we say "balanced" view of the market - I'm not surprised. They are hitting limits in their cash, in their strategic focus, and in their ability to staff these engagements. Indeed, there will be some ripples for the cities. One final paragraph caught my eye in the Mercury story: He added the company will closely study the four designated markets over the next few months before defining its strategy. He said it will probably focus any expansion on large metropolitan areas like Chicago. Focus on large cities...so, medium-sized cities like those I've been writing about on these pages will not see the Godzilla of Municipal Wireless bidding on their projects...I'm betting that these city officials are not surprised either, although they are probably more than a little disappointed. So, it's not the end of the world, but rather a return to normal business behavior. That's the way I see it, and I believe that the sane city officials out there will see the same picture. The bigger story is that there are so many cities eager for Earthlink to work with them - hello, that's called "market demand." We may need to haggle on price, but its still a sign of demand. Who will step in to fill it? That's what I want to know... Here are my comments on Esme's article, for the record. My first paragraph addressed an alarmist who commented first, claiming that this announcement is a death knell for the industry. I beg to differ. What I see is one more sign of an industry that is evolving fairly rapidly. From the surprise offer of Earthlink to fund the Philadelphia network a few short years ago to any number of city projects that sought to negotiate a similar free lunch, we all knew this was a phase in the birth of a new industry, a phase not meant to last for long. How long could one-sided deals last, after all? A more balanced read of the situation is that these networks are tools that can accomplish a lot, but projects have to be fiscally sound and widely demanded in a community, just like with any other major capital project. They're not for everyone. But for those towns and cities with real interest, and there are a lot of them out there now, wireless mesh networks offer an alternative to speed up deployment of broadband. We're in the middle of a paradigm shift, and we're not sure what it looks like on the other end. Projects will require more effort but I believe they will continue, because many projects make a lot of sense, and there is definite interest around, which I encounter daily. Earthlink, exciting as it has been and still is, is not the only game in town, and it has its limits. Cities are newly empowered and are open to new possibilities, and there's no putting this toothpaste back in the tube. Also, I commented on the San Jose article as follows: Thanks in part to the initiative of EarthLink, there are now hundreds of cities engaged in a lively debate about their appropriate role in expanding broadband infrastructure in their cities. Before EarthLink's foray into municipal broadband, cities by and large deferred to their cable and telecom franchisees and hoped to get noticed for broadband expansion. After EarthLink's recent activity, cities have a new perspective and sense of empowerment - the paradigm has shifted. My question - who will step up next and push the envelope out a little further? EarthLink opened the door onto this new market, but now they need to stop to catch their breath. But as they paused, they left the door open for another to take some initiative and gain some press in the coming months. Who will it be? Posted on April 28, 2007 at 05:45 PM | Comments (0) Why Fi? It's Where the Growth IsWe continue to see so much focus in the news on wireless activity in the "larger urban centers" - witness the news this week regarding Earthlink and ATT competing to win Chicago (here and here ), Boston's RFI last week (here and here), Cleveland's RFP this week (here), and Houston's City Council approve the Wi Fi deal struck with Earthlink (here), not to mention plans for Los Angeles a couple of months ago (here). But I'm telling you, mid-sized cities can really transform themselves with these technologies, and given the tightly-knit societies they enjoy relative to the larger cities, they have an even better opportunity to achieve a more complete transformation. It may not make the national press when a mid-sized city launches a wireless project, but it's big news in the local market, and it will continue to be as more and more local leaders realize the potential of wireless broadband and their ability to start a project immediately. It's not just about the big cities, although they draw the interest of the big companies and that makes those projects newsworthy. Why all the fuss, for the big or the little cities? Wireless is the next frontier, as broadband matures and more and more get used to the broadband lifestyle. "More and more of the larger urban centers within these markets will continue to see developments in their wireless infrastructure such as municipal Wi-Fi and WiMax networks, which will not only make it more attractive for non-users to get online, but also introduce new users to richer content offerings from the start of their online experience," Cruikshank said. "The implications from a content and overall online experience are profound." This well-written article describes Ipso Impact's annual Face of the Web study, released this week. Key findings are that broadband usage among Internet users has climbed to 77% (up 7 percentage points), while dial-up has declined among that same group to 21%. As broadband becomes the overwhelmingly dominant form of Internet access, it's inevitable that the growth rate decline. But it's a different story when it comes to Wireless Internet access: Only 15% of Internet users connect with wireless devices today, but the growth of household laptop ownership (34%) and the growing popularity of mobile browsing could change that, according to the study. One in three adults had accessed the Internet through mobile devices by the end of last year, the study found. Wireless, quite simply, is where the growth is in the Internet world today. And wireless usage is driven by productivity, according to this article, which covers another angle from the same survey. Considering a wide range of innovations over the past 50 years, respondents said the following have had the most significant impact in terms of saving them time and increasing their productivity (up to three responses were possible): * Internet - 60 percent In the coming five years, respondents predicted the following will have the most significant impact on productivity and saving time (up to three responses were possible): * Wireless networks - 50 percent Wireless Will Deliver Next Big Productivity Boost, Says Global Survey - Apr 19, 2007 People will use the Wireless Broadband Internet more and more, the more access they have to it, and the better they understand it. And they will be seeking greater productivity. And that is why cities are pursuing these projects. While all cities can benefit from this trend, it is the smaller, more cohesive and activist cities that will get there first and reap the largest gains. Posted on April 22, 2007 at 08:25 AM | Comments (0) Striving for the Top v. Avoiding the BottomIt strikes me that there is a corrollary in how we look at the public sector's role in society and how we look at broadband's potential to play a role. I think what I've been promoting in my last month or so of blogging is that there is a middle road, where the public sector plays a Catalyst Role. When a city government pursues more government efficiency through a project to expand the broadband infrastructure to which it has access, it stimulates a debate and a broader vision in the community to seek a more functional level. That potential for debate and dialogue can be left to just sit there, or it can be leveraged for greater good. And while I clearly favor the visionary approach using Best Practices and Standards of Excellence, I don't think that government is the solution to all of our problems. I think that harnessing multiple viewpoints and public / private synergies is a path to the solutions and represents a more functional view of local government and society. There are no doubt a world of possibilities in looking at different perspectives a society can have, but two dominant approaches could be defined as follows. First, there is a perspective of setting an optimal standard for public sector activity based on best practices and ideals - Striving for a Goal - you might call this perspective "Solution-Oriented." If you believe "Reach for the Stars" could be your catch phrase, this one's for you. Visionaries fall in this camp. And second, there's a perspective of setting a minimal standard for public sector activity based on avoiding negative outcomes when they threaten to disrupt society - Avoiding the Basement - and you could call this perspective "Problem-Oriented." If you think "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." better describes your view, then you would probably describe yourself as a Realist. My perspective on leadership is that those in positions of power in a society should actively anticipate problems and stimulate the conditions and infrastructure that will optimally avoid those problems. And if that's not possible, then they should mitigate those problems to the degree possible. I think we are all guilty of holding our leaders to too low a standard. The same could be said for the expectations we place on our society. Why do we simply assume that nothing can be done about so many things, that problems are intractable because they have not yet been addressed adequately? I think one thing all these municipal wireless projects have in common is that there is some element of hope in their local environments. Either at the leadership level, or emergent in their societies, there are one or more passionate people who want to change the status quo and get out in front by bringing in new technology like wireless broadband. It is the presence of such a spark that I've been trying to define as the beginning of some major changes in cities that go down this path, if they choose to fan the spark into a flame. The MetroNetwork Approach - I called it the Metropolitan Broadband Triple Play three weeks ago in another blog - challenges leaders to expand their vision beyond an IT project, to look at broadband as a first step in moving their city to a higher standard of performance. In the end, I guess I view government and the public sector as an extension of the "public." They're not some third-party, but "our" elected representatives and the professional staff "we" hire to do "our" business for "us." When one looks at government, school districts, and universities in this way, it's different than when one sits apart and criticizes them for poor performance, without taking some ownership and offering solutions. And just imagine what could happen when all three of these public entitites - municipal government, public schools, and universities - unite to work together with business leaders and other elements of the community under a common vision based on best practices and stretch goals. Now that community is focused on a Standard of Excellence and a commitment to improve, and all can rest assured that they're doing all they can with what they have to work with. Metropolitan Broadband is a highly versatile tool, but it is not a panacea, nor is it a substitute for the hard work of building community. But it is a great way to get a dialogue started about the future: how can a city engage in a project like this without first establishing a common vision of the future? I think that we'll see a lot more of these projects if we're able to expand the industry's vision beyond simple IT infrastructure projects and the technology itself, to embrace a broader view of what can be done with the tools (i.e., solutions), including what happens to a society that tackles problems with these new tools. Such a broader view includes those who would use wireless solutions to enable more broadband to reach more people. And it embraces others who would use this tool to promote economic development and their regional advantages. This perspective is in the end more in tune with the potential of this technology and such a broad approach will both magnify any positive impacts that may accrue when a community goes down this path and minimize any negatives. Posted on April 21, 2007 at 11:42 AM | Comments (0) Industry Snapshot - Final Thoughts on MuniWireless Texas 07Once more, I have to hand it to the folks at MuniWireless and MicroCast - one week after I drove up to Dallas, this Sunday morning I'm still pondering my impressions of last week at the MuniWireless Texas 07 Conference (see that link for presentations - some good ones!). So here's a shout out for Esme, Gary, Mike, Joe, and Amy, as well as some of my random thoughts and conclusions for you all to chew on. 1. The industry supply chain looks increasingly like a barbell to me, with more growth at the ends than in the middle. On one end, we see lots of mesh equipment with vendors showing budding interest in application integration, and on the other end a large wave of cities entering the market, many with confirmed budgets and more sophisticated outlooks than last year at this time. Great news! But in the middle, we still see a skinny service provider segment, dominated by the relatively giant Earthlink; struggling MobilePro and its subsidiary Kite Networks, and MetroFi; and any number of smaller more regional players. Did I leave anybody out? In the middle we also saw at this conference a growing number of new entrant consultants holding their hands up in one main session, seemingly drawn into this new industry by its confirmed growth potential and excitement in the media, but still lacking the experience and depth of the relatively small handful of more senior consultants with three plus years in this industry. 2. Cities' interest in the details of mesh equipment may be waning, challenging the continued dominance of trade show presence by manufacturers of these foundational technologies. I heard some city guys say that mesh equipment was "just a commodity," suggesting that attempts to differentiate on technology capability may not be paying the dividends hoped for. Perhaps these were lone comments, perhaps its a more widely held sentiment. Personally, I still think the choice of mesh vendor matters a lot. But I think such comments also signal a maturing viewpoint in the market. Just as the city consumer POV is maturing, with a greater ability to parse through the marketing language to determine those criteria that are really important for a buyer to know, so too the maturing mesh equipment industry is getting more adept at understanding how this equipment works (and doesn't) and how it can provide value to cities. The industry is represented by such firms as BelAir, Cisco, Motorola, Nortel, SkyPilot, Strix, and Tropos (there are more, but I mean to offer a representative, not comprehensive list here). I'm impressed by the progress and energy I see at each vendor, but my point is that all of these companies continue to tweak their product line, showing incremental improvement which, while not to be sniffed at, is still missing a certain something. I think that the beginning moves by some to integrate application technologies will provide that missing element - it's a good thing for the industry if vendors start moving towards a goal of offering a more complete solution to service providers and cities. They're showing definite progress, but still have a long way to go, and without help from the federal government to spring them from the 2.4 GHz spectrum ghetto, where their products will continue to suffer from a crowded spectrum band with line-of-sight restrictions, they will continue to fight a lonely battle to make their products more bullet-proof and sustainable. In the meantime, the path to differentiation may lie in application integration, where they have more control over their value offering. I hope that all will put more emphasis on developing specific industry vertical solutions in the year to come, which I believe will pay off for the select number of vendors who lead that effort. 3. The lack of service provider availability may lead the smaller cities to take a serious look at alternatives to the Public Private Partnership model. When you put these trends together (maturing mesh capabilities, maturing city awareness, and lack of service provider options) the arrow points to more self-sufficiency on the part of cities. The fewer options a city has, the bolder it may get - watch for some cities to figure out that they can put a network in on their own and then find an operator or service provider partner down the road, if they ever decide they need to do that - call it the latest version of the "Corpus Christi model." The municipally-owned debate in statehouses and Congress from back in 2005 may have inhibited some city-owned projects and given a shot to the Public Private Partner model, but those issues are fading, so let's watch for change. And as we continue to watch large players like ATT, Microsoft, and Google dance around the topic of municipal wireless, look for sustaining activity. Lots of attention has been given to ATT this past month, with the Napa and St. Louis announcements, but a friend who attended the ATT presentation told me that there was some chill in the room. He concluded that ATT is clearly very selective about finding a city that is in a market that will allow them to exploit their network presence and drive traffic to their Cingular network, which is their cash engine. They're not fond of RFPs, either. I think we'll be waiting a while longer for a big player to enter. 4. New consultants will take time before they will be able to offer significant value to the market. Perhaps this is the one line item that should really be read with a grain of salt, because MetroNetIQ competes here, and we've seen lots of cities get not so good deals from consultants. Several factors combine to create a long learning curve for consultants in this space: lots of moving parts on the technology solution; the industry is more complex than it appears at first blush; there are any number of Byzantine intrigues at work at any one time; signficant hype cycle noise to sift through; shifting solutions make new technology options available. 5. More and more cities can be expected to get funding and start projects in the next 6-9 months. At some point, we knew this would happen. People have reached the stage where they've studied enough, and they need to start a project. The early adopters have gone through some budget cycles and come out on the other end with the green light to start spending on a project. When that happens, the whole risk equation changes and the buyer gets more serious. As I said in a previous post while at the conference last week, as more cities enter into this market, the market dynamics will shift. There will be a lag period where experienced consultants and service providers will be harder to find. There are just so many projects that Earthlink and Civitium have the resources or time to do, so the dynamics of a conventional solution will change. Cities will either pay a premium price to get the best, wait in line until one comes available, go down market to a second tier of consultants and / or providers, or go out on their own. There are just so many options for a city in a tight supplier market. Of course, one other aspect of this trend is that as demand by cities becomes more and more certain, the market can be expected to respond by adding capacity, and we'll see even more consultants, but also service providers, network operators, and system integrators. We should expect that options (supply) expands along with demand, although there will always be some lag time, which puts a premium on acting faster than the city next door if you seek to have a full array of options to choose from. 6. Cities may opt to avoid an RFP and go with a single source provider with a well-documented business case. Just because we have started out with a preponderance of city-led RFP deals, doesn't mean we have to continue that way. Even though procurement guidelines favor a competitive bid scenario for most city officials, there is some wiggle room with creative approaches, and more cities will show us the way to accelerate past burdensome and expensive procurement processes. Personally, I'm all for building a good sound political and business case for a vendor selection, but I challenge the RFP that is used just to buttress a decision already made. If a clear winner is apparent before an RFP, I hope more cities will find a way to cut a deal, document their fair dealings, and eliminate the noise of an unattractive or uncompetitive RFP. 7. Applications will become more and more the buzz in this industry. There is just no getting around the fact that these networks are tools for cities to use in order to accomplish their core missions. While there will be continued discussion about Digital Divide, Ubiquitous Broadband, and Rural Broadband, where access is the be-all and end-all, the more sophisticated or focused cities will hone in on one or more ctirical broadband applications, like AMR, public safety apps, and mobile field data apps, build a business case, and go for it. Look for well-thought out projects that highlight one or more key applications. A comprehensive solution with clear payback for one or more applications may appear preferable to a general purpose network heavily reliant on a private partner to make money on retail ISP revenues. We will also get more field data this year, which should prove revealing on how well these networks stand up to the tasks of providing the transport function for critical municipal digital applications - some good, some bad. The good data will be a press agent's dream and will be hawked to encourage more cities to enter, while the bad data will have the dual role of teaching the market what works and what doesn't, but also of providing a damper, slowing things down and driving a lot of the hype out. Thank Goodness. The hype is one thing that is growing tiresome for me, as it raises unrealistic expectations! The bottom line comment? I'm bullish on industry growth and predict stronger than average growth of municpal wireless projects in Finally, I'd encourage MuniWireless and MicroCast to focus more on application integration at future conferences. Imagine a staged exchange between city representatives on one side of the room and mesh and equipment vendors on the other side - that's a dialogue I'd love to have a ringside seat at. Posted on March 11, 2007 at 08:15 AM | Comments (0) To RFP, or Not to RFP, That is the QuestionGoing back to where I started, I've always been a proponent of open, competitive bidding processes in the public arena. Call me old-fashioned but, as awkward and messy as public reviews of proposals can sometimes be (and we've not really seen many messy ones outside San Francisco), there's a lot to be said for open, competitive bidding when conducting the public's business. Taxpayers like to see their tax dollars well-spent and, although there may be some efficiencies in single-vendor negotiations, it's hard to say without seeing the kinds of proposals a competitive bidding process brings in. Carol Ellison Commentary on MuniWireless.com This commentary was elicited by recent announcements that AT&T has cut deals with the City of Napa, CA (12 sq mi network) and St. Louis - see City of Napa and AT&T Announce Wi-Fi Agreement. AT&T is one of the largest telecom companies in the world, so there is heightened interest in any steps they take to enter into this little niche market. What I find more interesting is that AT&T rejects following the RFP model that has developed over the past three years. They are showing good sense, in my opinion. The debate I find interesting is whether or not a city should go out for an RFP. It is interesting to compare these two options. The rules associated with an RFP raise the risks for bidders, who may not offer their best price, since they include risk margins to cover what they don't know, and they anticipate a negotiation on the back end. The RFP may work as planned, creating a competitive market dynamic and driving down prices. But it may not as well, its a roll of the dice. On the other hand, if there is a great relationship between a company and a city, with good alignment, characterized by trust and openness and a mutual desire to do a deal, a well-run negotiation should help both parties get to a win-win that is superior to an RFP. I put much of this discussion on the question of whether or not to go out for a bid under the title: "City, Know Thyself." (with apologies to the Greeks, where the phrase "Know Yourself" appeared on the Temple of Apollo at Delphi). The first question to ask if you are pondering your options is "What does the city want?" - does it look more like a private sector infrastructure investment in the city or a package of services to be purchased from a private sector vendor? If it looks more like the former, then there is considerable flexibility for the city and good options for negotiating a win-win. If it is the latter, then the city should develop its needs list and see how well it can get its needs met in the marketplace. The answer to the RFP question hinges on two other major issues: first, how attractive will the city offer be to draw in quality responses (demand)? second, how many quality vendors are likely to bid (supply)? Also at stake is the political attitude inside the city. While a city may be in the habit of bidding everything over a certain amount, to remain above political reproach, there is a cost attached to that mentality, making an RFP a more expensive proposition and a cumbersome way to engage in commerce, which may not produce the desired results. I think that the framework used to look at a municpal wireless project matters as well. Does the city want a network for municipal applications, indicating that it will be a major consumer of broadband services? How large is the potential market demand in the city v. the potential cost of the network - i.e., will the project yield a good business case for the potential bidders in the RFP? If the city wants a network primarily to have a network as an economic development badge of honor, on the other hand, it has less to offer, but can still put out feelers and engage in a discussion with potential partners to develop the project in the absence of an RFP. In this case, the municpal wireless project looks more like a hotel development, a factory relocation, or a headquarters relocation. A private sector company may consider making an investment in a community and seek to find out what support it can get from the city to help it make its decision. We are all familiar with this model, and nobody would suggest that a city, approached by a company that indicates a desire to locate a factory in the city, should go out to RFP to consider other offers. In a similar vein, a private sector WISP may approach a city with an offer to install a network and wish to explore any commitments the city may make to help the WISP with its decision. But the comparison suffers somewhat, because it is unlikely that there will be a second network anytime soon, but a second factory could easily locate in the city. So, I believe that the alternative of a sole-source, non-bid tender may have a lot to offer cities and should get more attention this year. 1. It can save money for the city if it avoids the time and expense of the RFP. Who should consider a sole-source arrangement? 1. You are constrained from building the network yourself (i.e., lack access to capital, etc.) If many of these conditions describe your city, I would urge you to work with a consultant like MetroNetIQ to evaluate your options in the near term. Consultants are well connected and in a position to identify a private sector provider who may have interest - we can acti as a matchmaker of sorts. A little time and money spent in evaluating your options well ahead of actually engaging in an RFP may reveal that there are more options available than you originally thought. You may discover that there is a well-aligned partner who would be motivated to negotiate and make an investment in the community if a bid were to be avoided. In the end, an RFP is only one way to go forward. Cities should examine their options and consider their needs in detail. An independent sounding board like a consultant makes sense. It may be that your project looks much more like an economic development opportunity, with a private company willing to bring good assets to the city - that would argue for a two-way negotiation without an RFP. If it looks from the start more like an IT procurement, however, the city should begin the requirements development process immediately, in advance of an RFP. An RFP will remain an opportunity for the city, at wherever stage it is at in a project, but the costs of a formal procurement should be weighed against the benefits. Remember to give the sole-source provider option more attention in 2007, and your odds for success will improve. Posted on March 01, 2007 at 12:05 PM | Comments (0) Lead, Follow, or Get out of the WayHere I go again, commenting on blogs. I guess I've caught the bug again. After reading two posts about broadband on MuniWireless.com - Another "victory" for US broadband: cable will win and Broadband Policy: Too Much or Too Little? - I felt compelled to weigh in with my comments, which are captured below. While I understand corporate behavior, believe it or not, I have nothing against large corporations. I believe they should operate with efficiency and keep the long-term view in mind (see my post referencing Toyota from yesterday here), but other than that, I'm all for corporations competing and winning - but it has to be on a level playing field. I just don't like it when corporations leverage their privileged access to government, and most of the big ones do just that. they do it because they can very cost-effectively put pressure on lawmakers to craft policies that favor their business interests. It's another form of competing, but one only available to deep-pocketed companies, and a practice that slows down the natural cleansing functioning of markets. In the end, they only hire lobbyists and exert undue pressure on lawmakers because we let them, and because it works. So no, my chief complaint is not with big Telco and big Cable. No, I hold my full wrath for those public officials, elected or appointed, who once in power turn their backs on constituents, in favor of serving the interests of the big businesses who make large political contributions that will keep them in office or on the job. Too many of them have abused their power and lost sight of their oath to defend the constitution, too many have pursued policies that favor those already in power at the expense of fair competition, or at the expense of the weak and disenfranchised. I recently ran into my professor and mentor from back when I was in the Graduate School of Government at the University of Texas, 20 years ago. His specialty was the alignment of societal, corporate, and political elites to control political outcomes. He has written extensively on this topic, and even though I know it is the way of the world and human behavior, it chaps me when I see the perverse side effects of elite control in societies, whether it's in the Third World or the First World. My copy of Dr. John Higley's latest book, The Elite Foundations of Liberal Democracy is on its way to me from Amazon. It's likely to be pretty thick reading for the non-politcal junkie, but it is revealing to this debate. The good news - the reed of hope I cling to - is that elites respond to political pressure from the masses and to public exposure of anti-competitive private behaviors. I think it is our role as leaders promoting a more open and progressive national debate on broadband policy to bring political pressure to bear on these corporate and poliical elites, who currently manage broadband policy to serve their own interests. Only then will we see positive changes start to occur. Here below then is my screed on Change and the Status Quo regarding Broadband Policy. I just read this post and Gary Bolles similar post describing the discussion on broadband policy at the Tech Policy Summit (Broadband Policy: Too Much or Too Little?) - so this comment applies to both. While I side with Jim Baller on our need for an EXPLICIT, broad-based, comprehensive national broadband policy based on a national discussion of all interested parties on this vital strategic issue, I can't help but juxtapose that idea with what I see in these two posts that is revealing of the incumbent vision, and ask the reader - which POV most closely aligns with our ideals of an open, pluralistic, democratic society? Esme describes what can only be seen as an IMPLICIT policy of giving telecom and cable incumbents free rein and continuing an advantaged position for them - in effect, the result is a pro-corporation, anti-consumer policy. Through its inaction to promote a national discussion and seek a more balanced middle way, the government frees the large players to execute their business plans on their own timeframes. And every year of inaction to create an inclusive strategy based on a balanced discussion equals a delay in broadband options for consumers and billions more in revenue for the incumbents. This is Laissez-Faire economics on steroids. I would argue that it is not inattention by government leaders either, but a defacto government policy on broadband, just not one that most consumers should favor. The result is predictable (if depressing): 1) a redlined telecom fiber broadband network that serves the densest, most profitable territories; 2) urban cable broadband access available wherever their cable infrastructure happens to be (dense neighborhoods, but still wider distribution than newly laid telco fiber); 3) mobile internet access from cell carriers through expensive data plans, featuring Walled Gardens of content made available to cellphones tied to one specific cell plan provider's two-year lock-in service plan, with bandwidth sufficient for email and surfing the web - a plan almost exclusively tailored for limited use by the business traveler; and 4) slow, but growing adoption by municipalities of newer technologies like Wi Fi Mesh and WiMAX, in essence a work-around for this lack of an integrated national broadband policy, but one which is constrained by lack of access to unlicensed non-line of sight spectrum, which would lower costs and increase the value of these networks. When there is no broad-based explicit policy, as Jim promotes, there is nevertheless an implicit policy in that vacuum. We should call this one as it is, an elitist unwritten policy of corporate protectionism. Seen in this light, it's no wonder that we hear arguments in Gary's post from the ATT executive against the need for unfettered end user equipment, and from the Verizon executive against the need for a government policy on broadband. From their perspective, after all, things are going well and according to plan. Incumbents and beneficiaries of the status quo NEVER favor change that opens up markets, lowers costs, or provides customers with more freedom and power. That would be irrational and anathema to the interests of their shareholders; I understand it, but I don't like it. Taking care of ALL the people, not just shareholders, is the government's job. It's most efficient on issues like broadband policy when national government leaders accept the mantle of leadership and take action based on principles - sometimes they have to take action to rein in corporate behavior that does not suit the broader national interest, even if it hurts them politically. But we haven't seen that in a long while. At least a growing number of local governments (and a few state governments) still understand their role in a democratic society - to support the welfare of all citizens. Until we see a change in attitude from our national government institutions, I'm afraid we're unlikely to see a more balanced and open national broadband policy. The status quo serves the interests and aligns with the world view of our current political and corporate leadership. Posted on February 27, 2007 at 10:11 AM | Comments (0) What's Municipal Wireless Good For? The Whole EnchiladaWhether Toyota has evolved into the world's most sophisticated modern corporation - one whose example has challenged the American model of manufacturing and management - happens to be a common topic of conversation among business analysts these days. '"It's influencing just about every major company in the world, in that they're asking the question: What can we learn from Toyota?'" says Jeff Liker, an engineering professor at the University of Michigan who has written several books on the company. Indeed, what you can learn from Toyota is something that even Bill Gates has pondered publicly. And yet deconstructing Toyota means breaking down a corporation that uses all its resources, and more than 295,000 employees worldwide, to construct things that are not meant to come apart. NYT Magazine Article: From 0 to 60 To World Domination (Premium Membership Required) How does Toyota grow consistently, even as its competition slides into the abyss? The article describes a formula for success characterized by these traits, among others: 1) Kaizen - constant incremental improvement, long-term focus, R&D spending, and innovation-based DNA together support a relentless drive to the top (hint: "never rest on your laurels"); So, how do you see your local broadband provider stacking up to Toyota? 1) in value add? Why don't we as consumers demand the same level of service and focus on excellence from our telecom providers as we enjoy in the best of our personal transportation vehicle providers? Is the situation that different as to make this question moot? I don't think it is. I would argue we accept what we are given because we have been led to believe that we are already getting the best possible, and besides, there is little choice, and so - little we can do about it, so we might as well accept it as the best we're going to get and move on. I watched a magic show at my son's Cub Scout Blue and Gold Banquet last night, and I recollect how we as an audience tended to be duped and entertained by the magician's patter. We know we're being led down the proverbial path, and yet we go along, because its entertaining. In a similar fashion, we tend to be duped by big communication providers, even willingly, when we fail to challenge them to do better and fail to hold them to the same standards we hold the leaders to in other industries. Let's not give Telcos and Cable Cos a free ride... If I were a leading telecom or cable company executive, I'd be hanging around Toyota and soakng up some of their magic. And therein lies the lead for this particular blog. FINALLY. The presence and growth of the Municipal Wireless industry is prima facie evidence of a market demand. That demand is for greater broadband options, increased innovation, lower prices, which has not been satisfied by the incumbent operators. So when a technology comes along to let municipalities take control of their telecom destiny, some step up, a few at first, but more and more as the costs and risks go down, and so a new industry is born in the vacuum left by an old one. I think that telecom is an inherently complex operation, and that cities, especially smaller ones, benefit when they assume a partnership role with private players. Cities are best served leaving the risky and complex jobs to the private sector where possible, focusing on what they do well: providing for the general welfare of the citizenry, prinicipally with better public safety, better infrastructure, better prospects for the future (eco dev), and increasingly, better protection of the natural environment. Not to say that cities can't and shouldn't still be great catalysts for change, and that is the essence of what Municpal Wireless is good for. It helps cities be better at what they are good for - taking care of their citizens. Thus, you have my first three reasons from the previous blog: 1. Muni Wireless provides a stimulus for national debate on broadband (at a time when local broadband providers are not keeping up with the global Jones). Here are a few more things that Municpal Wireless is good for. 5. Municipal Wireless spurs community innovation and creativity. Want to kick start your town and shed an old image? You could do worse than launch a study of Wireless Broadband, convene a Mayor's Task Force, create community study groups, host Trial Projects with vendors, or invite the local university to participate. Such is the value of getting busy and mobilizing a community. Sleepy towns tend to accept their fate and mosey along, content with today, and in so doing, they suffer a slow decline. Restless towns, like Toyota above, are not content to rest on their laurels, to set minor goals, rather, they focus on an idealistic future, craft a vision, and pursue it. It just so happens that Muni Wireless offers leaders a tool to emulate Toyota, to capture their citizens' imaginations and mobilize a change effort. 6. Muni Wireless opens up new economic development alternatives. Critics (and cynics) tend to make light of the economic development argument, taking a narrow view of that term, and then dismissing the impact of Wi Fi Mesh networks when they say "I doubt that Dimebox, Texas, is going to suddenly attract businesses and individuals to relocate because they have a Muni Wireless network." Critics make their points with an exagerated argument - essentially, building up a straw man only so they can knock him down. I think that statement above is a facile and dismissive argument, one that misses an important aspect of economic development, highlighted by Richard Florida in The Rise of the Creative Class. Namely, creative people drive innovation and make pleasant places to live, which in turn stimulates a virtuous circle, where environment makes a big difference in drawing in more creative types, and in keeping creative types at home as well, should they decide to stray. An additional impact of economic development, perhaps one more suitable for municipal wireless, is when a region has a wireless capacity and several changes lead outsiders to consider the region in a new (and more favorable) light. Just to make the argument, let's imagine Dimebox for a minute. Small town in rural Texas, with cheap land and beautiful sunsets, perhaps not much more than that, as far as outsiders are concerned. So, when their future-oriented city manager works with a private provider to bring in a Muni Wireless system, everyone in Dimebox ends up getting more affordable broadband. They spend their extra cash, normally part of their telecom budget, on buying more stuff, which provides a lift to the local economy on a regular basis, because the effect is to keep money local - EVERY MONTH. This is the argument made by St. Cloud city officials. There is an economic development element, even if nobody moves in. He's putting the money saved by residents at $3.7m per year based on an average fee previously paid of about $36 per month. (If you were paying $26.95 for AOL for dial-up, that's now dropped to $9.99, but I figure there's a lot of variation among dial-up and broadband monthly fees.) These are pretty cool numbers because they support both Baltuch's case - the idea that free Wi-Fi paid for by a city could produce economic effects and high uptake - and the opposite. St. Cloud Says 77% of Households Registered for Free Wi-Fi Stimulated by the changes in broadband access, more local merchants hire web consultants and give their brochure websites a makeover (or finally get one). They go on to start developing buisness on-line, from around the globe - lo and behold, there is a market for rattlesnake handbags in Osaka and Mumbai! Long Live the Long Tail! The library sponsors classes in digital literacy, where attendance increases because of the attention the Muni Wireless project generates. Grandparents figure out how to use the digital cameras their kids gave them last Christmas and start posting videos and snapshots to You Tube and Flickr. And thanks to an article in the Dallas newspaper, cars start to trickle in from the nearby Interstate, drawn by curiosity as much as anything else. The Local Artists Guild sponsors a Digital Art Fair. Sales of funnel cakes, lemonade, sweet popcorn, and turkey legs boom! Wrapping Things Up The bottom line for these three new benefits of Muni Wireless? The results may be small, but they will be cumulative. A town enjoys a positive impact when its community launches a Muni Wireless project: 1) they gain an opportunity to leverage new wireless applications; 2) they become engaged and mobilized; and 3) they enjoy incremental (and perhaps more dramatic) economic development benefits. When Muni Wireless rolls into town, the rules change. The impact of ubiquitous and affordable broadband may be subtle, or dramatic, but it is not unlike the arrival of electricity, lights, and telephone to the small town, decades ago - or perhaps the more recent advent of cable TV is a more apt analogy - citizens find themselves less isolated and having more in common with their more cosmopolitan cousins when they are connected to the Information Superhighway, and in today's world, broadband is ever more dominant as a critical infrastructure. And, I might add, if present trends continue, those cynics and critics may even start to be proven wrong about the potential of parties moving in to an area, because the cumulative impact of all these little changes is that the little town that could - Dimebox, Tx, in our example - begins to experience a cultural renaissance and indeed, some businesses and individuals may start to move to Dimebox, for the slower pace, the wholesome lifestyle, the cheaper real estate, the lack of traffic, the sense of community .... and the access to cheap broadband and innovative wireless applications - whether as icing on the cake, or as the meat inside the sandwich. Broadband won't always, or even often be a panacea for most towns, but it will be an indicator of something more at work in those communities that get active. I'm sure there were plenty of raised eyebrows when the little, sleepy, isolated village of Marfa, Texas, began to take off as an enclave / redoubt for the privileged /creative elites. Stranger things have happened - and it could happen to your town too! You don't know what the future holds until you try to make a change for the better, and changing the rules of competition is a good way to achieve leverage .... The changes that Municipal Wireless may bring will in many ways be incremental, but they can have a lasting impact on the community if the community embraces the change and more and more citizens embrace a more digital lifestyle. Small towns should benefit more than large towns, because they have less to work with, they have farther to go in living up to their digital potential, and they start with a more integrated community outlook, which gives them a better shot at developing synergies and forging a common future, like Toyota. This is such a fun concept, I'm sure I'll be back to list more things that Municipal Wireless is Good For. I hope this helps to generate some creative dialogue. Posted on February 26, 2007 at 04:10 PM | Comments (0) What's Municipal Wireless Good For?Well, I don't know if its safe for me to get out on the blogs these days, because I feel compelled to comment, it seems. I just posted a long comment I made on Greg Richardson's Civitium blog (copied on my webpage here, and I also posted a comment on Richard Martin's Unstrung Insider Weekly blog, where he asked the question: "What's Municipal Wireless Good For?" Richard Martin's challenge really got me revved up, because I believe that these networks are good for so much, depending on one's individual circumstance. As it turns out, in my hometown, they're not good for a whole lot, given all the different broadband options we are blessed to have. But in other cities, they fill a valuable role. Richard highlighted Craig Settles' argument of a key role of Municipal Wireless that I am very much in agreement with - cities with muncipal wireless networks create an experimental stage for new technology roll outs. Ultimately, the real value of the municipal WiFi networks spreading like algae across the land may be in their efficacy as testbeds for mobile infrastructure, applications, and services. That's the conclusion of a new report from Oakland-based wireless consultant Craig Settles, head of Successful.com, who notes that "Government spending for mobile technology is outpacing small and medium-size enterprise (SME) spending, and this validates local governments' potential value to suppliers." In other words, who else is going to pay you to put up WiFi mesh networks of 10, 25, or 50-plus square miles? Let's face it, those cities that really want to push out the envelope can invite in wireless application providers to use their new networks and generate lots of new and interesting information along the way - see Corpus Christi as a prime example, where PTI recently published a review of their many applications, entitled "Wi-Fi Done Right: Experiences from the Field So, back to What's Muni Wireless Good For ... In addition to agreeing with Richard Martin and Craig Settles on the efficacy of muni wireless projects to kick start a technology and provide good experimental feedback, I listed three things (I'll add a separate blog with more - this will make a good Top Ten List): 1. Muni Wireless provides a stimulus for national debate on broadband. Bottom Line: Muni Wireless has defined a new industry and set the tone for a new debate on broadband in America, where all of our official leadership has gone AWOL. No longer is it "When will the telecoms and cables give us broadband?" Now, we have a trend line of cities taking matters into their own hands and bringing in new broadband infrastructure alternatives. Before Muni Wireless, they just could not do that - it was not an economically feasible option. Muni Wireless has changed the near term prospects for broadband in America, and that's pretty significant for a little underrated technology that everyone overlooked. Here's my Comment in its entireity. I really need to find a good editor to make these blogs and comments shorter ... I just finished reading Richard's commentary, and I had to respond, I mean, c'mon, what an invitation - "What's Muni Wireless Good For?" Let me try to start a little list here of what Muni Wireless is good for... I'll limit the list to three items, but continue it on my website later (www.metronetiq.com). This is just too good an invitation to ignore. :) 1. Muni Wireless provides a stimulus for national debate on broadband. Without Muni Wireless, we're not having this debate (or we're having a different, less robust discussion). Quite simply, Muni Wireless has served a valuable role as a catalyst to stimulate progress in developing a vital technology infrastructure for our nation, prodding comfortable incumbents to action ahead of their - shall we say, "slow" - schedules. Without Muni Wireless, discussion of broadband could well be limited to backroom deals in Washington between Big Telecom, Big Cable, and the FCC, the way it's always been. At a minimum, the discussion would be more limited and less colorful. And we would get whatever "they" decided we would get, on their timetable, not ours. Starting with Philadelphia's Digital Divide discussion in 2004, and the Verizon-backed legislation ban it spawned, Muni Wireless moved the debate up to a timetable driven not by comfortable, short-term-oriented telecom and cable incumbents, but by impatient, progressive city leaders. And that's progress. 2. Muni Wireless provides us a vision in the absence of national leadership. Say what you will about the faults of Muni Wireless, it has done more with very little than could ever have been expected, and it is a visionary, if still, a flawed concept. City leaders are doing all they can with what they have to work with - it may fall short of some people's standards, but give these pioneers credit for stepping out with a leadership vision and taking action. We all know the value of beta software releases, why not look at Muni Wireless that way? It is improving over time. We're certainly not getting much vision from our purported national leaders, whether it's the FCC, the Congress, the President and the Executive Branch, or the incumbent telcos, wireless companies, and cable companies. Why is it that we sit and watch S. Korea, Japan, Singapore, Finland, France, and who knows who else race ahead of the US with clear broadband policies elaborated by national government leaders, while we in the US settle for less, much less, where our FCC defines broadband as "over 200 Kbs" and qualifies an entire zip code as having broadband when only one household in the Zip Code has access...huh? Talk about setting a low bar for success by incumbents.... that’s not leadership in anyone's book. We get what we get from powerful interests because they do what they want because they can, when there are no alternatives - and there was nobody to stop them - until the alternative of Muni Wireless came along. The powers-that-be set a very low bar for success, progress was just not happening, and in response, some municipal leaders stepped up and said, "We can do better," and launched municipal wireless plans. What's so wrong with that? Why are so many ready to criticize it and so slow to acknowledge progress? 3. Muni Wireless gives us all a Straw Man to Consider (and one that also Embarrasses Incumbents and Powers That Be and Stimulates a Response). Wi Fi Mesh is an adaptation of an indoor technology that leverages a tiny sliver of unlicensed spectrum to do amazing things. (Let's face it, the 2.4 GHz band is a crumb thrown to innovators by the FCC - "take it, the baby monitors and microwave ovens won't mind.") This from a group of regulators seemingly eager to squeeze every last dime out of every last Hz of spectrum in "competitive" auctions, so competitive that everyone knows at the start of the auction that one of a small group of large, mostly non-innovative service providers will win in the end. So cynical. When it takes billions of dollars to win a slice of spectrum, only the big guys will last and win. Small muni wireless innovators have done more with a little bit of unlicensed spectrum and an "indoor" technology than big huge companies managed to do with all kinds of resources and all kinds of time: they kicked off numerous aggressive, "risky" last mile projects and stimulated progress and national debate on broadband infrastructure. So far, not a whole lot of public funds have been spent on Municipal Wireless projects, but the industry sure has generated a lot of press and speculation given the POTENTIAL of public expenditures and activism. Recently, muni wireless attorney Jim Baller commented on the need for a national broadband policy - AMEN. Jim's been out there for a long, long time saying what needs to be said on this topic, but I bet his audience is considerably larger now that there's a national debate stimulated by Muni Wireless projects initiated by city government pioneers. I commented on Jim's call for a National Broadband Policy on my website (www.MetroNetIQ.com), and I recollected that there once was a time in the 1960s when we had a national community pulling together on a visionary project (The Space Race). Back then, we a) engaged in a national debate on a vital strategic program; b) had visionary leadership that set a goal and pulled a nation together behind a spectacular vision - and what a stretch goal!; and c) had large companies that got behind our national goal and contributed (and benefited) - we all pulled together, we succeeded, and we went to the Moon! Sighh...we don't have that today. Absent the Muni Wireless movement calling for more and better last mile broadband, I'm not sure we would have this current debate, this vision, or this prod to spur incumbent action. Space and decorum limit my comments, but I could go on and on about what Municipal Wireless is good for. In the end, even if it ends up only being good to shine the light on the issue of broadband infrastructure and motivate those who should be active to get busy, then it will have served its purpose and it can fade away, to be replaced by superior technologies. At the dawn of electric light, at the end of the 19th Century, back when Broadway earned the nickname "The Great White Way" because of the bright, bright lights from arc lights - we were easier to please back then - back then, nobody challenged the fact that arc lights weren't as soft and convenient as incandescent bulbs would ultimately be. They marveled at the light and wonder of it all, at progress. Let us marvel now, for a little while, at our progress, meager as it may seem, and then work together to improve on it. I believe muni wireless will yet surprise us all, if we give this experiment time to play out. It will ultimately be a part of a larger solution that will also include other technologies like fiber broadband, WiMAX, 3G, 4G, etc. Now that the cat is out of the bag, there are innumerable dedicated and motivated local government officials equipped with a tool to push out the envelope and experiment and challenge the status quo, and I don't think any of us can predict where this movement will take us in five years. Thanks to billions of Wi Fi client devices, not to mention a lasting need for broadband in small towns and third world countries, Wi Fi mesh and muni wireless won't go away anytime soon. And thanks to our Muni Wireless pioneers, and their oh-so-flawed but innovative projects, we're off on a journey. And that's a pretty good start, compared to where we were before. Posted on February 21, 2007 at 08:58 PM | Comments (0) Penalty for Piling On - Fifteen YardsPublic broadband may be the best hope for positive change for the state of broadband in the U.S. It has already shifted huge power from the halls of the FCC and congress to City Hall, at a time when other forms of local control (e.g. cable franchising) have been moving in the other direction. But we are at risk of screwing it up through letting these discrete special interests dominate the issues. We are losing perspective on what the goal was in the first place for these projects; stimulate economic development, improve government efficiency and bridge the digital divide. San Francisco is allowing the valid goals outlined by the Mayor to be twisted into ideological debates over public ownership, consumer privacy and all manner of other issues. What was the Board doing about electronic consumer privacy in San Francisco before the EarthLink agreement was delivered to them? How much debate was happening in the Board chamber about network neutrality in 2006? Are these issues important? Yes; but only when considered in the context of the overall initiative, market, program, etc. Greg Richardson, founder of Civitium, and consultant to the City of San Francisco, wrote a long essay on his perspective on what is going wrong in San Francisco. A political storm is brewing, where passionate social advocates are seeking to make the proposed municipal wireless network, like the US Marines, "be all that it can be." Problem is, their efforts to ensure consumer privacy and add other things, maybe with the best intentions for San Francisco, risk derailing the effort entirely. I wrote a long comment to Greg's essay, captured below. The essence of the comment is that well intentioned though they may be, such efforts by consumer advocates to pile too much onto a municipal wireless effort do indeed pose a serious rsk. These wireless projects need to get up and running more than anything, and they can be improved after the fact. We need lots more networks, and lots more experiments, not perfect networks that cover all the bases politically. Many more networks will give us all experience, with successes to borrow from, and failures to learn from. And that experience, with its successes and its failures, will make all the networks in the future the better for it. In a sense, these efforts to cover all the bases put the "Perfect" ahead of the "Good Enough," and risk resulting in the "Not Meant to Be." My Comment, in all its glory, follows below. Enjoy. I applaud Greg for stepping out with this comprehensive and constructive statement on some vital issues in our little industry of Municipal Wireless. When someone with his background and experience makes a statement like this, I think it's important to pay attention. I have to start my comment by warning that I lack Greg's intimacy with the San Francisco situation based on Civitium's early involvement, as well as his experience with other large city network projects. My focus with MetroNetIQ has been elsewhere in the Muni Wireless supply chain, and lately with smaller cities - but whose problems are as difficult and at times, intractable, if not as newsworthy, as the larger ones. But I do bring a dispassionate commentary here, and what I believe is an experienced eye. What I can say as an observer and commenter on municipal wireless for coming up on four years, is that there is wisdom in Greg's warning against the danger of parties hijacking municipal wireless based on their attachment to one ideology or another. Municipal Wireless is a tool in a toolbox, and an inspirational movement, but it's no cure for cancer (at least not yet). We suffered through a major distraction in 2005, when entrenched incumbents, jealous of their privileged positions in relatively protected markets, positioned municipal wireless as some kind of ginned up indoor technology running on an unreliable unlicensed spectrum, being managed by a gang of public sector ne'er-do-well bureaucrats. I'm glad we're past that! But as that movement finally faded into the woodwork and 2006 began, some of the more aggressive of the mobilized groups on the left side of the political spectrum, flush with victory in the Municipal Wireless Ban wars, arose and proclaimed a New Era of Free Wi Fi. "Community Wireless," a more pure version of "Municipal Wireless," became the battle cry, with its lack of a profit motive and its offer of a "free" service, free bandwidth like free air or water (neither of which is free anymore, by the way). At its heart, municipal wireless and/or the more inclusive term, metropolitan broadband, represents an array of new business solutions to a variety of old problems. Innovative local leaders promote this solution by leveraging new technologies such as Wi Fi Mesh and fiber optics, to a lesser extent BPL, and soon, we hope, WiMAX. But for these technologies to take hold and prosper, a whole new ecosystem of applications, providers, and consumer attitudes will be needed, and establishing that ecosystem is taking longer than any of us would like - it will take time to take hold. One danger in the meantime is for impatient and hungry activists, as well as zealous market promoters and evangelists, to see some kind of "white knight" in Municipal Wireless, really more like a piecemeal improvement to our Last Mile Broadband Infrastructure, with great potential. Who wouldn't like a knight to carry one away from one's own personal bete noirs, after all? Or, they see the need to perfect the approach before launching, so as not to offend any party, as in Greg's discussion of consumer privacy concerns in his blog. Don'' like the high cost of broadband access in duopoly or monopoly markets? Make Wi Fi broadband available for free. We'll be free from the shackles of the hated monopoly telecom company! Free at Last! Frustrated at the inability to bring to heel the powerful telecom, wireless or cable company, or by the lack of choice in service providers, or by the failure of Congress to pass Net Neutrality legislation? Simply use your local government leverage to set more stringent requirements on the new Wi Fi Mesh provider, if only because you happen to have them over a barrel and can extract concessions. Worried about offending political constituencies? Work protection provisions, like the consumer privacy restrictions, into the arrangement beforehand. City governments even get involved in the piling on when they seek to participate too much in any profits, while avoiding any risks. Witness Metro Fi's withdrawal from Sacramento after they over-reached. In all these arguments for social improvement, all of them quite valid by the way, there is a role for Municipal Wireless projects to play. But I'm not sure that this particular horse can carry the whole load - this desire to do good and cover all the bases puts inordinate pressure on the municipal wireless project before it's even off the ground. These are valid social causes, and sentiments that Feel Good, but I also see the Perfect being promoted to the detriment of the Good. Sometimes, "good enough" is as good as you're gonna get, and it's a danger to overreach. I see also a fair degree of impatience in comments and suggestions about Municipal Wireless, even from supporters. Especially here in its infancy, the development of Municipal Wireless moves along with steady, incremental growth. Its pioneers can claim many proud accomplishments over the past four years, and are due our respect. But none of the young service providers, even the relatively giant Earthlink, are anywhere near as robust or financially healthy as the larger, well-established telecom, wireless, and cable incumbents, and we should also recognize that. Collectively, municipal wireless projects represent a ray of hope and an inspiration for us all to go out and take action to make things better. Even as we give them credit for going after solutions and taking advantage of an opportunity when they see one, we should beware of saddling these pioneer risk-taking firms with the sins of an unpopular incumbent corporation or poor government policy, shouldn't we? At best, hitting new players with tight restrictions that can't even be placed on old players under current laws is an illogical response to some very old and entrenched problems in telecommunications and society. If the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 failed to open up a raft of new competitors and bring about ubiquitous cheap telecommunications as we hoped at the time (indeed, who even knew about broadband back then?), and if we haven't had much leadership or reform in telecommunications since - well, that stinks, but why should we expect Municipal Wireless to become some kind of panacea for such long-held societal woes? When proponents of perfectly valid social causes saddle municipal wireless projects with overly aggressive requirements and expectations, albeit with good and noble intentions, they set themselves up for failure and dashed hopes. Frankly, I even see the risk of "Killing the Goose that Laid the Golden Egg," if these trends go too far. These new municipal wireless service providers should be nurt | ||||
