|
|||||
FEATURED TOPICExaFlood - In a Jan 2007 Wall Street Journal editorial, Bret Swanson of the Discovery Institute coined this term to describe the rapidly increasing torrent of data transmitted over the Internet, soon exceeding exabytes (1 exabyte = 1 billion gigabytes). It's a flood a-comin' as growth rates of transmitted data approach the capacity of the Internet. This "flood" of data is a threat to some, an opportunity for others. ORIENTATION |
The Party Never Ends ... Cartoon LemonadeI like this cartoon, and I really like this Robert Earle Keen song - great lyrics. Its Main Street after midnight just like it was before When handed lemons, I believe that real leaders are the ones you will see making lemonade, not bitching about getting lemons instead of chocolate, like the predecessor had. Still with me? Let's see over the coming months how our leaders-to-be make lemonade out of news that is getting ever more prevalent. The fact is, our economy is hitting some limits, as is our climate. Something's Gotta Give, like the movie of the same title. Outside the excited miniature world of "cool Hi tech stuff" covered in earlier posts on this site (here, here and here), I think it's time to roll out something I've been sitting on for a couple of weeks. I first came across this compelling little video on New Year's Day.
The Story of Stuff tells a story about the five stages of Extraction, Production, Distribution, Consumption, and Disposal. Something we scarcely stop to think about here in the US, even as we remain extremely focused on our HyperConsumer lifestyles. The trash man comes on Friday morning and carries away. "For all I know (or care), it gets zapped by a ray gun," most seem to say by their inattention. Yet the message of this little cartoon was so compelling, and so in line with my world view, but at the same time, such a downer, that I quietly filed it in the stack of to-be-published-later blogs. I also wanted to give it some time to stew and to chew on how to put it into context. But look what's transpired in the days ahead... The very next day, author Jared Diamond penned this piece in the NY Times, What's Your Consumption Factor?, which echoes the sentiments expressed in the animated video. The estimated one billion people who live in developed countries have a relative per capita consumption rate of 32. Most of the world's other 5.5 billion people constitute the developing world, with relative per capita consumption rates below 32, mostly down toward 1. The population especially of the developing world is growing, and some people remain fixated on this. They note that populations of countries like Kenya are growing rapidly, and they say that's a big problem. Yes, it is a problem for Kenya's more than 30 million people, but it's not a burden on the whole world, because Kenyans consume so little. (Their relative per capita rate is 1.) A real problem for the world is that each of us 300 million Americans consumes as much as 32 Kenyans. With 10 times the population, the United States consumes 320 times more resources than Kenya does. "Is the universe/God trying to tell me something?" I wonder. At some point, the rational actor stops to ponder, one would think, whether or not our current lifestyles here in the USA are sustainable. But, let's face it, who wants to be the Eeyore that turns off the lights and sends everyone home, shouting "PARTY'S OVER, FOLKS, TIME TO GO HOME." I seem to remember a certain speech by Pres. Jimmy Carter, delivered in his trademark cardigan sweater, urging us all to conserve. That sure worked out well for him - NOT. Let's face it, Jimmy's National Malaise diagnosis never stood a chance against Ronnie's Make America Great Again message. Nor, did Mondale's candidacy, whatever it was about, have a prayer against Reagan's Morning in America. Looking back, was it the message, or the messenger? When is optimism misplaced? Now it's 2008, a generation later, and we still face the same issues, punted down the road from president to president. Will it be Mitt Romney who speaks straight talk to us all? Probably not. In his speech at the Detroit Economic Club, Mr. Romney took Washington lawmakers to task for being "disinterested" in Michigan's plight and imposing upon the state's automakers a litany of "unfunded mandates," including a recent measure signed by President Bush that requires the raising of fuel efficiency standards..... ...Even though he left the state decades ago, he has pledged to make Michigan his special focus if elected president, and he has set himself up in contrast to Mr. McCain, who has said he is merely being candid in acknowledging the economic shift that has affected the state so harshly. "I'm not willing to sit back and say, 'Too bad for Michigan,' " said Mr. Romney on Monday. " 'Too bad for the car industry. Too bad for the people who've lost their jobs. They're gone forever.' " Drawing a rare moment of enthusiastic applause from the students, Mr. Romney said, "I will not rest if I'm president of the United States until Michigan is brought back." McCain and Romney Battle for Lead in Michigan, January 14, 2008 The road goes on forever and the party never ends. Hello, Mitt, I have a Honda Civic Hybrid that gets 40+ MPG today, and 35 MPG is a low bar and 2020 is a full 12 years away. That's not a tough enough goal. The fact is, the Big Three auto makers chose to make SUVs with high profit margins years ago and killed off efforts to make hybrids, and to make matters worse, killed off efforts to raise the CAFE standards. They made their bed, so to speak. So now, they're losing market share and heading the way of the Encyclopedia Britannica and the Do Do bird - to oblivion, in other words. But are they going to sleep in the bed they made for themselves and their shareholders and employees? No, when viewed through the pandering lens of the candidate, the problem was not the Free Market at work, no, the problem was, and is, government regulation. Give me a break. That's called an Excuse, it's called Denial, and it shouldn't have a place in a conservative's speech. That strikes me as Cognitive Dissonance. I'm confused, or maybe "conservative" doesn't mean what I think it means, a la Princess Bride. Also in today's paper, Americans Cut Back Sharply on Spending We are restructuring and undergoing major shifts. Is this just a temporary phenomenon, or a sign of things to come? And consumer confidence, an important barometer of economic health, has plunged. Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center, says consumer satisfaction with the economy has reached a 15-year low, according to the firm’s polling. Even wealthier consumers, who were seen as invulnerable to rising gasoline prices and falling home values, are feeling the squeeze. "People are clearly concerned that we are headed into a recession," said Stephen I. Sadove, the chief executive of Saks Fifth Avenue, the upscale department store whose runaway growth throughout much of the year slowed markedly in December. Clearly, the presidential candidates must do something to "get the economy back on track!" But what if a rail has gone missing? The road goes on forever and the party never ends. So what will scaling back look like, when it happens? Will we ever stop consuming? Can we do that and not have a catastrophic economic consequence? Can our country ever put itself on a diet and exercise program without the threat of a coronary to motivate it? I haven't had a whole lot of success in my life at personal discipline, so I'm not optimisitic - I think it runs counter to human nature, and I think that America's expanding waistline is a better indicator than anything...and I don't see too many leaders stepping up to give us the medicine we so desperately need, the truths we need to listen to. I think that more and more we'll have to look at different ways to do things. But I'm afraid that election cycle after election cycle will give the advantage to the snake-oil salesman who preaches that we can have our cake and eat it too. "We can be great again," will always have resonance in a a campaign, because an aging beauty likes to hear she still has what it takes to rev a guy's engines. A guy likes to know he can still compete against the younger studs on the soccer field, despite his bad knees. "We don't have to scale back" will always have resonance, because, in this country, we like to eat our cake. It's one of the things we've gotten terribly good at doing. And people like to do what they are good at, especially when it's so damn much fun doing it. We're going to need a We need a different party, I mean, not a different political party, which we probably do, but a party to replace the one that seems to be ending. My hope, and I cling to it, is that we'll be able to focus on the positive and focus on something else we're good at besides consuming. We'll be able to gain efficiencies through technology - like metropolitan broadband - that end up buying us some time to restructure our economy away from reliance on ever expanding consumerism, which has zero chances, I believe, in being sustainable. We're hitting real limits and the past seven years, no, make that the past 50 years, start to seem like the party that would never end. But after this party does end, and all parties must end at some point, so if even the Post WWII Economic Boom is in decline, we should imagine that one, folks - the hangover that follows is going to be a doozy for us all. We need something better and different to replace what we are losing. And that, I'm afraid, is one helluva basket of lemons to be handed. Lemonade, anyone? I'll take mine with a little Jack Daniels, thanks...let's start a new party to replace the old one. Let's reshuffle the deck. Posted on January 14, 2008 at 01:46 PM | Comments (0) Look Before You Leap, Part 6I posted Part 5 in this series on December 22, which seems like a year ago...not really, just my first chance to use this joke that never gets old. :) The holidays are already fading into a blur, and I'm coming to the realization that Regular Time has returned. But with a twist. We have a brand new year to work with. This is exciting. And that's how champions and change agents should look at the potential of metropolitan broadband. A project of this type offers a tremendous opportunity to focus a constituency on a new way of looking at things, a new way of getting work accomplished. Here's a recap, in case you missed the first five parts of this series...first, I proposed a sliding scale where multiple dimensions of decision-making help a leader faced with a difficult decision to break down the elements that drive his/her choices. Not unlike the way a computer audio control breaks down the components of sound to let the audiophile tune to just the right sound quality.
In previous posts on this topic (See Part 1 - the Background: Disruptive Change, Part 2 - the Set Up: Framework for Decision-making, Part 3 - Foundational Perspective, Part 4 - Organizing System and Part 5 - Functional Process), I described a changing world that is increasingly networked and tied together and oriented around digital technology. I argued that to make local changes to accommodate and leverage these new opportunities and this changing landscape, we're faced with decisions and analysis along several dimensions (as on the sliding scale graphic above). So, on to the next element, Part 6 - a Holistic, Comprehensive and Sustainable Solution...
4.1. Moving from Applications (Point Solutions) to Networks (Holistic Solutions) - Traditionally, city departments have built proprietary solutions into their individual budgets and the applications came with a communication platform bundled in. The result has been a system where the vendor holds leverage over the public sector consumer, which manages an increasing array of proprietary devices and software applications that do not work together, require expensive upgrades, and have differing legacies and shelf lives. In contrast, moving to a general purpose communication network that supports any IP-based application gives the public sector consumer much better leverage over vendors, where standardized products can be interchanged and no one vendor has an exclusive. 4.2. Proprietary to Standards-Based - We've learned a considerable amount about the value of standards over the past century. In the 1800s, it was common for an artisan or craftsman to work alone and make unique goods. Starting with Henry Ford's innovative ideas on mass production, the business world began to understand the efficiencies and benefits of reaching economies of scale. The technology era went a step further by gathering together industry leaders to come to agreement on production standards, thus allowing products to interact efficiently, providing consumer benefits and stimulating demand. That moves the whole industry rapidly through the product adoption cycle and lowers costs of production as cost efficiencies are achieved, creating a self-sustaining virtuous cycle, a great outcome if you can get it. The best example in our field of this phenomenon is the successful work of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, or IEEE, which gave us among other popular standards, IEEE IEEE 802.11a,b, g and soon, n and s - standards that support Wi Fi and mesh networks - and IEEE 802.16d and e, standards that support WiMAX. I put together this graphic a few years ago for a client to demonstrate the concept of a virtuous cycle based on standardization and collaboration.
4.3. Moving from Service Purchases to Infrastructure Provisioning - The move to digital platforms and the automation of manual processes raises the profile of the network on which services are delivered. As the network becomes a more critical component for the city, the city can begin to look at provisioning services over its own network infrastructure as a compelling and valid alternative to buying network services by-the-drink, gaining not only lower costs over time, but also greater security. Until the advent of relatively cheap new equipment and unlicensed spectrum, which together keep the costs of such networks low, entry by the public sector was simply not an available option. This approach of owning the network infrastructure is a significant departure from tradition, but should be viewed no differently than owning other critical infrastructure that the city uses to provide itself services, such as the water and electric utilities, and any fiber that it owns. Next, we'll tie all this together to show how this methodology can lead to less anxious, more sound decision-making when faced with technology change. Posted on January 02, 2008 at 08:35 AM | Comments (0) Best Blogs of 2007Here's a good site to bookmark and go to when you have a few moments. I plan to work through this list of the best blogs of 2007 - my first New Year's Resolution. How about you? Jon Swift: Best Blog Posts of 2007 (Chosen by the Bloggers Themselves) Posted on January 02, 2008 at 06:27 AM | Comments (0) Look Before You Leap, Part 5
In previous posts on this topic (See Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4), I've described a changing world that is increasingly networked and tied together and oriented around digital technology. I argued that to make local changes to accommodate and leverage these new opportunities and this changing landscape, we are faced with decisions and analysis along several dimensions, which I mapped on the sliding scale graphic above. I have only to describe a few days in my life to make the example. * "Long distance" has effectively disappeared as a telecommunications term when I can talk to my former executive in Paris over Skype with crystal clear sound, no latency, and at no cost, as I did yesterday morning. We still have to coordinate because of time difference, but that's not going away as long as we live in different spots relative to the sun. For those of us who have already made adapting our lifestyles to use these new tools a habit, life has indeed become quite different than it was before the Internet was available. In essence, there's a freedom of action that comes from using these technologies, which can be looked at as new tools. One of my big challenges is in encouraging others to make these changes so that they keep up with me (I still can't get my old buddy in Rome onto Skype, my wife has resisted getting a digital camera, but that will soon change - come on, Christmas! - and the whole purpose of this site is to encourage change). So while in Part 4 we examined new potential in systems, featuring a move towards Open, Web-based systems, in this analysis, we now turn to Process, which explores how we use systems to accomplish work and meet our goals. I'd suggest there's potential change on at least five dimensions when we look at process: 1. Analog to Digital - how people use technology and tools More after the jump.
3.1. Moving from Analog to Digital - One of the primary changes that we face in the environment today is technology driven. We're transforming into a digital society, and that involves moving from an Analog world to a Digital world. It involves learning a new language, the language our kids are speaking as Digital Natives. (See a post I wrote in April Town to Gown - and all points in between for more on the Digital Immigrants / Digital Natives meme). The Analog world has people moving information manually - processing paper documents by hand - where the Digital world uses technology to streamline processes. The Analog world has people picking up the telephone to convey information, the Digital world amends the process until often the human interaction of transferring information is removed altogether, leaving the humans to do a higher value activity. (See also these recent posts: From Analog to Digital - What a Long Strange Trip, and Digital Adolescents, Stuck in Digital Puberty). 3.2. Moving from Manual to Automatic - The Latin stem for the word "manual" refers to using one's hands. Manual processes involve a human being touching an object. In looking at how we get things done in any organization, it's important to consider that each one of those manual processes is subject to a cost and is prone to human error. Ultimately, we can't change everything over to automatic, but much of what we call progress has involved taking human touches out of processes. We saw it in the move from craft shops to factories, the primary innovation of the 20th century. In this new century, we'll see more and more process reform, because reducing time and costs makes more things possible. This is the nature of improved standards of living. From a city perspective, reducing costs in this way offers the opportunity to manage growth without adding more labor costs to the budget - in essence, keeping taxes low and spending citizen's money more wisely. Full leveraging of the Internet has only just begun, because it's such a new tool and we don't fully understand how we can use it to move away from old ways of doing business. But rest assured, many more efficiencies lie in this direction if we will keep on looking. 3.3. Moving from Fixed to Mobile - This transformation is best imagined by thinking of a plug into a wall socket and a hand-held device. This is moving from a telephone at your desk to a telephone on your hip. This is moving from a radio plugged into the wall to a radio powered by batteries and plugged into your ear. It is the moving from the world of the desk phone, the desktop PC, and the clock radio to the cellphone, the laptop, and the iPod. We started this transition when we put radios in our cars and trucks. We finish this transition when we carry those devices on our persons, wherever we go. Full mobility involves changing our business processes, because we can get everything we need, wherever we are. We no longer have to move around to access information, whether it is out on the Internet, or out in the field. With mobility, we're freed from the constraint of location. This change is bigger than most think, because we're used to having to move our bodies to get what we want. As climate issues gain more attention, look for more people to consider moving information over broadband networks instead of moving bodies in cars, trucks, and airplanes, burning fossil fuels, and polluting the air. (See the 2005 MetroNetIQ White Paper March to Mobility for a fuller discussion on this inevitable trend.) 3.4. Moving from Coercion to Collaboration - In the old days, employees did what they were told and if they didn't, they were fired. That's the essence of coercion, gaining one's way through aggressive threat. Later as bureaucracies ossified and became less effective, employees who would otherwise be fired were overlooked, disciplined in some manner or transferred to another task where they could cause less harm. Otherwise, the same model was in place - top-down coercion by management to force compliance to a set standard of performance. Sure, management tools are available to make the model work better, with limited success: annual performance reviews for feedback, raises in salary or wage (or more likely, withholding of raises), bonuses, training, junkets, and award ceremonies. All these formal mechanisms were devised to oil the cogs in the Coercion Machine and keep it running. We see this model continue in many, if not most businesses and organizations. Old habits die hard, but more and more, we see another model on the rise. In the new collaboration organizational model, workers share responsibility for outcomes and work much closer together. Professionalism is expected equally from managers and those managed. Work practice may be far less formal, but even with all the informality, more is expected. Independence is demanded by employees, who see themselves as better equipped than their bosses to know what needs to be done, since they're right there on the spot, where the action is, so to speak. In a more dynamic economy, jobs come open more often, and good employees recognize that they have more freedom of movement. The good ones are more likely to move on if not treated well, but if they're happy in their job, they'ill stay and become ever more valuable. Training is not so much a perk as a necessary expense, given the increasing complexity that technology brings. Having invested so much in their employees, and likely relying on fewer employees to do more, employers are eager to see that they stay on the job and remain productive. As tasks become more unique, problem-solving skills are more valued. In a complex work environment, it often takes multiple perspectives and skill sets to solve a problem, and this is especially true in smaller organizations, where fewer employees mean everyone wears multiple hats and carries greater responsibility. The only way this model works is if everyone works well together - if they collaborate, which when broken down means "to work together." This aspect of change has a better chance of being embraced if there is a move towards cultural transformation or if there is intense pressure to reduce labor costs. For this, of all the dimensions of change, involves cultural change, which is always slower than one would think. So, the change potential here will depend upon the degree to which the workplace has already changed, and the degree to which those in management envision a changing workplace and embrace the potential of a more collaborative environment for workers. (See also In Assessing Change v. MOTS, Start with Putting Consensus Ahead of Coercion and Something in Common). 3.5. Moving from Dependent to Independent to Interdependent - In a similar vein, in the old style of management, workers were dependent on information and other necessary resources from their bosses. As information and tools have moved to the desktop, workers have grown more independent, empowered as they are with all the tools they need to do their jobs. But as the work they do has grown more complex, there's a growing need to engage across the organization, and increasingly, with other organizations, in order to fulfill their goals and complete the necessary tasks of the job. In an effort to trim costs and become more efficient, more organizations have recognized the potential of outsourcing, where they break up their typical processes and farm out to external contractors the less critical functions to more efficient firms. As work becomes more complex and as more tools move out to the edge of organizations, as power and information spread throughout the organization, teams are formed to take on tasks. But the teams no longer need to be in one place. Information and communication technology enables dispersed teams to work together as if they were in the same place. The rise of wiki software enables teams to collaborate on information work product over the Internet. But for such interconnectivity to be leveraged to full advantage, workers need to develop skills in working together, and over time, they become more and more interdependent. Only the more advanced firms are moving in the direction of using Wikis, video communication and other tools to enable dispersed teams to function effectively, but this is a growing trend and these tools are increasingly available and affordable. The degree to which they're adopted and integrated into work processes is a sign of both the competitiveness of the organization and its sense of urgency. (See these posts as well: Stick to Your Knitting, Work Within Your Circle of Control and I Know You Are, But What Am I?). Posted on December 22, 2007 at 09:33 AM | Comments (0) Look Before You Leap, Part 4Having given some serious thought to what shapes one's views on change, the fundamental perspectives on change that one starts with (see Look Before You Leap, Part 3), I'd argue that the next category to consider would be the System, how it operates now, and how it could operate if all the new possibilities are considered. In the case of a city government, the "System" in its comprehensive definition would include the infrastructures the city maintains, the assets they employ, the human resources that operate within the system, the services the employees provide each other and their constituents, any outside services used by those city employees, and those citizens and visitors outside city government who interface with the system in some way. To bring some focus to this discussion, however, I'd limit the definition of System in this discussion to the communications infrastructure, assets and services used by city employees. I've identified two parameters within the system that impact the change decision - there could certainly be more, but for this exercise, I've settled on two: whether the system is closed or open, and whether the predominate tool in the system is local (the desktop) or remote (the Web).
2.1. Moving from Closed to Open - One of the most revolutionary paradigm shifts in the technology world is the growing understanding that open systems adapt better than closed systems. First, to define terms. An open system allows great freedom of movement, while a closed system is under the strict control of a single owner or operator. Proponents of open systems cite their greater capacity for innovation and lower costs, while those who prefer closed systems generally cite the ability to maintain quality and generate sufficient profits to provide a financial path for upgrades and sustainability. I think the most ready analogy is the difference between our railroad system (closed) and our highway system (open). Another good analogy is the Microsoft software paradigm, which has MS in firm control of the entire structure (closed) vs. the world of Linux, where code is freely shared among a wide variety of producers and a community is responsible for maintaining quality and continuity (open). Still another analogy, this one closer to home, is the difference between the cellular wireless world, where content is managed in a "Walled Garden" (closed) and the Wi Fi wireless world, where content is as wide open as the Internet (open). Open systems leverage the input of many more eyes and ears and brains. They are quicker to identify mistakes, quicker to innovate and adapt and improve. Open systems also end up being cheaper and more accessible, because their primary motivation is inclusiveness rather than exclusivity. Exclusive approaches tend to create scarcity in order to keep profits high. Inclusive approaches leverage the network effect, which says that the value of the network goes up the more nodes there are on the network (aka Metcalfe's Law). I am typing this blog using Movable Type, a proprietary software (closed) but I'm interfacing with the Internet on a Firefox browser (open), on a Hot Spot in a bookstore (open). The first element of System to consider then is weigh the benefits and costs of a closed system vs an open system, in light of the particular demands that the city has identified. For a more in depth discussion on the spectrum of options between closed and open systems, I recommend this recent post Trains on Tracks v. Cars on Highways: Closed v. Open. 2.2. Moving from PC (Desktop or Laptop) to Web - Since the days when the first desktops were networked locally, we've been moving to a more network-centric approach. Arguably, we're starting to see the PC more closely resemble a telephone as an end node on a communications network. The un-networked PC has far less utility today than one that is hooked to a broadband connection. Two trends have run in parallel over the past decade, which combine to make this discussion open-ended: more powerful PCs and more networked PCs. First, the PC itself has grown more and more powerful in both processing power and storage capacity over the last decade. Microsoft software still holds the dominant position in operating systems, and we're used to a world where software licenses in an organization are assigned "per desktop." Second, the PC has grown ever more connected. It is increasingly rare to see a PC that is not used as an Internet device, more and more using a high speed broadband connection. Such popular commercial destinations as Amazon, eBay, CraigsList; popular media sites like YouTube, popular social networking sites like MySpace, and FaceBook; and valuable search tools like Google and Wikipedia have made the Internet an amazing destination that can only be reached through an access account, preferably one that is broadband, not dial-up. High-value websites are not the only significant change either. In the past five years, advances in Web Services have started to enable more functionality to reside on the Web. Many ISPs and web-based companies make web mail accounts and on-line storage available, which can be accessed from any device by locating a specific URL and account. Web 2.0 is a term that has come to symbolize new, innovative practices that leverage the Web as opposed to the desktop. Google has staked a position in this area to differentiate itself from Microsoft. For a full discussion of this new way of looking at the Web, see the post Web 2.0 Principles and Lessons. The second element of System to consider is how far your organization would embrace a move to leverage what is available over the Web, as opposed to keeping content and software resident on individual desktops and laptops. Using the Web opens up the organization to new potential in collaboration and productivity. For a more in depth discussion, see this post, Three Faces of One Change: Search Engines, Mass Collaboration, and Leaderless Organizations. Posted on December 21, 2007 at 06:26 PM | Comments (0) Look Before You Leap, Part 3Ah, decisions, decisions ... everyone has an opinion. Consider these two scenes from A Bronx Tale, where our hero, Calogero, is on the cusp of a very important decision for a 17-year old boy living in the Bronx in 1960...whether or not to date an attractive "colored" girl...He struggles with the decision, listening to his two mentors - the local Mafia Boss, Joey Orso, seen here... and his Dad, seen here ... In pondering a decision, you can listen to many people and getting advice is a good idea. But in the end, sound decision making based on process and facts is hard to beat. Making a good decision may start in getting sound advice, but it must also include self awareness - understanding how you look at the world. Our hero above has a struggle between following the rules and advice of the neighborhood and the local Mafioso, or those of his home and his Dad. How he decides this important decision that drives the plot of this movie will be driven by how he looks at the world, ultimately. And that, my friends, is where the decision-making process for cities starts - the world view of the decision-makers will influence how they interpret the facts. More at the jump. Decision Points in Making the Leap Perspective Ten Steps For Turning Attitude Into Action: 1. Understand the Power of Attitude According to Harrell, for each of us, our attitudes drive our belief systems. In turn, our beliefs shape how we look at the world. In turn, our perceptions become a means of shaping the reality we live in. In that sense, city leaders on the cusp of making important decisions about broadband are driven by their collective attitude about their future. Perspective, how a city looks at these issues, will drive how they decide on the changes they face.
1.1 Looking Forward or Looking Backward - One of the first choices a city leader has is between a primary orientation around which direction motivates their thinking: conservative or progressive. Either one can be a valid strategy if it is chosen consciously. City leaders can make a perfectly rational choice to focus on preserving what they have, reminiscing about times gone by and looking backward. Preservation of something that makes the city unique can be a valid strategy. Others can focus on looking forward as a strategy. The challenge we all face is that the world at large is moving ahead, and cities are being asked to make a choice, either actively or passively. Denying change and doing nothing, while passive, actually involves making the choice to stay the same. But choosing to look backward, thinking that is the "safer" path, paradoxically is not safe - it actually involves taking the risk of getting left behind and losing relevance. When the game changes and new tools are put down in front of you, you can choose to learn to play the new game, to wait, or to deny the changes you see. Looking forward involves gathering information, growing in awareness of your city, forging consensus around a plan and strategy, and taking some calculated risks to adapt to a changing environment. The first element of Perspective then is whether the decision-makers give more credence to preparing for the future or preserving the status quo. For a more in depth analysis of this particular duality, I recommend this post from Nov 15, In Assessing Change v. MOTS, Start with Putting Consensus Ahead of Coercion. 1.2. Static to Dynamic - There's no doubt about it, we're living in a faster world today than the one we faced a generation ago. If the world is moving faster, we need the tools to adapt. Product life cycles are shorter. Information that is immediately available puts a premium on processing and making decisions. The key element here that confounds leaders is uncertainty about the future. Planning cycles have shrunk from 10 years to 5 years to 1 year. How can you plan for the future with so much change? The answer is to build in flexibility, to make the system and processes agile. That way, whatever the future throws your way, you can react more readily. We can no longer expect with any certainty that the future will be a lot like the past. But the challenge is in determining what is important and what isn't, what will stay the same and what will change. I believe that there are principal aspects of life that remain the same such as the fundamental nature of the world and human behavior. Our options and tools may change, our environment may change, but our principles, for instance, remain steady. The second element of Perspective, I would argue, is whether those making decisions about change believe that the future is truly remarkably different, requiring a different approach, or whether the future will be about like the past, which removes the sense of urgency to take major steps to prepare for change. This post offers more insight into this element of change: When Complexity Overwhelms, Is It Finally Time for a Change? 1.3. Moving from Control Hierarchies to Smart Networks, from Top Down to Bottom Up - I think of three things when I think of this shift from planned organizational hierarchies focused on control to spontaneous smart networks - Networks, Emergence, and Collective Intelligence (see With Broadband Internet, is Traditional Government Becoming Irrelevant?). Networks are the dominant way that nature organizes complexity, whereas hierarchies are an old way of organization that human societies came up with. Networks are flexible and fascinating - it pays huge dividends to get well versed in Network Science - the fastest route I know to get smart on networks is to read this book: Linked: How Everything Is Connected to Everything Else and What It Means. For further discussion on how the shift from an information society to a network society affects us, see Cities as Complex Ecosystems: Mother Nature Knows Best and E Pluribus, Unum: From 300M to 30K to 3141 to 50 to 1. The concept of Emergence digs into how ideas seemingly arise out of nowhere, rather than being passed down from on-high. It's really quite fascinating, and a better understanding of this concept is helpful, because modern communications technology facilitates emergence. As above, I think the most enjoyable way to better understand this concept is to sit down and read the very readable Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities, and Software. My recent analogy of Government as Layer Cake opens the door to understanding how local governments can play a more powerful role than the federal government, if they only recognize how empowered they truly are and take the initiative. Finally, the principle of the Wisdom of the Crowds describes how smarter decisions are actually made by larger groups of average, but well informed people than by smaller groups, but much better informed people. In other words, it's the openness and group dynamics that determine the wisdom of what is out there, not the superior intelligence of the group. This concept flies in the face of conventional "wisdom" - there's that word again - that says that Think Tanks are the way to go if you want good decision-making. The bestseller The Wisdom of Crowds should be considered essential reading, IMHO. (see also The Wisdom of Crowds, the Safety of Numbers and Playing Roulette with Your Broadband Future for more discussion.) Nothing complicated here, eh? The third element of Perspective, then, involves a basic belief in how organizations and societies should work - like a machine, with well-ordered roles and lots of control? Or like a jungle, with systems in balance and flexible role playing, but nary a hint of top-down control, other than what the system exerts as a natural consequence of the actors and their actions? Making this leap in perspective is perhaps one of the largest and most difficult of all, but it carries with it a huge change in perspective. Tolerance for chaos and ambiguity goes way up, which is likely to prove very hard to grasp for those in political leadership roles. Posted on December 21, 2007 at 09:52 AM | Comments (0) Look Before You Leap, Part 2In my previous post, I posed an observation and a challenge: in essence saying, "The World is Changing," and asking, "What Are You Going to Do About It?" Given the seriousness of the decisions, I'd suggest a process is in order, and offer these thoughts. Step One in this process would be understanding and accepting that yes, in fact, the world is changing. Step Two would be working to better understand the problem, its root causes. Step Three would be evaluating what the problem implies. Step Four would be understanding the options - the Upside. Step Five is playing defense - understanding the Downside, what can go wrong. Put another way, in another recent post, I used this analogy of health care decision making when facing a problem: a) the epiphany ("something's not right, we can do better...) Step Six, then, would be devising a Plan of Action, making decisions, the subject of this series of posts. Years ago, I took a course in Screenplay Writing, where I learned about Aristotle's views on storytelling, in particular, the Three Act Structure approach. (I believe there is no such thing as wasted time, just levels of experience - some more valuable than others!) So our story in this case starts out in Act One with how the actor looks at the world - Perspective. Moving on to Act Two, the body of the story, there are three dimensions of change: new system approaches for operating a city or System, new process options - the rules of operation or Process; and new solutions that embody the changes in systems and processes or Solution. Finally Act Three is the wind-up - whether its time to adapt, the type of change, and how much or Adaptation. I offer up this methodology for making decisions on change: this is a way of breaking down this complex decision into its component parts.
In the graphic above, I envision a master control panel for change, with the parameters of change on several dimensions. As described above, I've divided the categories into Perspective, System, Process, Solution, and Adaptation. Decisions on change are necessarily based not only on the particular circumstances before the person or group faced with decisions, but also on how they would decide on these individual dimension scales. Attitudes about change on each of these parameters will collectively determine where they end up at the last decision, whether to change or remain the same. Often, using a tool like this takes the stress out of making a difficult decision - call this a modern version of the Ben Franklin method. So, how do you decide? Let me tell you about a simple tool many use and advocate. It is known as the "Ben Franklin" system. Take a lined pad- write the question to be decided at the top of page and below divide the remaining sheet into two vertical columns. The left is for the negative consequences of your action and the right is for the positive benefits. Assume for the moment you are undecided about buying a new car. You have selected the model but you are not sure this is the right time. Pose the question on the top of the pad--in the left column, list your reasons to wait, on the right side, list your reasons to buy now. In a sense, the side with the most reasons wins. The "Ben Franklin" system forces you to think about what you are about to do. It does not let you sweep under the rug what will happen if things don't work out. And it does not let you see the promises but not the perils of your choice. Try Ben Franklin Next up, getting down to the nitty gritty at each component level. Having fun yet? Posted on December 20, 2007 at 09:12 AM | Comments (0) Look Before You Leap, Part II feel for city officials these days. They're caught in a period of tremendous change, driven by technology advances that make possible new ways of looking at things and new methods of tackling age old problems. The Smart Cities I see are minding that adage, "Look Before You Leap." But there's a limit to the power of investigation. At some point, it comes decision time. Then the guiding adage becomes "He Who Hesitates is Lost." The nature of evolution is that things change over time, and as an environment changes, it behooves those within the environment to do one of two things: adapt or perish. Staying the same in the face of change is sometimes seen as another alternative, but it's really just a slower version of the second, a long slow slide into oblivion, as opposed to a dramatic leap over the cliff. Stasis is inadequate for the simple reason that the environmental change has made the current state less effective. I wrote about the nature of change in our physical world two months ago in the post Rock of Ages, Water of Life. Change is just the way our world and our lives are. Our task is to figure out how to adapt. Now is a good time for deep thoughts, for as we approach the Christmas holiday, we also approach the end of the year and a new beginning. Perhaps then it's time to go through that annual ritual of looking back before we look forward. I don't know whether or not this analysis will make it to the vaulted form of commentary known as the End-of-Year Top Ten List , but I thought I'd start to capture my thoughts on where we we've come and where we're going when it comes to broadband and cities. I'd argue that cities now have an ample body of evidence on these new alternate broadband technologies. Those who have done the work to understand these changes and their implications have what they need now to make decisions regarding broadband. They just need to figure out what they want to do about it. They have to decide if they are ready to act. They need to determine who they want their city to be when it grows up. Being on the cusp of change is not only a scary time for an individual or business, but also for a society or a city. In a previous post, I described how having mobile broadband available as a new option has put cities at a decision point on how to go forward, which I called Makng the Leap. In hindsight, I realize my thoughts haven't changed so much from May 2005, the month I launched this website, also the month I put my thoughts into this white paper On Structural Change. I pointed out back then that the Internet is a big grinder, working away at our institutions and structures, because it is so darn efficient as a distribution mechanism. The issue facing cities is whether they want to go down the path of full optimization by leveraging those Internet efficiencies. If they do, it'll mean dramatic change. Here's how I put it in the white paper back then. What do all these changes and challenges that threaten the status quo have in common? They rely on what I would call the Five Pillars of Disruption: 1) Technology, which creates new tools and methods to do more with less, brings ever lower costs and greater capability, whose essence is captured in Moore's Law; 2) Innovation driven by a global industry of research and development, wherein smart people apply new scientific discoveries to the marketplace in new ways not just to compete, but to change the rules of competition; 3) Capitalism, the system of economics that provides capital to new compelling business ideas, organizes production and labor, and efficiently distributes goods and services to markets for ever greater consumer value, creating more wealth than ever before seen in history; 4) Democracy, which provides the political stability where capital markets can flourish and workers can find the best way to apply their skills to improve their lot in life; and finally, 5) Diversity, whether of culture or of opinion, which allows differing perspectives to produce creative solutions for problems. For all its warts, the US marketplace has been the country that best embodied these traits in the past, but a variety of challengers are emerging in the world marketplace. These five factors combine to drive change at an ever-increasing pace. But the nature of this change, unlike change in the past, is to empower the edges - the individuals in the marketplace are gaining the power to do more for themselves, whether it is to produce the creative content more efficiently, or to distribute the information product amongst themselves, each of the industries above will see its control of the levers of distribution challenged. Like the recording companies who file suit against individuals for theft, these industries will not go quietly into the night. But the power of change is inevitable, because it is not limited to one government and cannot be controlled. It is Endemic, Pervasive, and Unstoppable and it can no longer be viewed as a unique or temporary phenomenon. It is here to stay. What are we to conclude from this new state of permanence I will call structural change? I am suggesting that leaders in the public and private sectors consider this paradigm shift. Such change is along multiple dimensions. It can take many forms and I think this topic is as good as any to assess where we are at the end of another year. So in the following posts I'll summarize the changes in city government implied by the structural change we all face. Because whether we acknowledge it or not, the change is here. How each of us chooses to deal with it is another story. Posted on December 20, 2007 at 08:37 AM | Comments (0) Crossing the Chasm, Making the LeapThe rise of Metropolitan Broadband as an option has given city leaders something new to think about. It has changed the dynamic when it comes to city management and planning. I'd think that a good analogy is taking a hike in the mountains. There comes a point when an obstruction is encountered, say a gorge that needs to be crossed. The hiker faces three principal options: a) forge ahead: they can choose to continue on the same path, in which case a strategy is needed to make the leap over the obstacle; b) turn around: they can turn around and try a different way; or c) stop: they can decide to stop where they are and pitch their tent. The point is that cities have options as they move through time, and many choose b) or c), two conservative paths that seem to have less risk. Option a), Forge Ahead, becomes for city leaders the "Road Less Traveled," as it entails risk to forge ahead through obstacles and implies living with a goal in mind and taking risks. Unlike cities, companies are created to succeed or fail. They are not guaranteed some kind of existence. They can actually go away if not managed well. A few years back, author Geoffrey Moore wrote what became a business classic in tech circles, Crossing the Chasm. He makes what many might consider an obvious point: companies can start out with a bang and gain great acceptance among "early adopters," but they must change the way they approach the market if they are going to duplicate that early success with the broader market, which will approach their product or service differently. This amounts to a "chasm" between Stage One and Stage Two, which must be crossed in order to have sustained growth and success. Here's the best review from Amazon, after the jump. Moore's primary point in this book is that the early adopters of a technology are not necessarily the same as the mainstream market. Moore points out that early adapters often buy things because they're cool, not for practical reasons. Early adapters deal with pain in the form of bad interfaces, minimal network effects. etc. Following this informal observation, Moore divides the population into innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards. This is his "Technology Adoption Life Cycle", of which the "underlying thesis is that technology is absorbed into any given community in stages corresponding to the psychological and social profiles of various segments within that market" (p. 15). He illustrates this with a bell curve with a horizontal axis corresponding to time of adoption. There's no explanation for why a Bell curve; I'm guessing it just looks pretty in PowerPoint. Moore continues with "this process can be thought of as a continuum with definite stages, each associated with a definable group" (p. 15), although actual definitions are notable by their absence. So Moore advises us that marketing to the two groups might have to be different. Complex? No. Obvious? Perhaps. In any case, this observation is followed with 185 pages of examples and pep talks which I found perfectly readable, but without much additional content. The second point, which is really just as important, is that the way to "cross the chasm" is by targeting a single industry or group of users, a so-called "vertical market". The only way customers who are beyond the early adopter phase are going to buy into a new product is if it is easy to adopt or if it truly fills a perceived desperate need. That is, it looks less "disruptive". Usually this means a lot of custom integration with industry-specific infrastructure. It's easier to build something well integrated with existing, for say, just the airline industry and their SABRE database backend, than it is to try to target the entire Fortune 500, each sector of which has adopted different sorts of databases. It worked just the way Moore described for my company, where Moore's book was required reading. So, what about cities? They rise and fall based on circumstance and leadership, but tend to have more staying power than companies. Cities may go bankrupt if things go really bad, but rarely do they go away altogether. How many ghost towns do you really encounter on the road of life? Cities tend to just slide into mediocrity, rather than go away altogether. What is it about cities that really "get it" and thrive, becoming vibrant places where people want to live and make a future for themselves? I'd argue that cities that face the truth about themselves are healthy cities. They're aware of their strengths and weaknesses, and like a good sports team, they play to those strengths and address their weaknesses. They develop a plan to make the most of what they have. When it comes to broadband, cities face a challenge similar to the hiker at the start of this post, similar to tech companies in a growth stage, a la Geoffrey Moore - they have now encountered an obstacle in their path and need to determine what it is they will do with themselves - Forge Ahead, Turn Around, or Stop? To forge ahead, they'll need to make a leap to transform themselves from the old way of doing things to the new way. They'll have to reinvent themselves to adapt to the times. And in today's world, that adaptation has to do with broadband infrastructure. Call it Making the Leap. Posted on December 16, 2007 at 05:35 AM | Comments (0) T-t-t-t-talking 'Bout My Generation"Hope I die before I get old" - one of the last lines in My Generation, has to be one of the most poignant lyrics to capture the angst and anger of a generation. The performance by The Who was another defining moment in the series. As they often did during that period, The Who destroyed their instruments at the conclusion of their performance. However, a stage hand, at the request of the band, had overloaded Keith Moon's kick drum with explosives. When they were detonated, the explosion was so intense, Moon was injured by cymbal shrapnel and bandmate Pete Townshend's hearing was permanently damaged. The Who on The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour My penchant for history and looking back is no doubt a byproduct of my 50 years on the planet. I'm often struck by how recent events are tracking what we all witnessed in the 1960s, a time wrenched by social and technological change, not unlike this decade we live in now. The parallels between the Vietnam War and the Iraq War, between Nixon's Watergate and current Bush administration behavior are striking. But there is also a parallel between the Generation Gap that became pronounced in the 1960s and the gap we're experiencing today. Watching that video - after I got over laughing at Tommy Smothers interaction with Pete Townshend at the end - was like a visceral punch to the gut as it brought back the arguments I used to have with my father in the late 60s and early 70s, my own personal generation gap. Last week, I compared our experience in Alternate Broadband over the past four years to an extended road trip from college (Shamalama Ding Dong - Life is a Highway), reveling in the recklessness of youth that pursues a journey of discovery not so much for the practical goal at the end of the road, but for the experience of the journey. Yesterday, I wrote about my kid's entrance into adolescence (Digital Adolescents Stuck in Digital Puberty), suggesting that as a society we are stuck in that awkward period of unrest and confusion - adolescence. I also highlighted our aging political leadership and their analog roots in yesterday's post (From Analog to Digital - A Long, Strange Trip), pondering whether the really, really old men and women in senior positions in Washington can truly grasp the historical significance of technology changes we face today, and whether they have the energy to deal with those changes wisely. It's no coincidence that I wrote about adolescence and its corollary, senescence, in one day. I'm here in my personal life now, stuck in between my kids and my parents. This is My Generation, the tail end of the Baby Boom. I lost my dad three years ago (and miss him every day), and recently moved my 75-year old mom back to town. Thinking about different perspectives of generations is inescapable for me - it's a big part of my life right now. Understanding the Generation Gap is also very important to understanding how society works today. It's inevitable for those at the beginning of their lives to look forward to the future with anticipation, and for those at the end of their lives to look backward with nostalgia. And where we choose to place our benchmarks has a large role in determining how we perceive the present. When older folks look back and marvel at how far they've come, it's sincere. But it's also dangerous if that nostalgia and love of the past causes them to take their eyes off of the future, wistfully reminiscing about the Good Old Days. And when younger people look forward and pine for the future before they're ready, impatient to have it all now, it's dangerous if they act on their wishes without full awareness of consequences. They risk repeating the mistakes of the past if they neglect the lessons of history and are in too much of a hurry. We need each other. Each generation has something to offer. We need the accumulated wisdom, maturity and caution of the older generation, and the energy, initiative and optimism of youth. We need both conservatives and progressives if we are to move forward as a society. We need the dynamic tension, the push and pull, the arguments that will help us preserve what's worth saving, and leave behind the things that keep us from moving ahead. Processing these thoughts, I come to the inescapable conclusion that we desperately need leadership, at all levels of society, who will face the facts with honesty and courage, who will lead us into the changes we need to make as a society. My focus in my job and on this website is on the broadband infrastructure that will take us to the future we deserve. Too many people look at how far we've come in ten years with broadband internet and mobile telephony. Too few look at how far we have to go to reach our potential. It's vital that we set benchmarks that will stretch us. It's like what my kids go through daily now in private school - the faculty gives them a ceiling to reach for, an incredibly challenging curriculum that makes them stretch to the limits of their abilities. And they do, time after time - it's amazing what they're learning. In contrast, what I see all too often in public education is a culture that focuses on a floor that all have to rise above, a minimal standard to pass, and the result is mediocrity more often than excellence. We're lucky to be able to afford private school, and I would think this is a challenge for public schools to rise to, and some do. As a society, when it comes to broadband, we're in the same boat. We desperately need to stretch to an impossibly high ceiling, to set our benchmarks on having the best infrastructure that technology can give us. We risk our future when we settle for a floor, a benchmark of 200 Kbs, when we accept mediocrity, when we marvel with nostalgia at how far we've come in ten years, instead of being impatient that we're not the leading country in the new Network Age. I hate to say it, but we are set on the path to mediocrity if we don't change our ways. We need to be more impatient with our leadership, like that young Pete Townshend from 40 years ago, banging his guitar against the speakers to express his frustration... what are we banging against to express our frustration? I don't hope I die before I get old, but I do hope I live to see broadband reach its potential. Posted on December 12, 2007 at 05:50 AM | Comments (0) Putting the Science back into Political ScienceIt seems that the Right and the Left have found something to agree on - now that's newsworthy... Their point of agreement? Our political leadership has a serious gap when it comes to being informed on matters of science and technology. We don't want to be led by the blind. At least, some of us don't. A new group has been formed to bring focus to this issue and ensure that we don't go down the same path again when we choose our next president - a glimmer of hope! Apparently many Americans agreed with him, according to polls taken shortly after the debate. But lack of interest in the scientific literacy of our next president does not mean that the issue is irrelevant. Popular ambivalence may rather reflect the fact that most Americans are scientifically illiterate. A 2006 National Science Foundation survey found that 25% of Americans did not know the earth goes around the sun. Our president will thus have to act in part as an "educator in chief" as well as commander in chief. Someone who is not scientifically literate will find it difficult to fill this role. This summer in Aspen, Colo., a group of scientists, journalists and business people convened at a "science summit" to discuss ways to build a growing awareness of the importance of scientific issues in government. A working group was convened to explore ways that the scientific and business communities might work together to ensure that science becomes an issue in the 2008 campaign. Science and the Candidates - Wall St. Journal Op-Ed We the People depend on the applications that flow from science for our health, safety, prosperity, livelihood, and future well-being. Thus, we have a right, indeed a duty, to know where prospective lawmakers and policy makers stand on a wide array of scientific issues, and more importantly, their rationale for that position. What should our scientific priorities be in regard to energy, space travel, biotechnology, defense, academic and educational just to name a few, and what kind of resources should be devoted to those items? Science Debate 08 - Daily Kos When opinion pieces in the Wall St. Journal and Daily Kos have a point of significant agreement, it certainly gets my attention! So, where do the candidates stand on broadband infrastructure? Well, according to this quick overview of policy positions in a follow up article on Daily Kos (A Presidential Science Debate), there is hope, at least on the Democratic side. From Obama: Technology and Innovation Plan Barack Obama's comprehensive technology and innovation plan will: * Ensure the full and free exchange of information among Americans through an open Internet and diverse media outlets. From Edwards: An Agenda to Promote Innovation 1. Supporting American Ingenuity: The most important factor for America's future prosperity is investment in education, science, technology and innovation. As president, Edwards will make the Research and Experimentation tax credit permanent. The credit has expired or nearly expired 11 times in the last 25 years, discouraging companies from making long-term commitments to research. Ideological debates at NIH about things like stem cell technology have drained resources from promising research. Edwards will increase spending on basic research at the National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health and lift stifling research restrictions. He will also modernize our patent laws - which haven't been updated in 50 years - to provide incentives for research. From Clinton: Innovation Agenda 1. Establish a $50-billion Strategic Energy Fund. If anyone can track down the Republican positions on broadband infrastructure before I can get to it, please let me know... Posted on December 12, 2007 at 05:24 AM | Comments (0) Shamalama Ding Dong - Life is a Highway Boon: Jesus. What's going on? When was the last time you hopped in the car with your buddies and just drove, for the hell of it? For many of us, it was all the way back in college that we last had the privilege of dropping everything and hitting the road...the college road trip has become a legend, its pointless, stupid, hilarious essence captured best in the movie and clip above. Long sighhhhhhhhh, thoughts of going back to school .... In some ways, though, the Road Trip does have its place, even in business. "The Road Trip ... not just for drunk, irresponsible college kids anymore." At its most basic, a road trip is in fact an exploration of new territory, unbounded by conventional constraints, a journey more valued for its own sake, than for its destination. A lot like life, when you think about it. How often do we hear that admonition - "It's about the journey, not the destination..."? And then we shrug and go back to our computer and work on the project plan, because too often in business, it's just the opposite - "It's about the destination and how fast and cheap you can get there. Screw the journey." The Road Trip is firmly ensconced in the realm of Creativity, where things happen because they're allowed to happen, because you're out there breaking all the rules that normally keep you in line, out there in the world where nobody knows you, where its safer to take risks. Much of it proves pointless, but for some, it's what the situation demands. Over the past four years here in the Alternate Broadband universe (what I call the various worlds of Wi Fi Mesh, WiMAX, BPL, FTTH), it's been like we've been on one long road trip. It's been an ongoing experiment, a journey of discovery, never knowing what's around the next corner, going where the spirit moves you. We've had a destination in mind, but much of the value so far has come from the exploration and the knowledge we've found along the way. For many on the outside, it appears that we've been wasting time and money, we've been engaged in an irresponsible romp that's going nowhere. But on the inside, we see things differently - we've been enjoying a long ride of discovery. We've been trying out new things, seeing what works. When we pause to look back, we realize how far we've come and how much we've learned, and we see real value. Thomas Edison knew about the value of Failure in the Pursuit of a Discovery. I am not discouraged, because every wrong attempt discarded is another step forward. I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. Many of life's failures are men who did not realize how close they were to success when they gave up. Nearly every man who develops an idea works at it up to the point where it looks impossible, and then gets discouraged. Thomas Edison Quotes It often seems as if, in the eyes of the conservative, serious establishment telecom world, (and the mainstream press), that Alternate Broadband start ups, the whole industry in fact, is worthy of only dismissal and derision. We're like the Delta House - the "Animal House fraternity." You can almost hear them as they scan news articles about EarthLink's withdrawal (and I have, over and over again). "...those guys can't be serious, they can't hold a candle to our 'carrier grade' quality ..." "...how can unlicensed wireless ever be taken seriously? You can't rely on that...you need licensed spectrum if you want to have a wireless network that you can count on..." I have to admit, in many cases, they've been right. But without this experimentation, where would we be? They overlook the value of experimentation. We've been prodding the established world to get busy and to take more risks. And isn't that always the case when it comes to innovation and startups that disrupt the status quo? They're out there, they screw up and screw up, all the way to getting it right, and then, there's a collective gasp, when the rest of the world realizes that the BIG CHANGE has occurred. Then everyone wonders how they did it. See Fumbling the Future by Smith and Alexander (my favorite book from business school). It tells the story of how the great Xerox corporation, sitting on a pile of cash as the computer world was undergoing a sea change in the mid-1970s, gathered together scientists in the Palo Alto Research Center (PARC). It tells the story in great detail of how these brilliant guys, unfettered by convention and the need to earn a living, puttered around in their lab, in essence, on a nerd version of a road trip of their very own. They proceeded to invent the first PC and not just that, they invented all the accoutrement of the PC world: the mouse, the GUI interface, even a LAN...and then, faced with destiny, their executives let it all go, because they couldn't recognize the potential of the future that was staring them in the face. But then, it had happened earlier, in an ironic twist of fate, 20 years before, when Xerox was first getting started. In need of cash, Xerox offered IBM a stake in the company back in the 1950s, but their "experts" dramatically underestimated the potential of xerorgraphy - dry copying . "There will never be a significant market for copies - we estimate the worldwide market at 50,000...no thanks, we'll pass on this investment." Fast forward twenty years, and it was the establishment geniuses in corporate HQ at Xerox now, who looked at what the scientists had come up with and said words to the effect of: "oh, those toys the boys at PARC came up with, no, there's no serious market for computers in homes - computers are for specific business purposes..." Folks, we've been here before, over and over. It took people like Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak at Apple to grasp the potential of the PC and take them to market, people like Bill Gates and Paul Allen at Microsoft to come up with the software to make them work and invent a new industry. These were young kids, granted, very smart young kids, confident in their ability to do great things and dismissive of conventional wisdom. Same with Michael Dell a few years later. The list goes on and on. Most of the world is content to follow the existing train tracks laid down by others, pursuing conventional paths that take them where they are meant to go. It's predictable and safe, understandable too. We can't all be Steve Jobs. A job at one of the large telecom companies offers much, and they provide a valuable service. I think they have their place, but they don't have an exclusive lock on value. Because the telecom companies are operating a railroad, which takes its clients where the telecom company wants to go, they face limits in times of change. As long as they have enough people who are happy with where the tracks take them, and the fares are deemed as a value, then I expect that they will have a business. But change challenges their business model. The potential of the Internet is more like a highway system than a railroad system. And only when all the connecting roads and streets are finally built out - the Last Mile network - and everyone is out there on the road, will we begin to see the full potential of the Internet. It's still a long way off, but those days are coming. We believe that the somewhat-spontaneous experiments of the open world of the Alternate Broadband universe are pushing out the envelope as fast or faster than the planned experiments and careful steps of the closed Conventional Broadband world of cable and DSL. And we also believe that there is room for both. Those large companies need the Alternate Broadband world to go out and take the risks, to experiment and come up with new broadband models. The smart ones among the Conventional Broadband players will watch advances in the Alternate Broadband space and adapt, while the overconfident ones will deny the changes until it is too late. Change is happening fast, the world is not the same as it was four years ago when I started in this space. What will the railroad operators do when the tracks no longer go where people want to go? What will they do when alternatives, like roads and cars, come along to compete with their railroad monopolies? Some will adapt, but others will go away. I recommend the great website of this British guy, Martin Geddes, called Telco 2.0, and this article in particular. Telco 2.0: Beyond bundling: the future of broadband. These guys come from the telecom world, and their mission is as much to reform their brethren and make them aware of the need to change their ways. And their Euro-perspective gives this site a great twist and valuable insights. I think it's undeniable that in the 21st Century, we live in a world of choices, and life is indeed a highway. Once having tasted the freedom of driving a car wherever one pleases, it's hard to go back to the tyranny of railroad timetables, ticket punchers, late trains, and walking five blocks in the rain after getting off the train. The train and the railroad have their place when you know where you're going - they will be there for predictable service delivery, when you need to get to your job fast and efficiently. But there's no substitute for a road system when you're not sure where you need to go, and when you may need to change directions and explore. For that world, we need an infrastructure that provides us with great flexibility. I may be wrong, but I believe that's the role of the Alternate Broadband world, to help hasten the day when we have the Last Mile Network built out, and everyone looks at broadband computing as naturally as they do the automobile today. Then, we will have arrived. Until then, Life is a Highway, I want to drive it all night long... Posted on December 06, 2007 at 08:23 PM | Comments (0) Another Kind of ChangeOne Last Word on Change, Then I'm On to Another Topic! All the time, our customers ask us - "How do you make money doing this?" - the answer is simple: "Volume." Saturday Night Live Faux TV Commercial: First Citiwide Change Bank Maybe that was Citibank's secret strategy with subprime mortgage debt - Volume? Posted on November 28, 2007 at 05:12 PM | Comments (0) When Complexity Overwhelms, Is It Finally Time for a Change?How Do You Feel About Change? Sooner or Later, with everything in life, there comes a time when .... * more and more is expected from the same old system. and you begin to realize that you may have ridden this horse about as far as it can go; Some of us are more conscious of this process than others, but in today's highly dynamic environment, it makes sense to bring change out of the closet and to be more explicit and deliberate about our attitudes towards Change. How do you feel about Change? I hit a moment of change last May when I decided to sell my old car. I hit a moment of change nearly five years ago when I left my job to go out on my own. Neither of those changes came about suddenly, rather, the pressure to change built up gradually. But sometimes BIG Change is not warranted - sometimes you just need to freshen things up a little, sometimes you need a little change, a tweaking, so to speak. Whenever I begin to feel unsettled with my home life, I dig deeper to see what's bothering me and I ponder what I can do to renew my relationship - because I'm not ready for a wholesale change there, and I don't think I ever will be - I love my wife. But sometimes, even that relationship needs more energy and some adjustments are called for. The point I'm exploring here is that as powerful a hold as the Status Quo has on our lives, it makes sense to re-evaluate on a regular basis to see how well your "Tried-and-True" is holding up. Over time, even in the best systems, employees get stale, machines slow down and become less effective, strategies wear thin...nothing in this universe lasts, even the Sun and the Earth are winding down, ever so slowly. So, how do you feel about Change? Sometimes, change is warranted not because of environmental shifts but just because complexity has reached a breaking point. One problem with evolution or incrementalism that avoids the shock of bigger change by changing slowly by adding to the Status Quo, is that complexity can build up to where more complexity adds little to no improvement, but most certainly adds more stress. I've heard this complaint about software, where instead of adding ever more lines of code, it becomes more expedient to start over with a cleaner approach. So, if you feel your stress level rising, or notice that you get stressed over things that used to not bother you, take a look at your situation and ask yourself if its time to make a change to address what's bothering you. Does the situation call for a small change, or is something bigger in order? We can become so used to the Status Quo that we forget why we do things, we just always have. We can become so used to the Status Quo that we become attached to it. We can become so used to the Status Quo that we consciously avoid something that would be better for us because we have turned Change into some kind of Big Negative, when in fact, it's the Status Quo that has become the Big Negative. Sometimes, we need to put a hold on our emotional brain for a moment, the one that keeps us in our current situation - "Better the Devil that I know than the one I don't". Sometimes, we need to shed our assumptions and look clearly at our situation in a new light. Sometimes, we need to be more conscious concerning our attitudes about change. Sometimes Simple can be like a breath of fresh air, when we have become so used to Complex... Sometimes, the world has come up with a better mousetrap, but we don't know because we haven't been out there looking. Or, we know, but still, we find that we've become used to our old mousetrap. "You don't understand, I like hitting myself in the head with a hammer..." So, how do you feel about Change? Posted on November 28, 2007 at 04:36 PM | Comments (0) The Times They Are a Changin' ... Or Are They?Something tells me I may have to post this music video some more in upcoming months ... I hope! Rudd, who was expected to be sworn in as prime minister in the coming week, had accused Howard of being out of touch with modern Australia and ill-prepared to deal with issues such as climate change and high-speed Internet. Australian Leader Defeated in Election Long, long sigh here .................................................................... Oh, to live in a country with a parliamentary democracy. Sure, it would take some getting used to having a Prime Minister instead of a President, but just imagine having a Vote of No Confidence to Force an Election! Now that's what I'm talking 'bout! I clipped this article because it tied together a "march to modernity" with the need to address the issue of High Speed Internet, or Broadband, as it's otherwise called. I can only dream that one day my countrymen and women will wake up and realize that the issue of broadband infrastructure is worthy of more attention...if Australia can catch on, what about us??? So, at least Down Under, it's Out with the Old - Conservative Prime Minister John Howard, one of the Bush administration's staunchest allies - and In with the New - Labor leader Kevin Rudd, a Chinese-speaking former diplomat (and apparently, a broadband internet lover). While much attention in the article is on Rudd's anti-Iraq War positions and plans for Australia to join the Kyoto Protocol, leaving the US alone out on an island - get it ("island", "Australia", oh, never mind), I'll be watching to see how the new government treats broadband differently. It will be interesting to see what happens when yet another national government actually focuses on national broadband policy - could they offer us lessons? Will we even be aware of if they do? Stay tuned! Posted on November 28, 2007 at 04:02 PM | Comments (0) Are You on Facebook? Maybe it's Time to Join ... Come on Over to the Dark Side, Luke, the Power ... the Pooower ...I called my old friend Bill Wong recently - he and I got to know each other in Austin three years ago, when he was at Tropos and I was consulting with Austin Energy, running a broadband research project we called GENie (Geodesic Energy Network - information + electricity). I went on to a consulting engagement with Tropos and Bill and I got to know each other better, then Bill went over to Cisco . Bill has become one of a handful of subject matter experts in how Wi Fi Mesh works in practice. He knows more about the technology than I could dream of knowing. I love to check in with old friends like Bill from time to time and compare notes, inevitably we wind up complaining about this or that - this time, we bitched about changes in our little industry and I put forward my idea that Municipal Wireless was too narrow for me anymore - it leaves out private sector wireless, public sector projects that also include fiber, FTTH, BPL, etc, etc. I've written on that theme here many times. So, my hat's off to Bill, who challenged me to get out on the social networking site facebook. He said it's become more than a place where college kids hang out and socialize. It provides good tools for industry discussions, for instance. So, on Bill's urging, I joined yesterday, and we promptly launched a discussion group on Alternate Broadband. As you can tell, this is all very spontaneous. I invite you to join us for a conversation at Facebook...I'm not altogether sure where it will go, but this is a chance to get a little more interactive. I'll keep writing my thoughts down here, but I see Facebook offering an opportunity for a broader discussion. Please check it out! Posted on November 28, 2007 at 03:00 PM | Comments (0) Onward, Through the Fog
I rode off today to drop my kids at school, after wiping off the windows, so dense was the fog. I waited at a busy corner, pulled out, only to hear a honk and see a pair of headlights on a silver Mercedes....just the color of fog. Note to self - don't buy a gray or silver car, you can't see it in low visibility. After dropping the kids off, I made my way out onto the highway and as I moved up the hill, the fog dissipated and I had a spectacular view of Lake Austin at sunrise, something like this image I found on Flickr. It struck me that "Onward Through the Fog" is a great metaphor to capture where we are when it comes to Broadband in America. We're not sure what lies ahead, yet we can vaguely see into the near term future. We know that it involves lots more bandwidth, more mobility, and different business models than we have today - at least, that's my vision. But how it will work out is anybody's guess. Still, if we keep on driving, at some point we'll emerge from the fog and enjoy clarity of vision - a beautiful sunrise lies ahead of us, once we emerge from this fog. Onward, then! Posted on November 27, 2007 at 09:04 AM | Comments (0) There's a Place for Fear, and Sometimes, Fear Should be Put In Its PlaceJust because you're paranoid doesn't mean that everyone is NOT out to get you... I write a considerable amount about Change, because it's impossible to think about the Internet, technology, and society, and not give a full dose of rational thought to Change, how it works, and how to be more effective at it. And anytime you consider Change, it follows that Fear must be close behind, because change involves moving into an unknown future, and it requires Courage. I sometimes forget if I made something up, or if I heard it somewhere, so my apologies if the quote above is from a movie or something that I should be able to place. It's become a favorite expression of mine on the the danger of making blanket statements and one of the principal ironies of life. You can be paranoid and still be in danger. Don't be paranoid, but don't forget about danger either. We live in a dangerous world, and it makes sense to have fear. Fear is a very healthy emotion built into our genes through countless generations of natural selection. Our ancestors who had a healthy respect for danger and listened to their fears survived long enough to reproduce and pass along our genes. Fear is built into our culture and we teach our kids to be afraid, almost from the beginning, in order to help them learn to establish boundaries and get along in life. Growing up is all about learning what to be afraid of and what to dismiss. Unfortunately, too many of us learn to give fear a central role in our lives and in today's society, fear has become all too common. It's an easy path to go down, and it is fraught with negative outcomes. It's the wrong path to go down. Besides recognizing that life is inherently ironic, then, another truth I believe is "Life is About Balance." We live in a dualistic world, a world of opposites, so anytime we focus on one to the exclusion of its opposite, we fall out of balance. I think balance and harmony are the essence of Buddhism and most major religions, for that matter. To have balance, then, in a world where fear is a constant, we need a counterpart to fear, which I think is two-fold. First, faith lets us carry on when we don't know what the future holds (other than danger, loss and death) and without faith, would otherwise be paralyzed by fear or go insane. And knowledge lets us put to rest unreasonable fears and empowers us to know the difference between healthy, rational fear and excessive, unhealthy, irrational fear. I've got to go take the kids to school, so I'll stop for now, but leave you with this Good example of Fear as a Frame to Avoid. Posted on November 27, 2007 at 06:24 AM | Comments (0) Stepping Out in Front of a ParadeSometimes leadership is more about acknowledging the inevitable than it is about being a visionary. Our nation's youth congregate on college campuses, and their lifestyles and technology adoption rates are driving significant trends in IT and broadband communications. College campuses have been and continue to be an early adopter of communication technology, as they respond to pressures created by their students. This is a parade that those who wish to stay ahead of change can watch and learn from. If we want to see where our cities are going, it makes sense to watch college campuses. If you have the good fortune to have a college campus in your city or town, I'd spend some serious time contemplating how your city leadership can harness that energy to pull your town along with them. Indeed, the largest campuses often resemble little cities all on their own. I live in Austin, home of the University of Texas and somewhere around 50,000 students. This fall, when we've walked to the DKR Memorial Stadium on football game days, we passed by a monstrous chilling station and one of the largest dormitories in the nation. I've been reminded that the University has its own zip code and it's own electric power plant. It has a huge budget and administration and by necessity, strives to meet the needs of its unique population with an administration not unlike that of a city. I see the same in San Marcos, just to the south, where Texas State University goes through much the same experience, if on a little smaller scale. And I see a similar sense of independence in both administrations that I'm sure keeps host city leaders in Austin and San Marcos busy adapting and accommodating. So I was struck by this article in Government Technology about two trends that drive technology adoption: digital media and security. Today, many students are digital natives, Web 2.0 consumers who expect their college or university to create a collaborative experience that integrates familiar technologies such as podcasting and on-demand video into their learning environment. Three of four young adults download and view Internet videos daily according to the Pew Internet & American Life Project, and Burst Media reports that college students spend more time online than they do using any other form of media, including TV and radio. Additionally, schools are quickly moving to streamline campus communications not only to prepare for disaster responses but also to bolster efficient day-to-day operations that save university officials time and money.Two Significant Technology Trends Sweeping College and University Communities - Government Technology In a sense, all cities and towns have an element of this trend playing out under their noses. It makes sense to spend some time understanding what these two trends portend, because the uptake of digital media and mobile devices and the need for security both benefit from a network. Start with the network and you will be in front of the parade. Posted on November 23, 2007 at 06:17 AM | Comments (0) In Assessing Change v. MOTS, Start with Putting Consensus Ahead of CoercionWe live in a world of dynamic tension. (I'm not talking about Charles Atlas' Dynamic Tension, although I could use a little of that!). I'm talking about the dynamic tension that Time gives us, as the forces of change in the universe pull on the present, tugging it into the future. I'm talking about the change and dynamic tension I experienced growing up, as any younger generation does when it challenges the world of its parents. To the young, More of the Same (MOTS) is the Kiss of Death. To the old and established, however, Change can represent a threat to all that they've worked to create. Finding a balance between these two competing forces of nature occupies a large part of our time. When is it right to embrace the Opportunity of Change and let go of the Benefits of the Status Quo? When is it right to say No to Change and hold on to the Good Old Tried and True? While our egos and need for expediency often argue to "Just Do It," using coercive means to either stay where we are or move forward to short-term gains, we should resist our primary urges. Here's why: The Paradox of Change I'll explain my argument, but it'll take a little time. John Zogby, the pollster, wrote a post that put these thoughts in my head. See Is 2008 a 1932 Moment?. Zogby's is the second essay I've read in as many days that ponders whether we're entering a new age of Progressivism similar to what we saw under FDR in the first half of the 20th century (see my post from earlier this week - When Big Government Thinks Big, Big Things Get Built, where I commented on a NYT OpEd Public Works: When 'Big Government' Plays Its Role, which talks about the massive public works projects under FDR and our current crumbling infrastructure today). In a post from a month ago (see Rock of Ages v. Water of Life), I talked about change over Deep Time, from the beginning of the planet onward, showing how the pace of change picks up over the course of time, and as the complexity of the system rises, ever more dramatic change becomes a near constant, and the Internet brings our human complex system together and enables changes that once we could only dream about. Today, I'm focused on the dynamic between Change and holding on to More of the Same - MOTS. It's something we all deal with, every day. We either follow our routines, or we take on a new way of doing things, either actively choosing to do so, or passively reacting to a stimulus, when something from the outside steps in to make us react. In fact, the United States is a nation constructed on a foundation of dynamic tension; when it comes to politics, Dynamic Tension is just another way of saying Balance of Powers. Having successfully broken free from the world's most powerful monarchy, our forefathers understood the need to have checks and balances against unfettered political power, so they built into the Constitution a system of government that had the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches watching and controlling each other. They also designed a system of federalism, whereby individual states maintained significant authority on some matters, and the federal government reigned in other areas where it was more appropriate. Finally, the private and public sectors have been locked in a system of dynamic tension ever since the first regulatory body was formed. This structure has served us relatively well until recently, when it came under a strong challenge by the current occupants of the White House, who've sought to make the executive branch supreme under an argument labeled the Unitary Executive Theory. But as my topic today is the dynamic tension we face from a rapidly changing society, I'll leave discussion of this tangled mess for another day (see Unitary Executive v. Constitution for more on this topic, if you have the stomach for it.) I mention the wisdom of the founding fathers, because the flexible government structure they gave us has served us well, with a few notable exceptions, the Civil War principal among those. The march of time puts all kinds of pressure on society, as the forces of change pull the nation forward, raising challenges to the status quo. But resisting that pull to change, the forces of inertia claim a hold on the present, challenging it to justify how the change would make things better than they are currently. Inevitably, those who have less tend to favor change. While things can always get worse - never forget that one! - those who have little see change as an opportunity, hoping for a better world for their kids. Let's take a quick look at the forces of change. Immigration is driven by this force, as immigrants physically relocate to find better fortune for themselves and their families. When they move into new spaces, they bring change with them and as their numbers grow, they challenge the status quo, transforming work forces and neighborhoods. Entrepreneurialism has a similar impact on the business community, where entrepreneurs, like immigrants, take advantage of holes and gaps to solve problems, make a better world, and with any luck, create new fortunes. When they do what they do, they challenge the status quo in order to find a foothold for their new ideas. Innovation is the lifeblood of technology and business. Evolution involves incremental technology advances, making familiar tools faster, more productive, more efficient. Revolution, on the other hand, changes the name of the game and rocks the playing field. In radical innovation we see the seeds for major change. Complementing these three drivers of change are open societies and open access networks, the infrastructure that complements the open societal component. In his Creative Class series of books, Richard Florida writes about the three Ts (Talent, Technology, and Tolerance) that drive regional economic development, setting these forces for change in a receptive environment. (See also Wi Fi Mesh + the Birds and the Bees = Creative Class Attraction, What's Municipal Wireless Good For? The Whole Enchilada, and Chasing the Key Demographic for a Sustainable Future for more insight on how a hospitable environment can harness these drivers for positive change.) The challenge of this debate between the Progressive forces of Change and the Conservative forces of MOTS is that they see the world in fundamentally different ways. Where Progressives tend to see Opportunities, Conservatives tend to see Threats. The challenge is that they are both right, and the healthiest societies embrace both and find harmony in the middle. I'm an Episcopalian, a member of a global church that trumpets the Middle Way between Catholicism and Protestantism. Contrast if you will the balancing of Consensual Change and Consensual MOTS, a la the Episcopal Church - gradual and inclusive, with a focus on preserving the body while still moving forward - with Coercive Change a la the Bush, Cheney, and their unilateral move to a Unitary Executive and Coercive MOTS a la the actions of incumbent telecoms and cables and the FCC and their unilateral move to gain an Internet society via existing companies. Consensus values the inputs of all parties at the expense of rapid change, while Coercion values the inputs of the few who are powerful, at the expense of the many who lack power AND ironically, at the expense of optimal progress (those who coerce are fine with moderate progress, or even regression, as long as they stay in charge). Those who would coerce Change or MOTS place more value on their own Wins than they do on those of the society or body at large, so coercion by definition provides fewer benefits to society in the long run. I would argue that as we start to talk more openly and often about National Broadband Policy, we'll be forced to adopt a consensus model in order to move forward. It will take time to resolve differences and chart a path that is workable to all stakeholders - how much time will depend on the willingness of stakeholders to be open to others' viewpoints. And it must start by discrediting coercive means that exploit power positions, which are by definition inefficient, as they leave valuable contributers on the sidelines. Any student of sports knows that a winning team must play both Offense and Defense. I learned from coaching Pop Warner football that good offense is about taking advantage of your own strengths, while good Defense is about exploiting an opponent's weaknesses. But you need both to win consistently, and especially, you need a good Defense to win championships. And, you need a team attitude to harness all the resources of the team, to get them to work together. We lack a team attitude in the United States right now, as we see our opponents within, instead of focusing on other regions in the world as our true opponents. If Economic Development is a globally competitive arena (and it is), then shouldn't these sports metaphors hold true? Every region in the world competes with every other for location of jobs, industry, and talent. Some lucky regions have inherent cultural and geographic advantages, while most others don't. In this analysis, then, Broadband Infrastructure becomes an enabler for regional economic development. With the best infrastructure, a region can offer those it seeks to attract something they can't get elsewhere. Logic argues then that regions and stakeholders that fall in the Progressive camp, seeking change and new opportunity, should take a look at the potential of Broadband Infrastructure to advantage them over the competition, the sooner the better, and they should actively and loudly promote Consensus and Initiative. Conversely, regions and stakeholders that fall in the Conservative camp, wishing to preserve what they have and keep the forces of change at bay, have alternatives: 1. They can fight to maintain the status quo, preserving current value equations - which not only has short-term advantages but also long-term consequences. I would argue then that the forces of Conservatism, whether they be the US GOP, or repressive governments worldwide, or repressive religious regimes, are on the wrong side of history. They fight for short-term gain at the expense of their long-term future. Technology energizes the disenfranchised of the world and promotes change like never before. Progressivism is on the rise because there is a need to react to changes and embrace a new world view. And, the forces of Conservatism have enjoyed a long reign in the US. If you believe in cycles, it's worthwhile to note that we've been in this particular cycle since Reagan ascended in 1980, that's 27 years, or a whole generation, if anyone is counting. Sure, we had a brief hiatus under Clinton, with glimpses of progressive change, but the GOP Congress mitigated any progressive ideas they sought to launch - see the Hilary Health Care Plan, for instance, ridiculed for its faults, instead of embraced and improved as a model for change - the problems have only worsened in the ensuing years, however flawed the first model for change was. If we accept that Change is inevitable when it comes to technology in general, and broadband infrastructure in particular, then the Middle Way of Consensus between Progressives and Conservatives will lie in the former accepting slower more moderate change and the latter accepting change as a necessity, making it into a positive instead of a negative (see Option #3 above). Progress in this area will start with each side acknowledging the need to engage in dialogue in pursuit of consensus and the right of the other side to have a seat at the table. That's a first step role tailor-made for governments, by the way, a better way for them to lead than is to engage in what some may see as risky adoption of new technologies and business models. I fully support cities moving when ready to adopt new technology, and some cities are more ready than others to take this next step. But I'm promoting public sector leadership in forging consensus and collaboration, above all else, because all local, regional, state, and federal governments are ready for this role. Such working together will naturally lead to new technology adoption, in time and in ways appropriate for each region. The winds of Progressive change are blowing - how it will unfold remains to be seen, but we'll get a clearer picture with the first Primaries in 2008...When it comes to Broadband, stay tuned to this website and raise your Network IQ, because at some point, if progressive trends continue, they'll start to influence the broadband equation and we'll see more movement in these areas as well. Posted on November 15, 2007 at 11:05 AM | Comments (0) Time to Challenge Some Bad Thinking about the Role of GovernmentFirst law on holes - when you're in one, stop digging.Denis Healy Denis Healy was a smart man, we should abide by his advice. Sometimes I feel that we are a nation sleepwalking into our future. It's almost like one can predict what some politicians will say - regardless of the facts or the reality on the ground. I'm reminded of the dolls that passed for high tech in the 1960s, with a pull string that said one of three not-so-random pre-recorded phrases. Just pull the string and listen, but also understand what they are not saying, but thinking in those little cartoon bubbles above their heads. "Don't Listen to those Tax and Spend Liberals! Elect me and I'll lower your taxes!" (And then let's all sit back and watch as our federal deficit mounts, our national debt soars, and our dollar weakens so that we can't afford to travel abroad or bring in imports. Let's watch as our social services go unfunded, our roads crumble, our bridges collapse, our schools go to hell, and our dollars flow to the very petro-rich authoritarian states that we're warring against - see Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda. And please, be sure to look the other way as your hidden fees go up - license plates, phone bills, electric bills, etc. - fees aren't taxes, after all! I'll leave it to my successors to raise taxes, suckers...) "Big Government is the Problem! Elect me and I'll make government smaller" (Only, I won't. I'll cut social service spending to the bone, not fund children's health care to be sure, and I'll certainly cut budgets in regulatory agencies. But I'll also be sure to add tremendously to our military spending, while not accounting for expenses, not bidding out contracts to get the best price, and turning a blind eye to corruption. I'll also look away as natural disasters cause immense damage that we're ill-prepared for - because, well, because big government is the problem, not the solution!) "Let the Free Market Take Care of Us, Just Get Government Off Our Backs!" (I'll make sure that the free market is there to take care of its shareholders and management first. Got to take care of my friends in the free market, because I'll be heading that way when I'm done with my government "service." But I'll turn a blind eye to areas where the free market is slow to act, if it acts at all. I'm not all that concerned about addressing issues that have a tremendous impact on all of society, like Traffic Congestion, Clean Air, Clean Water, Climate Change, Endangered Species, Oil Spills and other Environmental Damage. Those issues are big headaches, to be sure, so I'll leave those for someone else to deal with - my successors - suckers.) Let me say it in bold - as a society, we should have figured out these truths by now. Deep in our hearts, we know this is true. Our society has evolved to a point where the message that we heeded long ago (cut taxes, reduce government, turn to the free market) maybe had some relevance - long ago. But what worked 20 years ago no longer seems to be working. Things have gone too far. Our cures have become our problems. Down is indeed Up, Up has become Down. It's time to stop, re-evaluate, and correct. We are not robots marching to orders on a treadmill, nor are we inert boxes moving forward on an assembly line, nor are we helpless victims waiting for the next bad thing to happen to us. We are free-will actors, with all the tools and resources we need to turn things around. What we lack is the will to act, the leadership to tell us the truth, and the courage to call a Spade a Spade, to challenge Falsehoods peddled as Truths. We lack the will to Change, but it's not too late. The road to a better tomorrow begins with reclaiming our brains and observing the realities of nature - the signs are all around us that our current solutions are old and tired, no longer effective or appropriate for the new problems that the 21st century throws our way. Let's start by letting go of our old thinking. Go ahead, grieve over the loss, but for Pete's Sake, let go of behaviors that don't work. And let's start by shedding these labels of Liberal and Conservative. I'd prefer Smart and Dumb. Let's accept solutions that make sense. Let's listen to leaders who tell the truth, whether it's hard to hear or not. Let's be as smart as we know we really are, and let's resolve to stop those behaviors that hurt us. Folks, we're in a hole, we should stop digging long enough to figure out how to get out! Posted on November 14, 2007 at 09:53 AM | Comments (0) When Big Government Thinks Big, Big Things Get BuiltInfrastructure is under the microscope, in particular, government's role in infrastructure, in an OpEd piece in today's New York Times. It's about time, is all I can say. In today's society, we so disregard infrastructure, it's as if we assume that infrastructure is like so many mushrooms after a good rain, just popping up all over from out of nowhere. Au contraire. By definition, infrastructure must be planned for, financed, built, and then maintained, if it is to be the effective foundation of an economy that it is intended to be. It's as boring as the day is long, and easily overlooked, but just go ahead and neglect it and see how it gets your attention. The story of the 1930s public works programs is timely again, because much of America is falling apart. The deadly collapse of a Minnesota highway bridge in August shined a light on the poor state of the nation's bridges, many thousands of which are "structurally deficient" by federal standards. Georgia's failure to build enough reservoirs has contributed to a water crisis that could cripple metropolitan Atlanta. We should be thinking today about replicating some of the successes of the Depression-era programs. Public Works: When 'Big Government' Plays Its Role I couldn't agree more. I've been talking about broadband as infrastructure for some time now, and I'm starting to hear some confirmation from other parts that it should be regarded as such. This article led me to reflect, a little. For a few months back in 2005, I did my own little part to promote progress, working with various interested parties (Tropos, Patton Boggs, etc.) to help stem the tide of anti-municipal wireless legislation in state legislatures across the nation. I'd stress the little part out of deference to those who carried much heavier loads, but still, I was involved and in the thick of things. In the face of recent pullbacks in this industry, it almost seems quaint then to reflect that 2.5-3 years ago, large telecom and cable companies actually acted as if they were threatened by a rising tide of municipal wireless projects and pushed for laws to ban municipal ownership of communication infrastructure. It didn't work, for the most part, but the process was revealing in oh, so many ways. The argument against government ownership rested largely in the philosophical proposition that private sector companies, even huge ones with dominate market power, should not have to compete against the same government entities that regulate them, or at least, grant them franchise rights - that would be inherently unfair and un-American. Oh, and also, government projects are by definition inefficient and its workers incompetent, and since telecom is a complex arena, getting the government involved would just muck it up. What's more, when we look at examples of municipal projects, they're messed up and there's a risk of losing big money on them. Finally, we were told that the private sector was already executing on a plan to deploy broadband, so we should all just be patient and calm down. These guys pulled out the stops, using their powerful lobby influence and astroturfing in attempts to wage a war of public opinion. I have rich memories, really, of some of the arguments they waged. Ah, those were the days... The argument in favor of government ownership of these networks decried the slow pace of private sector deployment; the lack of broadband infrastructure and our poor competitive position vis a vis other nations; and the high prices charged in a less than competitive market, with a consequence of leaving so many of our population out of the broadband equation - the fabled Digital Divide. So here we are now, two years later, as these municipal projects continue, if at a little slower pace and with less ambitious goals than before, certainly with less press coverage, less sturm und drang, as it were. Yet the impact of these municipal wireless projects, both small in scope and small in number, remains well, small. As a nation we fall ever further behind when it comes to broadband infrastructure, and the Cable Telecom Broadband Duopoly continues in place. Can't we do, well, more? Granted, there has been a modicum of progress. We have pending federal legislation that will prevent state laws that would ban municipal ownership - progress of sorts, but it's not passed yet. (See Commerce Committee Approves Bill to Make Broadband Access More Affordable - But what about the philosophical question of public sector ownership and participation? In some ways, it remains a question of political persuasion - if you lean left, towards the progressive side, you're probably fine with government getting involved, you may even prefer that approach. If you lean right, however, more in a conservative direction, you probably hate the idea of government "interference," viewing public sector activism in broadband as anathema to the way things ought to be. I hope that at some level, this issue is subject to rational debate. How about this? How about, if we continue to fall behind in broadband infrastructure? What if the Digital Divide continues to widen? What if the situation becomes even more dire? Is there ever a case for government activism when it comes to broadband? Do we adjust our paradigms to not just tolerate it, or outlaw bans against it, but actually embrace it and promote government as a solution? Dare I hope? I don't know ... Would you seek grants in a box? I would not like Big Gov in a box, I do not like government solutions when in a jam, You do not like public sector actions, Sam! Say! I do so like broadband! Apologies to Dr. Seuss and Green Eggs and Ham Whatever philosophical objections anyone may have to government involvement and leadership in broadband, there are just some things that the government does well. Building Roads is one of them. And in my mind's eye, broadband looks more and more like a road system. Why not? Let's start talking about a Big Government Program for Big Broadband...Why Not? Worked for the Interstate System 50 years ago...I guess we need a conservative Republican like Eisenhower to champion it ... any takers out there? Posted on November 13, 2007 at 09:01 PM | Comments (0) SCAG Wireless: Business Models, Tips and ToolsNetLogix VP Eric DaVersa provided a good review of processes and ideas to go through (this piece was too fast and too much to capture, and I was out of the room so I'll come back and beef this up after I see his PP slide - I'll be posting those when I get them). Next up was Jill Dominguez of the WRJ Group, which is a consultancy that provides research into economic development and wireless / wire line broadband. They did a study entitled WhyFi? - she asked some compelling questions, which should give us all pause... Who Decides Policy? Info is king. Who has most info decides. That means the Telecom giant. They make policy "de facto." With wireless the opportunity is to take that decision in-house. What is the Infrastructure, really? Traditional definition - housing, transportation, water, education Why create an Information and Communication Technology Community Economic Development Study (ICT CEDS) ? Short answer: It creates a high Return on Investment (ROI) potential for communities. Informational - identify all elements of information age infrastructure and create standard/comparative measure for city's technical awareness and needs There's a good chart next, but I'll have to wait for the PP slides. It describes the payback/ROI for a city that invests in wireless. It's an attractive proposition for small businesses deciding where to locate. They look hard at broadband options when deciding where to locate. What is an integrated solution? * Blends wireless and fiber to serve public and private information communication, and entertainment needs Note to self for follow-up - Get and post the Policy Recommendations from the Orange County Report, which fostered the wireless study that MetroNetIQ is now participating in. What is an affordable first step? * Decide to pay now, not later Posted on November 08, 2007 at 04:43 PM | Comments (0) SCAG Wireless: Southern California Edison (SCE) Shares a Love of Wi Fi - Not ReallyWhen you talk Wi Fi Mesh, one of the first questions the pros ask concerns the status of streetlights in the area, because that makes a big difference on the potential of any given project. You have to hand it to SCE - there are 780,000 streetlights in their territory, 615,000 of which they own. Imagine you're SCE, getting phone calls from a variety of parties asking about your street lights - nearly every electric utility in the country is going through this drill, or will be soon, but few with the intensity felt by SCE. This process is instructive. Facing this issue, SCE did a Technical Feasibility Study to gather and analyze the facts. From their standpoint, this is a big issue because they have to make sure that they are able to continue to serve electricity, and that they are fair and equitable to all parties. The result of the study was to confirm that power quality among the Loop-Fed system (don't ask - it has to do with how they draw their power) is substantial and sufficient for Wi Fi devices. They determined that 900 MHz conflicts with their own system, and that all WiFi related radios would have to be tested and approved by SCE before being deployed. In May 2007, SCE took the results of their study and made a Wi Fi Tariff Filing at the California PUC, where they made two key points: 1) Streetlight service takes priority and 2) electric customers must be cost-indifferent. Some cities challenged service-initiation processes and costs, and there was a request for Right of First Refusal. The CPUC approved the tariff on August 23, with some instructions. A subsequent required SCE compliance filing in September was approved in October. The tariff is known as "Wi-Fi-1," and can be found here. This is all pretty arcane, but very important, even vital, if you are in a city inside SCE's service territory. Hire a consultant, do some planning, but figure this one out before you go too far. SCE's point person on Wi Fi, Elsa Ayala, can be reached at 909-307-6773. Step One would be to call her, I'm thinking. Posted on November 08, 2007 at 04:02 PM | Comments (0) SCAG Wireless: California Broadband InitiativeNext up after lunch, Anne Neville, Manager of the California Broadband Initiative at the California Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency, described this statewide initiative to promote broadband. The California Broadband Task Force is comprised of six working groups. I'd go ahead and bookmark this site, these folks are busy! Details on Anne's talk after the jump. First, Anne spoke about coordination in trenching. Seems like an arcane issue, but believe it or not, trenching is very expensive and there's not nearly enough coordination for different parties to USE THE SAME HOLE!! See the Broadband Collaboration Pilot Project for more information on the California approach to this issue. Here's a quote from that section of the website. Modification of Rights-of-Way (ROW) Policies and Practices: * Caltrans has developed a pilot database that enables two-way communication about upcoming infrastructure construction activities in California and encourages collaborative broadband projects among stakeholders. Service providers are able to share construction costs when they wish to build in the same area. See http://www.dot.ca.gov/broadband/. Also, the California Broadband Task Force Preliminary Report is available here. Look for the completed report at the end of November - it will include an accounting of the mapping study, as well as a methodology of mapping (see below). Acc. to Anne, the mapping study results will be a dynamic, iterative data gathering process, where results will be cross-checked with the public, and feedback is expected to make the database ever more accurate. (I'm excited, because this data gathering will be based on street addresses, rolled up, which should paint a compelling picture). Like Connect Kentucky, the state is currently mapping broadband availability, from a WIRELINE standpoint. They will show in tiers broadband availability, in the hope to provide a baseline on both availability (CA is already quite far ahead among big states, but is not doing so well compared to other nation/states), but also with regard to gaps. They assume that both wireline and wireless solutions will address these gaps. With regard to pricing, the Task Force is working on a pricing matrix as well, which will compare prices in CA against the OECD average (about $47/mo for about 13 Mbs). In a parallel effort, the California PUC is mapping by census group or track both the percent availability as well as adoption rates, which should be available by mid-2008. The state is estimated to be at about 55% of households, as far as broadband adoption goes. What's next, after all this data is gathered? We'll see, there appears to be no money for the state government to spend to ameliorate the issues that are identified. So, I guess we'll wait and see. This will be an interesting dance between state efforts, regional initiatives like Orange County's, and local municipal issues like Anaheim's effort with EarthLink and Google's Mountain View project, Google Wi Fi. I this all seems pretty organic, but also innovative and cutting edge, remember.... this is California, after all. I think it's exciting! Posted on November 08, 2007 at 03:17 PM | Comments (0) The Three Rs: Risk, Reward, ResourcesI received an email from a friend two days ago, urging me to check out a video via the attached link. The video is a reasoned and compelling argument for paying serious attention to global warming. The structure of the argument made me think about how much I learned about risk and reward in graduate business school, as well as what I learned about the political allocation of resources while studying political science and working in state government. Without a thorough understanding of these three Rs, Risk, Reward, and Resources, I think it must be hard to fully understand the significance of Climate Change. Without that understanding, I think the issue is subject not only to demagoguery, but also to obfuscation, to use not one but two $5 words in one sentence. First, it's helpful for us to remark for a moment on the use of emails like this to stimulate political dialogue. Without the email from my friend, I'd have been unaware of this compelling argument. (I'd draw a distinction between this email and what one might otherwise call spam, perhaps distinctive because the content is compelling?) I found this not only an effective use of technology, but also one more example of the coming ExaFlood. When we use the Internet to get people to watch 10 minute videos, we're consuming more and more bandwidth. Apparently the ExaFlood is coming, right along with the flooding of coastal areas... Please do watch this video, available after the jump, and then reflect on my commentary that follows in a subsequent post.   Posted on November 06, 2007 at 07:46 PM | Comments (0) King Kong v. Godzilla
or...IT v.Telecom It will be a killer, and a chiller and a thrilla when I get the gorilla In Manila - Muhammad Ali From the Thriller in Manila to the Super Bowl, pitting the champions of the AFC v. the NFC, to the World Series (AL v. NL), from Freddy v. Jason to Alien v. Predator, we all love a Clash of the Titans, especially one that goes outside the boundaries of one category to pit the leaders in two categories against each other. There's something unique and compelling about a one-on-one pitched battle at the top of the mountain, to see who gets to be King of the Hill. When one loses and one wins, there is no doubt as to who is the champion, who is number one (at least for that one moment in time, until the next day when a rematch is demanded!). It settles the score, determines the winner, and along the way, the combatants pit different skills in their battle against each other - will speed and cunning defeat brute strength and experience? So, what about a grudge match between Google and AT&T? New IT monster v. old telecom giant? IT v. Telecom ...?? It's intriguing on several scores, and many think the upcoming FCC 700 MHz spectrum auction in early Feb 2008 may be the kick-off for the IT/Telecom Super Bowl. It's been brewing for a while, as speculation has grown (see this article from early 2006 about Google seeking to patent free Wi Fi, which now seems a little dated - but may yet come to pass.) I do admire the analysis that Martin Geddes of Telco 2.0 brings to these topics, not least because he sits over in the UK, so he looks at things from a different perspective. Also, he comes from inside the telecom industry, and still works to reform it, so that is different as well. In a post from one month ago, Geddes poses an interesting question to telecoms - How's your Google Strategy?. He At the 21C Global Summit a few week's ago former BT Chief Scientist Peter Cochrane - an industry 'guru' who likes to shake things up - presented a number of thought-provoking ideas about telcos competing with Google, including this rather cryptic slide:
This post highlights several trends that spell trouble for telecoms who have grown accustomed to being BMOC (from Wikipedia: "Big Man on Campus", an American colloquialism for a popular high school or college boy involved in some high-profile activity, such as varsity sports or school government.) First, telecoms sell services in a constrained, low-competition market, and they derive high margins from the voice product, and they have had success in doing the same with Internet access... in Geddes words "by selling it by the sachet (via telephony) rather than the bucket, profitability has been maximised through fine-grained price discrimination." In some instances, they may even give away voice services in order to support the continued sales of their high margin access product. But what happens when a Goliath from a neighboring industry sees an opportunity to come in and do the same in order to support their core business? Goliath doesn't much care that King Kong is ruler of the jungle, after all. The way this scenario unfolds, according to the graphic above: Big Telecom is moving to be more like Big IT, because of the Internet. But Google, which makes tremendous margins on its advertising, sees access and telecom services as a complement to its core business. By getting into data access (and voice, ultimately), Google can gain a much larger audience that will then contribute more revenue to its high margin advertising core business. Makes sense, and we see this all over the place - not hard to imagine. - WalMart adds pharmacies and McDonalds to its stores to increase foot traffic and promote more retail sales. The bottom line is that as the Internet continues to mature and extend its reach into every corner of our society, it makes commodities out of more and more digital products. To continue to try to sell a digital commodity at a premium price is a great trick - if you can get away with it, that is. I believe what Geddes is getting at is that the handwriting is on the wall, so to speak, on what is likely to come in the next few years. We're not sure how it will happen, but both voice and access will become commodities, and with a low enough cost and price, some will try to give them away to support other business models. That will be great for consumers, not so great for incumbent providers. Posted on November 04, 2007 at 06:55 AM | Comments (0) Planning for OPLAN IIIt's been awhile since I've been over to the Telco 2.0 website. Martin Geddes in the UK does a great job with that site, along with his original more personal blog, Telepocalypse. I was pleased to find that Martin's been doing some good work on telecom reform - that's what Telco 2.0 is about, to try to drive home the need for change among telecom executives. This blog in particular set off my previous two posts about OPLANs - New Ideas for Incremental Muni-Fibre and Metro-Fibre. I like it because it pretty much spells out a practical way for private and public sector change agents to get busy now on implementing some of the ideas we talk about on MetroNetIQ. Namely, there is no reason to wait to get it all together - to put together an RFP, to assemble a business case, to find a private partner, etc., etc. In fact, a city can start by reviewing its own telecom expenses and connecting its distributed facilities with fiber of its own. That's precisely what the City of Gainesville, FL is doing. Last month, after visiting the Broadband Properties Summit in Dallas, I wrote about Gainesville - see Utility Forum Shows Multiple Broadband Approaches. The next panel featured an in-depth look at the community of Gainesville, FL, home of 2006 National Champions, the University of Florida Gators. On the panel were Commission Member Ed Braddy and two representatives from the Gainesville Regional Utilities (GRU), Frank Latini, Technical Services Manager, and Dan Clark, Marketing Specialist for Gator.Net. They outlined a low-key strategy that has enabled the utility to bring new Internet opportunities to the citizens of Gainesville by incrementally extending the FTTH network on a project by project basis, without raising political objections or opposition from the incumbent cable and telecom broadband providers. The website GRU.net provides more detailed information on the services offered. Commission Member Braddy described a communication strategy to compare the fiber network to "digital streets and roads," which he said has been an effective communication method. While the team holds a goal of engaging in an advanced deployment of a fiber optic loop for industrial purposes, their method is to engage in public private partnerships with MDUs and property developers, who share the costs of deployment. Their advice to any utilities, when asked how to manage perceived risk, is to "Go Slow." How does Gainesville's approach compare with Geddes' recommendations in his blog? Pretty good alignment, if you ask me. Key to note here is that wireless and fiber are two sides of the same coin. Regardless of technology, a business model is needed that provides for capital recovery, as well as sustainable operations. So chalk this method up as a second example of 3.0 Emergent Customization... What interests us most is that it provides a practical framework for realizing Malcolm Matson's open access vision of the future, where networks are funded and owned by long-term low-risk investors and any service provider can ride on top. This is called an OPLAN (Open Public Local Access Network), and implies both the end-user access and metro backhaul are part of the same open network. It's an intellectually attractive proposition. The trouble is finding the route from "here" to "there." Some of the biggest problems with municipal fiber deployments are down to the fact that it's a big, expensive, monolithic project. The up-front cost is hefty, and its repayment means you have to be very sure there will be enough demand to pay it back. It's difficult to trial the idea of muni-fiber (or any other kind of metro-fiber roll out) without making a huge investment and therefore taking a big risk. This is the "anchor tenant" problem Dave Hughes, Director of BT's Wireless Broadband division, mentioned during the session. Other speakers noted how hard it was to co-ordinate the purchase of connectivity across multiple public services given their varying contract commitments and buying cycles. So one way of dealing with the large costs and coordination issues of a huge capital project is to not do a huge capital project. Go incremental instead of all-at-once. Sure, there are trade-offs, but there is some wisdom in carving a larger project up into smaller bits, not the least of which is that it makes the project feasible. How about technology risk? By buying into a declining cost curve, you will get more modern equipment at an overall lower cost. The equipment makers may not like it, but it makes sense from a buyer perspective. Nobody wants to build a metro backhaul network without access network customers; but nobody wants to build an access network without a plentiful supply of cheap metro backhaul. And few are willing to risk doing both. So, what is to be done? Gradwell's suggestion is simple, as all the best ideas are in retrospect. There are six core elements: 1 An incremental approach to building an open-access muni metro network. Now we're getting somewhere - this looks like a plan. Go Slow, in pieces. Buy, don't Rent. Get the most out of holes you dig. Partner where it makes sense. Invite in private money. Roll in lots of cost substitutes for a more robust business plan. I'll cut out the middle man and just copy the rest of the planning guide here - check it out! The incremental OPLAN He suggests that cities, or for that matter other actors, start by taking an inventory the sites they already own and their major internal networking customers. Then link up heavy traffic generators that currently use third-party connectivity. Stop shipping your internal phone, e-mail, database synchronization and video surveillance out from the LAN (where you almost certainly use at least 100Mbits/s Ethernet and probably Gigabit Ethernet) to a telecom or ISP network (at some much lower capacity and higher price) and then back in to the LAN in another building. Rather than paying for every bit, why not run the GigE direct between the switches in the two buildings? So step one is to look for clusters of public buildings (e.g. Fire + Police) that share a connectivity need and join them together. With a small capital investment, these buildings can now share a common backhaul to the Internet or outside world, rather than having to buy one each from a telco. You get an immediate drop in opex from both their internal communications as well as external traffic. The business case is easy to make, particularly where the capex is low because you're digging up the street for other reasons anyway. It's a sort of mixture of opportunism and foresight - opportunism in that you pick out links that happen to be needed, ducts, culverts, and the like you happen to own, and add more fibre than you need, and foresight in that you deliberately seek to add fibre whenever you dig up the road, and plan to add a node when you start a new building. By managing the physical ducting as part of a multi-utility plan, you can greatly lower your costs. Replacing the pavement? Lay a fiber. Lamp posts wiring getting old? Lay a fiber. Sewers a bit too Victorian? Lay a fiber. Gas pipes looking leaky? Lay a fiber. And then, of course, why not hook up some more buildings? But you can do better than that; if you have all this capacity, you could link up to the company across the street and charge them for it. Then you might extend it to their other site across town. And private players may decide to hook in and build access links between businesses and residential users and the backbone, and start offering retail services. A stable plan By publishing a long-term plan of what "open links" are going to be deployed and when, private players can start to make investment plans to piggy-back on this network. A corporation might not be around in 20 years' time, markets change from week to week, private investment plans get canceled easily. A town or city is there permanently, and human geography changes only slowly by comparison. Holistic view of cost With this model for incremental deployment, you keep rolling until you cover the whole city. It has the advantage that there are no leaps of faith; you simply install links where you have a need for serious bandwidth, or where the cost of telco transit hurts. The EU and incumbents can't complain because you originally built it purely for your own needs - right? The open access tariff is a secondary motivator. Posted on October 31, 2007 at 12:38 PM | Comments (0) Planning for OPLAN IA few weeks ago, in a post titled Phoenix MetroNets: Rising from the Ashes, I wrote about a new Municipal Wireless 3.0 stage that I believe we've entered this summer, which I labeled "Emergent Customization," to reflect the coming diversity of metropolitan broadband business models custom-tailored to suit local area needs. One of the foremost models that should begin to get more traction in the coming year is the Open Local Access Network or "OPLAN," which British telecom pioneer Malcom Matson of Open Planet details in this interview on Telco 2.0. According to the International Telecommunications Union, the world currently spends around $1,600 billion a year on telecoms. Under heavy government regulation shaped by the sector itself, this money ends up with 'operators' selling us a 'service' on terms unrelated to the capital and maintenance costs of the underlying infrastructure. The question we must ask is whether we can deploy the digital technologies of 'abundance' under a radically different business model, whereby this money could deliver greater benefit by being left with end users in their local economy. Malcom Matson at OPLAN.org More on the interview after the jump.
Access outside of the local network (e.g. Internet access) is a service which is provided by a partner on top of the access network. The OPLAN itself provides no services whatsoever beyond local transmission. Partners in developing an OPLAN are typically municipalities although Malcolm stresses that it is their covenant as an anchor tenant, committed to using the OPLAN for all its local connectivity needs, that is the key, NOT direct municipality investment. Long-term he argues that OPLANs will become owned by passive institutional investors (e.g. pension and insurance funds) as 'the new real estate,' delivering stable returns, low risk and passive investment management costs. The key defining feature of an OPLAN is the legal and financial set-up of the network which, whatever the corporate structure, prevents the OPLAN from acting like a traditional telco. I think it's key to note that the local municipality, as well as the school district, health care providers, and other local public sector entities play a vital role in kick-starting this process. Someone has to get things started. By committing to use this type of network as a first step, these entities provide the catalyst to get a network in place, so that the market can then take over. "Well, if it's such a great idea, how come these OPLANs aren't popping up all over?" the interviewer asks. Malcolm responds: OPLANs are only a 'good idea' for the mass of citizens and businesses that are not part of the global telecoms/cable TV cartel. For the latter, OPLANs are the kiss of death to their vertically integrated service-provider business models! But because these vested interests are massive corporations (and tax generators), they have the ear of public policy makers and their now, great ally the regulator, to tilt and twist the market terrain to extend their life way beyond what a true free market would otherwise permit. But I believe we will see a collapse of the service provider model and an explosion of OPLAN developments in the next decade. 'When?' precisely, will depend on the vision and political commitment of the pioneering cities who have the courage and determination to go for an OPLAN solution. It's in your hands, all you Change Agents and Champions for a Better Tomorrow. Let's Get Going! Posted on October 31, 2007 at 10:50 AM | Comments (0) And Now for Something Completely DifferentI'm stepping out in the world of blogging, adding my first embedded video. You'll appreciate the ten minutes you invest in watching this - it's a TWO-BY-FOUR TO THE HEAD. The Mother of All Battles British telecom pioneer Malcom Matson details a squandered opportunity from back in 1984, where the UK had an opportunity to accelerate into the digital age, but failed to take advantage of it. He describes three advances in digital technology, here and ready to go now, that change the name of the game in telecommunications: 1) fiber optic technology, with infinite capacity; 2) digital chip technology, with dramatically increased capabilities to process and store data; and 3) spread spectrum wireless technology, which brings us wireless mobility. Check it out.
The New Telecom Business Model - an abundance-based business model, where a neutral network owner (city, pension fund, etc.) manages an open network and charges wholesale service fees to service providers in exchange for providing access to an abundant commodity, local network access on which to run services and applications for resale to retail consumers. In this new case, the provisioning of broadband bandwidth is separated from the retail services, content, and applications. The Open Network brings an abundance of retail service providers and the benefits of bounteous competition, turning bandwidth into a basic commodity and letting consumers pay instead for retail value-added services. This service is more akin to driving a car on a road or highway, to go wherever you damn well please. We know who won in the battle open and closed models in transporation, don't we? Railroads with their closed models were revolutionary in their day, but then along came cars with the freedom to go anywhere there was a road. So dirt roads gave way to paved roads to highways to Interstates, and we haven't looked back. Railroads are still here, but they missed their chance and couldn't compete, because you had to go where the rail was. So I ask you, what's so different about moving bits of data around, when compared to moving physical objects? Choice is choice, whatever it is you're moving, and enhanced competition and lower prices make it an easy decision. Sometimes we just need a 2x4 to the head to see things in a new light. Posted on October 31, 2007 at 10:01 AM | Comments (0) Obama to the Telecoms: Our Internet, Not YoursThe telecoms say they don't want the government telling them how to run their business, but in wanting to choose who gets to send what bits for how much through the internet (which, we may all recall, was invented in government laboratories) they want to tell individual internet businesses, plus all the hobbyists, what should and shouldn't be done on the internet. That's a sure recipe for strangling innovation and freedom and is the opposite of what the net neutrality does. Net neutrality says "you can't control who does what with the Internet. You can't choose winners and losers." When the government says "you must obey Net Neutrality" it is saying "the Internet doesn't exist for the ISPs, it exists for the country. It's not AT&T's network. AT&T holds it in trust, same as with the phone network. It's a public asset we allow to be managed by private enterprise. In exchange for that private enterprise is expected not abuse their power." Obama To The Telecoms: You Don't Get To Tell People How To Use The Internet See this link for a video clip of Obama taking the Net Neutrality issue head-on in an MTV forum. A web-savvy small business, an engineer no less, puts the Net Neutrality issue under the spotlight, asking Obama about Net Neutrality with a focus on FCC commissioners and their role. Obama is unequivocal in his response. And people, if you've got a good idea and get a great website - Facebook, MySpace, Google might not have been started if you had not had a level playing field for whoever has the best idea. And I want to maintain that basic principle in how the Internet functions and so as president I'm going to make sure that that is the principle that my FCC commissioners are applying as we move forward." Here, Here...Huzzah, Huzzah! Posted on October 31, 2007 at 08:47 AM | Comments (0) John Edwards: Fight Corruption, Take Back Our GovernmentOur nation's founders knew that this moment would come - that at some point the power of greed and its influence over officials in our government might strain and threaten the very America they hoped would last as an ideal in the minds of all people, and as a beacon of hope for all time. That is why they made the people sovereign. And this is why it is your responsibility to redeem the promise of America for our children and their future. It will not be easy - sacrifice will be required of us - but it was never easy for our ancestors, and their sacrifices were far greater than any that will fall on our shoulders. John Edwards: The Moral Test of our Generation (major speech, full text) It's a good speech, recommend you check it out. Posted on October 31, 2007 at 08:15 AM | Comments (0) Tangled Webs, Wicked WaysOh what a tangled web we weave, I always liked the poetic element of this quote and assumed it came from Shakespeare. Thanks again to Google and Wikipedia, I discovered that Sir Walter Scott wrote this one. Of course, this quote is a classic way to describe what happens when we lie - the story gets more and more complicated. Rather than relying on the Truth, which does not change, when we lie, we create a fiction in order to deceive someone. Whether the purpose is noble or not, the deceit requires maintenance, and because it is made up out of whole cloth, there's no record - thus, things get more and more complicated as the deceit progresses, and relationships are damaged due to broken trust, and some form of chaos ensues. This societal "truth" is the foundation of every murder mystery, detective story and crime drama - it's fascinating to watch the deceiver and his carefully crafted story of deceit become ever more entangled until they're ultimately exposed, or they get away with the deception (always a short-term win, for the winner is corrupted by long-term success at deception). In similar fashion, I've been posting articles on the unfolding scandal of FISA and Telecom Immunity, not only because it's fascinating to watch this ornate story unfold, just like the best of the detective stories, but also because it may well shine the light on a carefully constructed myth: call it "Broadband by Bell." For it is a tangled web that the incumbent broadband providers have woven, not only in the networks they've built - literal tangled webs - but also in the line they've fed society that they are the only ones able to manage broadband. Yet our large telecom (and cable) companies are here to stay and the central question for our society when it comes to broadband telecommunication is For better or worse, our very complex communication web in this country is based on a history of government outsourcing development risks to the private sector, in most cases, to a regulated monopoly (AT&T). From the start, it's been a complicated yet incredibly successful venture, one that has evolved into a myth, starting with Alexander Graham Bell's "Watson Come Here" line and moving forward to Bell Labs series of technical discoveries in the 20th century. Over the past 35 years we've watched as first deregulation, then feeble attempts at competition, and finally technological advances have challenged the myth's central truth, which is that we are best served as a society by continuing to outsource telecommunication needs to the traditional companies, leaving these complex telecommunications issues to the professionals ("don't try this at home."). We're led to believe that only a very large company can provide us with the broadband network that we need. Tangles are a wonderful metaphor because wherever there is a line, there is a tangle that must be sorted out. I experience this primordial frustration every time I do yard work, as I struggle with the hoses and the 100-foot extension cord. Years ago in my youth, I worked on a sailboat - a guy in port told me of his time working as a cook on a long-line fishing boat and shared a key lesson: "Never serve spaghetti to a crew on a longliner." Fishermen spent much time untangling and mending their lines and nets. There is even a myth involving tangled line from Greek times to describe an intractable problem - The Gordian Knot, - a legend associated with Alexander the Great, often used as a metaphor for an intractable problem, solved by a bold stroke ("cutting the Gordian knot"). Today in America, we face a tangled web when we consider what to do about broadband. It may be a Gordian Knot, but there appears to be no bold stroke waiting for us as a solution to our problem. Not only do we have But also, we have I've borrowed a term from organizational and social theory, called the Wicked Problem, to better understand what we face as we look at broadband. I would recommend you look at my previous post from one month ago today Broadband in America: a "Wicked Game We Play". Here's a short excerpt. 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 Key Aspects of The Wicked Problem In plain English, there are some problems whose nature is so complex and changing that the only way to solve them is through cooperation and dialogue, first to reach a shared understanding of what the problem is - how to define it - and second, to devise a series of trials that will test out potential solutions and bring back more information that can be used to develop a more refined solution. And in the end, the Wicked Problem has no conclusive solution, only one that is acceptable to the group as "good enough for now." That's where we are with Broadband in America. We face an issue at once so critical, complex, and so dynamic that a sustainable solution for the benefit of all stakeholders in society will only be obtained if we first come together to work jointly to define the problem to our mutual satisfaction, then build on the trust we have generated to craft together a series of partial solutions that will reveal the optimal path over time. We've been looking at broadband in much the same way that we've looked at traditional telecommunications: through different lenses that lead us to see different problems to be solved. Each stakeholder group, from communities to consumers to network operators to content providers, has vested, competing interests and different, competing priorities. We each have different levels of sophistication when it comes to being able to discuss and work on these issues, and often the issues seem even too complex to manage, so we lay them off on others to solve, or we put things off until later, and the issues don't get resolved. They only fester and grow more complicated with more time. The time has come to face these facts and begin work on a sustainable solution. The time has come to set aside past differences and sit down together to come up with a plan that will work for all stakeholders. There will be some who will not wish to support such a joint effort at this time. There will be others who will deny the need to attack this issue in such comprehensive fashion. But that will not make the issues any simpler, nor will it make us need broadband infrastructure any less. I'm reminded of a book we used to read to our kids, a game they used to play in PreSchool: "We're Going on a Bear Hunt." See this great video on YouTube. We're going on a bear hunt. Uh-uh! A snowstorm! Oh no! Hoooo woooo! Only, unlike when we were kids, we can't run away at the end when we find the bear - there's no warm bed to hide under the covers waiting for us. We have to solve this problem on our own, together. It's a sobering task, being an adult. We can run away, we can delay it, we can place blame - but then, we've been doing all these things and it hasn't gotten any better. Or, we can decide to face our problem and deal with it head on. When it comes to broadband, we've got to go through it, folks. Posted on October 30, 2007 at 09:02 AM | Comments (0) Conservatives and Innovators - Wrestling for the RemoteAs I concluded my last post, talking about change on a global and geological scale, I suggested that the problem (and the solution) lies in our very large brains. They got us into this mess, and they'll have to get us out of it. This is not a new story, witness this introduction to a long speech given by Ralph Waldo Emerson to some young men four to five generations ago (about 166 years ago). The two parties which divide the state, the party of Conservatism and that of Innovation, are very old, and have disputed the possession of the world ever since it was made. This quarrel is the subject of civil history. The conservative party established the reverend hierarchies and monarchies of the most ancient world. The battle of patrician and plebeian, of parent state and colony, of old usage and accommodation to new facts, of the rich and the poor, reappears in all countries and times. The war rages not only in battle-fields, in national councils, and ecclesiastical synods, but agitates every man's bosom with opposing advantages every hour. On rolls the old world meantime, and now one, now the other gets the day, and still the fight renews itself as if for the first time, under new names and hot personalities. Such an irreconcilable antagonism, of course, must have a correspondent depth of seat in the human constitution. It is the opposition of Past and Future, of Memory and Hope, of the Understanding and the Reason. It is the primal antagonism, the appearance in trifles of the two poles of nature. Ralph Waldo Emerson, A Lecture delivered at the Masonic Temple, Boston, December 9, 1841 To understand the context of Broadband and the public debate we're involved in, it's helpful to put the nature of change under the microscope. Because that is what is at hand - a changing of the guard in how we look at telecommunications. There are powerful forces at work in our society today, ancient forces that pit those who revere the past, who would hold fast to what we have and build on it carefully, and those who embrace the future, who would shed the constraints that bind them and race to achieve the visions that inspire them. Ralph Waldo Emerson, a very wise man, laid out his thoughts on change and innovation in this fascinating lecture, one I recommend highly. This is also a great example of the Internet at work - I never, ever would have found something like this without Google - it is pure serendipity, but it gave me tremendous perspective to read his thoughts and discover that even then, managing the pace of change was at the top of mind in political discourse. Of course, Emerson's world was dramatically different in the days before the US Civil War, which seemed to move at a snail's pace compared to life in the 21st century. One thing we do have in common with those young men of old is that all generations face this great divide. Hope for the Future is the realm of the Young, who have their entire lives stretching out before them and can easily imagine the impossible, much less the improbable. Not so for those of the more practical older generation, who have been beaten down by life, have gained their scars, had tremendous success, but also survived disasters and learned the limits of their powers. All those things that come under the heading of "Wisdom." More for them to Embrace the Lessons of the Past and hold on to what is important in society, controlling it for all of our benefit (but especially so for their own benefit), because "Who better than they themselves to guide the future to a safe landing for their younger and more foolhardy colleagues, who just cannot understand the risks at hand?" At its heart, some of the problems we face are generational, as leaders from an older generation hold the reins of power in large government and business institutions, where policy on Change and Innovation must take root, yet those same individuals are not up to speed on all the complexities that require their policy decisions, they see more risk based on their inexperience with these changes and the amount of complexity they face, and they have conflicts of interest based on all the relationships they hold and responsibilities they carry. For a more recent view of Innovation and Change, see another source of wisdom, the Economist Magazine, which came to me courtesy of the US Postal Service the same day I stumbled upon the Emerson lecture. What a contrast, and yet so many common themes. Some people reckon that, as the nature of innovation changes, so it is speeding up. But that's not obvious. Other periods have seen bursts of dramatic technological progress: the arrival of the telegraph, for instance, was just as disruptive as the internet is today. Visit Wal-Mart's headquarters in Bentonville, Arkansas, and you will be greeted by a large plaque in the lobby which says: "Incrementalism is innovation's worst enemy! We don't want continuous improvement, we want radical change.” These are the words of Sam Walton, the firm's founder. And to his credit, Walton did radically change the general store with his innovative approach to low cost, high-volume supermarket retailing. But ask Linda Dillman, a senior official at the firm, about innovation at Wal-Mart today and she concedes that radical thinking was easier when the firm was young. Meg Whitman, eBay's boss, says the same. She concentrates on incremental improvement within the online auctioneer while looking outside to acquire radical ideas by buying start-up companies, including ones in other markets that imitate eBay. Many executives feel the heat is on and that they must innovate faster just to stand still. One reason is that product cycles are undeniably getting shorter. Gil Cloyd, chief technology officer at Procter & Gamble (P&G), the world's biggest consumer-products firm, studied the life cycle of consumer goods in America from 1992 to 2002 (before the internet's full impact was felt) and found that it had fallen by half. That, he concludes, means his firm now needs to innovate twice as fast. The Economist, October 11, 2007. Revving Up: How globalization and Information technology are spurring faster innovation. When it comes to broadband, we face an innovation that leads to ever more innovation, compounding the problem by putting the disruptions of the Internet into the hands of the masses. Thus empowered, these masses have wrought dramatic change in just over a decade and can be expected to bring about untold more disruption over time. Pandora has Left the Building! The Economist has an entire 14-page section devoted to Innovation - I urge you to check it out, and I'll no doubt write further on my thoughts as well. Posted on October 19, 2007 at 06:38 PM | Comments (0) Rock of Ages v. Water of LifeWhat's more important, Land or Water? Is it more important to have a firm foundation, the rock you stand on, or to have life-sustaining water? That makes about as much sense as asking, "Is preserving the Past or embracing the Future more important?" The smart person resists questions like these that set up false choices. They're both important, of course, in their own ways. I'm trying to come to grips with the issue of change and innovation, and it seems how we approach this issue has a lot to do with where we fall on the Conserve the Past - Embrace the Future continuum. It doesn't have to be either or, there is a blend possible - indeed, some blend of the two is the optimal way to manage change and innovation - the key is to develop a good filter that knows when to shed the nonessentials of the past that have become outdated, as well as when to adopt the innovation of the future whose time has come. Nature has this figured out. More and more, I find inspiration in looking at Nature with a capital N, to better understand human nature and how we live in today's world. Nature is the best example I can think of of a sustainable complex system, so when in doubt, it doesn't hurt to take a look at how things work out in Nature. Nature has much to teach us about change and innovation in particular; and what we see when we look is that like waves on the shore, change and innovation keep on coming, whether the sand on the beach acknowledges it or not. And the Earth abides. A few weeks back, I recorded on my DVR a fascinating two-hour show on the History Channel, How the Earth Was Made. The story was compelling and the graphics amazing, as the show introduced me to terms like "Deep Time" and walked me through 4.5 Billion years of the Earth's history. I'd never been all that interested in geology, but it turns out that studying rocks has taught us some amazing things. This show not only opened my eyes to geology facts on which I was completely ignorant, but also helped me to put some issues in perspective, leading me to the long list below of key events of innovation and change. This geological walk down memory lane lays the foundation to understand where we are today, with change and innovation a constant theme, and shows how recent man's walk on the planet really is. There are two compelling forces that have shaped our planet, which align closely with the forces that shape society, Conservatism and Innovation: Plate Tectonics - where lava from below ground emerges onto the Earth's surface to create and move continents and mountains, and Erosion - where water works on the rocks to wear them down and change them. Thus, the Yin and Yang theme plays out in geology, as the fixed object and the force that acts on it are in constant play throughout eternity in the universe, just as they are in our daily lives. How did we get here? Through this back and forth and disruptive change, the past changed into the present, always leading to the future. We see in this list of innovations and change the forces these two factors play to drive progress in a complex system. We see how our present today becomes tomorrow's past, sometimes sooner than we'd like it to. We see an accelerating cycle of change, fostered by technology and a maturing global ecosystem. 4.5 Billion years ago - The origin of the Earth, as gases came together to form the planet, saw the natural force of gravity working to create form out of chaos, pulling in first gases, then asteroids sailing along on their merry way, ultimately creating a cauldron of nuclear activity at the core of the planet, giving us a molten rock covered with a dark crust, spewing CO2. Ice in the meteors melted to give us water, which turned to steam and rained down on the planet, creating red-tinged oceans filled with iron. 3 Billion years ago - With the origin of life on the planet bacteria began to cover the earth, first in the water, where the oxygen they produced settled out the iron in the oceans, turning both water and air blue. Then the impact of oxygenation created our modern atmosphere that gave protection from the ultraviolet rays that had previously prevented life from moving out of the ocean - "Ding ... you are now free to roam about the planet" about 100 Million years ago - The age of dinosaurs, which enjoyed a long reign in a land of plenty, until a huge meteor trashed their planet, kicking up dust that blocked the sun and killed off their food - thus, they gave their lives so that we could have gas stations and cars, 100 million years later. a few million years ago - The emergence of Homo Erectus, who learned to walk upright, spread out over the planet, and began to use tools in innovative fashion, giving Early Man a great advantage over the other animals. about 10,000 years ago - The first city , a mark of civilization, fostered the development of spoken then written language. This rise of human culture began to make better use of our huge brains and the innovation of gathering in a city was copied by others until it became a common trait of civilization (see The City : A Global History by Joel Kotkin). about 4,000 years ago - Father of three major religions, Abraham's innovation of monotheism proved highly innovative and disruptive to the world. about 2,000 years ago - The rise of Christianity brought the disruptive innovations of Forgiveness and Love, and Open Source Religion to its parent, Judaism, ultimately impacting Rome and the entire world. about 550 years ago - The movable type printing press took information to the masses, disrupting the power equation among the ruling clergy and royalty. about 370 years ago - Alhacen, Bacon and Descartes devise a scientific method that rapidly accelerates the development and diffusion of scientific knowledge, propelling the West to dramatic advances in technology 231 years ago - Thomas Jefferson et al sign the US Declaration of Independence, launching a country that has proved to be a radical innovative disruption to the status quo of the ancient custom of hegemonic royalty and royal families, giving the masses a political voice in their future (the jury is out on how long this will last, as we appear to be backsliding of late!) 160 - 110 years ago - The invention of the telegraph - 1844 (Western Union), the telephone - 1876 (AT&T), the incandescent light bulb - 1880 (General Electric), the electric motor and polyphase power transmission system - 1888 (Westinghouse) and wireless radio - 1900, introduced a wave of disruptive innovations through science and technology to usher in the Modern Era and let us all communicate in ever more efficient fashion - "Can you hear me now?" about 40 years ago - The semiconductor gives birth to the computing revolution, which began with data processing and moved on to take over more and more of our lives, like The Blob in that old Steve McQueen movie. about 30 years ago - IP and TCP take hold as standard protocols with DARPA, laying the foundation for worldwide connectivity and the explosion of the Internet about 20 years ago - Dial-up Internet Service Providers (ISPs like Prodigy, Compuserv, and AOL) gain traction offering a new data service: Internet access over telephone lines, a service so new it was hard to see at the time just which companies it would disrupt. about 10 years ago - Cable companies offer high-speed internet access or "always-on broadband" at 30 times the speed of the fastest dial-up Internet connections, as a premium service. about five years ago - Major telecom companies start to eat into the cable companies dominant broadband market position with DSL, and broadband takes off in popularity about three years ago - Internet Search pioneer Google issues its IPO and enjoys an initial market capitalization of $23 Billion, defining the Internet as a disruptive force to reckon with (current market cap is over $200 Billion) about two years ago - Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation bought two-year old web startup My Space for nearly $600 Million, a year later they signed their 100 millionth member, and just this year passed 200 million on-line members. about one year ago - Google acquired two-year old web startup YouTube for $1.65 Billion in Google stock and less than nine months later, in June 2007, YouTube related traffic comprised 10% of all Internet traffic. about two months ago - EarthLink announced its withdrawal from new municipal wireless markets leading to a refocusing of the new Municipal Wireless market I could go on and on - this is fun - but you get the point, life and time have always been about change, always marked by some disruptive innovation that replaces the old tried and true with the new and better. One could easily graph out a similar acceleration of change in a timeline covering other events. We just live in an ever faster world. In today's world of technology, such change and innovation is often billed as cheaper and quicker, but better? Ah, there's the rub. Because so much change has happened over the past generation, and so much more is to come, our kids' world is vastly different from our own, and they have an entirely different perspective than we do. Just as our grandparents looked at things differently than we do, so do we look at things differently than our kids do. One of the challenges we face today as a society is the very pace of change, which compresses this challenge ever tighter and makes more complex the issues society deals with as it moves through time. We lack the tools to really deal with these issues and the pace of change. Change and Innovation loom ever larger, the stakes ever higher. When humans came along with their big brains, they just accelerated the ancient process of change and innovation. Today, the pace gets ever faster, but we still face the same challenge - how to accommodate change and innovation and balance the costs and benefits, if the stakes have grown that much higher. It behooves us first to acknowledge that we have a problem - the first of the 12 Steps: "1. We admitted we were powerless over disruptive innovative change - that our lives had become unmanageable." Having our eyes open to what faces us, we must then seek to understand as a society this force that drives us and acts on us, in order to deal with it more consciously than we do now. We need a plan!! Posted on October 19, 2007 at 06:10 PM | Comments (0) In a Pinch, Why Not Let Rock, Paper, Scissors Decide? Lisa: Look, there's only one way to settle this. Rock-paper-scissors. As you know, the dilemma of how we'll manage to get the broadband infrastructure we need is one of the driving themes that inspires this blog. The challenge we all face is how to move our society to respond to change that many don't even recognize, and that many others see, but resist and deny. Finding a way to deal effectively with change and innovation is one of the key issues facing Americans, and to some extent, all of humanity. When it comes to my country and broadband, however, it sometimes feels like my Government is Bart Simpson and regulated industries play the role of Lisa, always at least one step ahead of the regulators. 'D'oh!" Just how wise do our regulators turn out to be, anyway? Might we not all be better off if all government decisions were made the way that Bart and Lisa settle disputes (assuming that the government didn't always choose Rock the way that Bart does)? Who wins in this game is mostly up to luck - it's a game of chance, with a little bit of psychology thrown in. So, you play it over and over, for fun. Kills time, at least, but mostly, it's just a fun child's game. But on reflection, it does show us in rapid cycles that winning is relative and transitory: being a winner not only depends on one's perspective, but also the environment one is in and how the competition acts. Because the future can be such a game of chance, it's become a matter of faith among conservatives especially, but more generally in free-market economies, that the market does better than the government in managing future outcomes and assigning resources. Trying to control the future and pick winners and losers is even foolish when that practice neglects to recognize the bigger picture and the limits we live with. We all win some, we all lose some. So it goes. This childhood game I played on long car trips - remember back before there were iPods, satellite radio, and in-car DVD players? - holds lessons for us as we look at what's happening in our society and economy with regard to telecommunications and broadband. Too much focus on taking sides and winning and losing, too little focus on the bigger picture, where we can all lose the longer we delay finding consensus, making long-term plans, accepting change and preparing for it. (Are you listening, FCC and Congress?) A delay in acting to change or devise a policy - continuing the status quo, in other words - is in fact a choice for market direction, made passively. But living in time puts us in the position of having to deal with change and innovation as facts of life. Innovation can bring about dramatic change, game-altering change, which is hard to ignore. We're acted upon by our environment and we're stuck with this conundrum of honoring the Past while taking advantage of the Future. We can ignore it or deny it, even defy it, but there it is, nonetheless. If we're but actors on a stage then, at least shouldn't we try to understand the play and learn from the script we've been given? Where does the answer lie? I believe it's a law of nature that there are no winners or losers in the long run, there is no permanence lent to the dominant player at any one time. only a delay of the inevitable. A dominant player that preserves the status quo beyond its time will face a comeuppance at some point. Do mild CAFE standards help or hurt Detroit? When the Michigan Congressman argues for low to no mileage standards for his auto making constituents, he's protecting them from market realities and depriving them of the opportunity to get tougher, just like I would do if I did my kid's homework. My son would appreciate it, and would enjoy watching the football game on TV instead of studying, that is, until he had to take a test and flunked. Protecting others from Reality is not always a favor. And while it may be a political maxim that power goes to those who manage to hold it and fight to keep it, it can also be argued that holding on to power as a means to an end is a short-term strategy, and that too much fight to hold on to power can end up costing everyone, even the one who "wins" short-term. Our own political history, from our forefathers onward, shows us that the wise move of the powerful is to accept change with eyes wide open, accommodate innovation where possible, and when necessary, cede power gracefully. Have we learned nothing from our past? Gradual political transition allows a society to adapt. Fostering innovation is good for everyone. Keeping old powers in charge for too long leads to stagnation. We all have our days in the sun, and though they fade as the younger generation comes along with a new perspective, inevitably many will seek to keep a good thing going, if so allowed. As always, the wise answer on what to do in the face of dramatic change lies somewhere in the middle of all the changes swirling about us. The best accommodation of change and innovation is to find a way to marry the wisdom of the old ways with the genius of innovation and the new wonders it brings us - "I'll take both." That's easier said than done, certainly. Not all new ideas are good ideas, after all. Both conservatism and innovation have a role to play in progress, it seems, and both deserve to be heard and respected. It has ever been so. Posted on October 19, 2007 at 04:22 PM | Comments (0) Taking the Plunge
I just got back from swimming laps at the health club. They have a great pool, under the trees, and if I time it right, I often have the pool to myself. What a great way to start the day! I like swimming in the morning, when the sun is just coming over the horizon of buildings and trees. As I stood at the edge of the pool, adjusted my goggles and put in my ear plugs, it occurred to me that the water was probably pretty cold. After a moment's hesitation, I shrugged my shoulders and took the plunge. Yikes! I was right, man, it was cold! But force of habit told me to just start swimming and in two laps, my body had adjusted to the temperature and what had been shocking and uncomfortable just a few minutes before had become refreshing and invigorating. As an experienced swimmer, I knew the pattern and what lay ahead for me, in two short minutes, so it wasn't all that hard - I just had a moment's hesitation. It's a different story for a beginner though. It wasn't always this easy. It struck me that this thought process is a metaphor for Metropolitan Broadband. (OK, OK, I'm sorry, call me weird, and you wouldn't be far off. Call me obsessed, and you're getting closer. But folks, I'm afraid this is how it works after blogging for 2.5 years on this topic. Trust me, nearly anything, with a little work, can be a metaphor for Metropolitan Broadband!) Q. So, how is jumping in the water, Taking the Plunge, if you will, a metaphor for Metropolitan Broadband? Conclusion: The benefits of initiative far outweigh the risks of taking on a new task, especially if the new task is an inevitable requirement of your long-term objectives. What could the boy in the picture above have been thinking, just before diving in, especially if he was new at swimming? I think his internal conversation would go something like this... "I've done this before, I should just jump in." One of the hardest things to do is to start a new activity, especially if there are some risks attached (and aren't there always some risks?), and especially if you are in the limelight, it's hard. Nobody likes to make mistakes, nobody likes to play the fool, nobody likes to admit their ignorance about something they're expected to know. It's human nature to be cautious, to avoid embarrassment, and that urge for caution goes up as the risk of a downside outcome increases. But there is also a risk posed by inactivity, and too often we tend to underestimate that risk, while overestimating the risk of taking on a new project. It's often said, "There is no better teacher than experience." And the older I get, the more wisdom I find in that statement. Two years ago, a city official at a round table on broadband expressed skepticism about Wi Fi and said that the municipal wireless industry was like a fast-rushing stream, and they were waiting for the current to slow down a little before jumping in. Internally, I shook my head, because our world views are so far apart. I think that that individual will be waiting for a long, long time, because I don't think the current in this stream will ever slow down - my world view is that if anything, it will speed up as time goes on. We're in a period of disruptive change, thanks to the maturing Internet, advances in digital computing, advances in mobile communications, etc., etc., etc. Technology advances and Competition combine to create pressure on us to adapt and move forward, even as the pace of change makes planning horizons ever shorter. The choices we face are expanding over time and our decisions get more complicated over time, not less. To hope for a simpler decision is to delay taking a stand out of fear of making a mistake - I believe that is fair and understandable, especially in this industry. The only solution I can think of is to get smart and to gain experience as quickly as possible. But as I discussed in the blog earlier this week about Wicked Problems, the nature of metropolitan broadband is that it is complex and dynamic on at least three fronts - technological, political, and business - so it is going to be complex and risky, no matter what you do. This argues for taking steps to mitigate your risk and allow you to get started sooner than later. 1. Spend a little time in study, but not too much - as with any new subject area, most of the gains come in the early stages, then the value curve gently flattens out and the more inputs made in studying a subject produce less and less value. Academic study will only take you so far, and at some point, time spent studying becomes "Paralysis by Analysis." If you know that a) the situation gets more complicated over time There is no substitute to getting started by jumping in, Taking the Plunge. There is no fun in standing at the edge of the pool. Just ask any kid who has learned to swim if they regret the decision. I think you know the answer. Then ask an adult who never learned to swim if they regret that omission. I think you know the answer to that question as well. There is no substitute for living life fully, and for pushing out the envelope to be all that you can be, whatever your role in life. Remember: (OK, remember also: A. Fools Rush In, Where Angels Fear to Tread. and B. Pioneers End up with Arrows in their Backs.) A little belatedly, it strikes me that I've been advocating the First Habit of Stephen Covey's Seven Habits of Highly Effective People . The reference is at the very bottom of the list, so scroll down. So I'll let The 7 Habits have the last word here. These habits are always lurking in the background whenever I write, it seems. 1. "Be Proactive." Take Initiative. Posted on October 05, 2007 at 10:32 AM | Comments (0) E Pluribus, Unum: From 300M to 30K to 3141 to 50 to 1Translated from Latin, it most closely means "Out of many, (is) One.", "One out of many" or "From many, (comes) One." Its Anglicized pronunciation is IPA: [ ˈi ˈpluɹɪbəs ˈjunəm ], Classical pronunciation IPA: [ ˈeːˈpluːribus ˈuːnum ]. It refers to the unity of the disparate states of the United States as well as (in modern times) the notion that the nation is a melting pot of peoples. E Pluribus, Unum in Wikipedia How many people are there currently in the United States? That's a hard number to get, because, well, babies are being born. Right now. There, the number just went up again. Another one. This website says there are 301,139,947 (July 2007 est.). But that is so, well, static. Sometimes, Google doesn't steer you to the right site. This MSNBC website tool is one of my favorites, and it provides a dynamic look at our population. I found it back when the national population was about to go over 300M, and that was all over the news, and I bookmarked it. Our national population is now at 302,960,296, so that was apparently about 3 million people ago. When you read this, if you go to the link, you'll see how many have been born in a short period of time. We're a busy, busy bunch of baby makers here in the US. Woo Hooo! Maybe that's why some want to build a fence on the border - too many babies being born. With this huge population comes an ever growing need to get organized and to build an infrastructure to support our modern lifestyle. We neglect our current infrastructure at our peril. We neglect our need for future infrastructure, at our peril. It's boring, it's expensive, but it's the foundation of everything we need to live our modern lives. A society needs an infrastructure, it's always been the case, always will be. I think that infrastructure gets neglected because it's not sexy. I often get bored with it. But it's fundamental. Solving an infrastructure problem requires not only the technical: ingenuity, creativity, skills and innovation, but also the political and economic: patience, compromise, synergy, collaboration, planning, foresight, and leadership. This is one area where we have to find a way to work together. We will sink or swim based on our ability to find a way to work together. Infrastructure is a societal problem. Thinking about the human condition, I've often pondered that although we're each individual human beings, we don't really exist in isolation. As interesting as the individual human being is (and that is a truly fascinating subject), the truly complex and wonderful aspect of humans is our civilization and our behavior in society. Instead of looking at the individual human, the more natural way to assess our status on the planet might be to look at the number of families, households, neighborhoods, churches, schools, communities, towns, cities, counties, etc. And don't look just at the number of groups, or the diversity of groups, look at how we interact. The whole field of social networking is fascinating, and it's a growing field. A social network is a social structure made of nodes (which are generally individuals or organizations) that are tied by one or more specific types of interdependency, such as values, visions, idea, financial exchange, friends, kinship, dislike, conflict, trade, web links, sexual relations, disease transmission (epidemiology), or airline routes. This transition is happening so fast. If you're not on at least one of these sites -LinkedIn, Facebook, or MySpace - you're not included in the on-line society. It's like not being included in the phone book thirty years ago! Imagine. Reminds me of the scene in the 1979 film The Jerk, where Steve Martin's character Navin Johnson freaks out in ecstasy on getting the new phone book. The new phone book's here! The new phone book's here! This is the kind of spontaneous publicity I need! My name in print! That really makes me somebody! Things are going to start happening to me now. and later First I get my name in the phone book and now I'm on your ass. You know, I'll bet more people see that than the phone book. The Jerk Quotes (1979) The next time you're stuck in a traffic jam, wishing everyone would just go away, longing to be alone, consider this: Human beings owe their big brains, their keen intelligence, and ultimately, their consciousness to the fact that we're social beings, and succeeding in society requires lots of brain power. It's a complex task. That's why we take so long to grow up - there's so much to learn. And that's why telecommunications is so important. We need to hear each other's voices, we need to share data and compare notes, we need to "reach out and touch someone" constantly. And we need access to information now, not later. All this is why broadband is so important - I grew up in the 1960s and 1970s, and didn't get my first PC until the late 1980s. I was a late adopter. Working in state government, I had a dumb terminal connected to a mainframe, running PROFS operating system, throughout the 1980s. That was enough for me then. But now, I can't imagine being without my laptop, my wireless network, and, my Internet connection - my BROADBAND connection. Same goes for my cellphone, although I seemed to do just fine back in the day, making sure I had pocket change before I went out, so I could make a pay phone call if I needed to. That was Then, this is Now. Times change, and we have to adapt, or get left behind. So, what's my point? To deny this universal need to connect at the Broadband level is to deny the march of technology and its impact on our lives, and it is to deny the impact and importance of staying in touch with each other. We can go so far as to say that the nation that is better connected with digital infrastructure will be more competitive in the long run. Don't believe me? Make the counter argument. I'd like to hear it. With high speed connectivity comes a life and an identity on-line. Instant access via the Internet to the world's information, at your fingertips. Don't know the answer, ask our modern Oracles - from Google to Wikipedia, answers are a few keystrokes away in today's world. Need to talk to someone, anyone, anywhere, anytime? Jump on Skype and make the call. If not altogether free, your call will be Damn Cheap. It's truly amazing! And yet, that's what we do as a society today - We Deny Change - we're busy denying this new reality about the need for universal broadband connectivity. So many seem content to say, "I've got mine, let those others use the library if they need to get on a computer." Huh? "My kids need a PC at home, but let those other kids make do with an hour a day in a computer lab, or they can go to the library if they need to get on a computer." What we are missing by denying this universal need to connect is that our society is less than it could be when it is only partially connected. We all suffer when others are still living in an off-line world, because we don't enjoy the full benefits of an on-line society. We're stuck in In Between Land, a disjointed society that's working like a V-8 engine misfiring on only six cylinders, a truly inefficient place for a society and an economy to be. The longer we stay in this Limbo, the longer it will be until we reach our potential, and the further we will fall behind. Time's a-wastin'. In our forefather's infinite wisdom, they recognized the powerful (pardon the pun) impact that electricity would have on society and they charted a national policy of electrification, so that all of society could enjoy the benefits of light and power. It took them a while to get there, but they did, and things have never been the same since. Electricity transformed society, ushering in the Modern Era. Same goes for voice telephony. It was national policy that we would would add a fee to each family's phone bill each month, to spread the cost and to promote "Universal Service." It was seen as a national good to tax the many to bring about universal connectivity. Imagine wanting to call someone today, but then realizing they didn't have a phone. We take this level of connectivity for granted, because we had foresight years ago and we took the steps to make it happen. And yet, with broadband, we still see it as a luxury good, a premium service that people should be willing to pay for if they feel they really need it. And the current cost is quite simply beyond so many in our society. Today's approach simply will not get us to universal broadband connectivity, and we shouldn't expect it to - that's not our policy, and it's not designed to do that. So as a society, we're behind the times when we think that way. Imagine if that had been the way we had approached electricity and telephone service. That's the most charitable way I can put it: Our current approach to broadband in the US is inadequate to our needs as a modern society. So when you look down on the US at night time, from up in the sky, what do you see? One amorphous mass of land? Or do you see a diverse set of points of light? How many points of light are on the map? How do we organize ourselves in this country? How we look at our country is one key to beginning to find a solution to our broadband infrastructure problem. We can look at this as a national problem needing a national solution, or we can look at this as a local issue that can be addressed by 30,000 local sets of officials. Or, we can find some combination of the two - why not a national solution AND a myriad of local solutions? What are the existing organizational elements that we can leverage? Incorporated cities? About 30,000 of them. What if we made an assumption that there are on average 20 neighborhoods in each American city. I have no idea if that's anywhere near correct, but let's just use that as a starting point. that would give us nearly 600,000 communities, where families each share a sense of "this is where I live." All my neighbors beat a path back to this same patch of earth we call Home every night. How about Counties? There are a little over 3,000 county governments in the United States. The Baby Bears of political subdivisions, these entities are sized "just right" - they're bigger than cities, but smaller than states. They run the gamut from very organized and activist to hardly motivated at all. The US Postal Service divides the US into Zip Codes, our version of Postal Codes elsewhere. We got organized in order to communicate with the mail. The telecom world subdivides the nation into Area Codes. We got organized in order to communicate with the telephone. Are you connecting the dots? We have websites on the World Wide Web, and we have URLs for web addresses. But we have not yet gotten ourselves organized as a society in order to communicate with Broadband. What about State solutions? Now it's getting easier, the units larger, they're autonomous, and yet, they're more complex than the more local organizations - there are 50 of them, as many states as there are stars on the American flag. And yet, in the end, we are one country - a fact we often lose sight of, as many people now feel we are two - there's Us and there's Them. It's like a Dr. Seuss book - Red State, Blue State. We divide ourselves into Conservatives and Liberals, Haves and Have Nots, Rich and Poor, Educated and Uneducated. "And whatever I am, whatever my group is, you suck, your group sucks, and you are wrong." Is this really where we've come to after 231 years? It's like we're a nation of sports teams, all in competition for a limited pot of resources. It's become a Zero Sum game - if you win, that means I lose. This approach does not serve us well - it's short-sighted and in the end, we all lose when the result is that we delay on addressing our infrastructure issues. Boy, do I get tired of this. The fact is, we have so much more in common as Americans than we are different as Republicans or Democrats, Conservatives or Liberals, or whatever other division you choose to focus on. Despite the divisiveness of the past two decades, we're still one national society, united on several fronts, culturally, linguistically, politically. It's not too late to start acting like a country again. It's not too late to grow up as a society and face reality - we need to start building our nation again, and quit bitching about who is getting more and who is getting less. So, why all these statistics? If you read this blog on a regular basis, you're aware that I've been musing on a national broadband policy lately. See my last two posts here and here. The beginning of grappling with a solution is in understanding the problem fully, and coming to a consensus on just what the problem is. Until we have a shared view and are speaking the same language, we will not be working together on a common solution that will work for all of us. Part of what makes America great is its diversity. But with that diversity comes complexity. And our complex society, with a diversity of viewpoints, makes it difficult to come to a consensus on just about anything. Put that together with our sheer size and diversity of geography, and you have a recipe for slow progress, if you get any progress at all. There are strategies for dealing with complexity. One way is to start by finding some general agreement on principles. If we can do that, we can begin to generate some momentum. Another way to address the complexity is to break the problem into more digestible bits. That's why I focused this blog on talking about who we are, how we communicate, and different tools we have at our disposal to begin to address our issues. We must start thinking about broadband infrastructure in a different way, because it's vital to our future. And it takes time to build. We are running out of time and we are falling behind. If that's not a crisis, I don't know what one is. Posted on October 04, 2007 at 08:12 AM | Comments (0) Mining Distilled WisdomAt this stage in my career, and my life, I realize that I've been exposed to a lot of wise people and can learn much from past successes and more importantly, from past failures. It's humbling to realize how much one doesn't know after so much time trying to learn as much as one can. As much as we're tempted to keep our eyes firmly focused on the present-day crises and upcoming future events, it behooves us all to reflect back on the past at the same time and realize we're all standing on the shoulders of great men and women who went before us. It makes sense to spend time "Mining Distilled Wisdom." Those who do this have a distinct advantage over those who don't. We do this when we go to school and get an education - it's amazing how much has been added to the store of wisdom in the 32 years since I graduated high school - I can't believe the things my daughter is studying in the 8th grade. Whatever one's personal thoughts on religion and God, we mine wisdom when we do Bible study or sit in church listening to a sermon - we're drawing moral lessons on how to live life, built up over thousands of years. We read history books and study past events, not just for entertainment, but also for illumination. History is a never ending trail of repeated mistakes, human errors, and human struggle. Inevitably, much of what we encounter today is either a repeat of a past event updated in modern clothing or slightly altered by today's realities. We can't get all of what we need from looking backwards, but we can arm ourselves with a tremendous amount of wisdom and insight and leverage the lessons learned from past successes and failures. This rational approach to science was the big breakthrough of Western thought a few hundred years ago - it was the convenience of the printing press and the socialization of wisdom that brought about the scientific method and the modern economic and government successes that provide us with such wonderful standards of living today. And it's the absence of these rational practices that mire other governments and societies in continuing misery in today's world. Woe be unto those who neglect the past or go through the present and future with blinders on, reinventing the wheel and repeating past mistakes. I shudder at what some governments put their people through, all in the name of maintaining political control in the hands of a few, flying in the face of political history and accumulated wisdom. Government leaders in Myanmar, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, the Sudan, etc, etc, all in the news recently, continue to repress political expression, in the face of dismal results and pretty clear signs in modern history that democracy and progressive political behavior is linked to successful and dynamic economic results. On a personal level, I captured my thoughts on how I apply these principles in my engagements, and how leaders can engage in planning based on principles (and mined distilled wisdom) in a white paper a few years ago, which you can download here: Principles of Planning. Reflecting on my experience with compiling wisdom is an exercise in evaluating what makes good business and good government, how they differ, and how they can leverage each other. Taking time to reflect on such issues, I hope, may lead government and business leaders to rethink their paradigms on broadband communication infrastructure. Among the lessons I learned in Business School and in the private sector afterwards, were these: B1. Risk / Reward - The more risk one is willing to take should result in a greater reward. Risk represents downside outcomes, reward represents upside. The key to good investments and sound business planning is in finding ways to mitigate the downside risk in order to increase the upside reward. By my early 30s, I'd spent my career learning about selling, providing winning customer service, managing administration in the public sector, and maneuvering through politics. But I'd learned precious few business basics, so I like to tell people I got more value out of my MBA from UT than almost anyone. I paid relatively little and received tremendous insights. From my earlier career doing legislative analysis, then running the little office that would become the Texas Senate Research Center, then a stint at earning my Masters in Government (which I ultimately abandoned), and also time at a public utility, I also learned a lot about what makes government and politics tick. Here's a stab at some wisdom mined from working with the public sector. G1. The importance of balancing competing interests - Good public administrators work within a political environment of competing interests and find a way to strike compromises, or better yet, forge synergies to solve problems of conflict in creative fashion. G2. Pressure and Influence impact political decisions - Good politicians understand human nature and create situations that produce outcomes in their favor. Businesses and special interest groups, aware of this connection, hire professionals (lobbyists) to influence decision makers, but also work with the press and different interest groups to bring pressure to bear from the public side. G3. A focus on cost management bears more fruit than focusing on revenue enhancement - In the public sector, there are more tools for bringing about efficiencies to control costs than there are for creatively raising revenues. This is one of the key differences between public and private sector enterprises. G4. Creativity is needed to make the most of what you have - Within the geographic confines of a government enterprise, a local, regional, state, or even national government has to take what it has and make the best of it. There are limits to how far a government can go to create new opportunities beyond the natural constraints under which it works. G5. Good infrastructure stacks the deck in your favor - A regional economy rises and falls on its infrastructure. Ask any business considering relocation about traffic congestion and they will tell you it's a strike against a region. An effective and healthy infrastructure is a key to a smooth flow of commerce in a region. Putting these two lists together is the genius of the Public Private Partnership. Having spent considerable time on both sides of the fence, I'm convinced that there is tremendous potential for local and regional leaders who manage to effectively tap into the collective wisdom from business and government and get these two sides to work together with common cause. One thing I learned on going over to the alternate universe of the B-school long ago, from my perch at the Senate, was that Government is not the same as Business. I cringe when I hear a political candidate say that we need to bring more business practice into government - they generally learn the hard way that many things are not transferable. Some things transfer, many do not. They are two distinct cultures, but that's not to say that each cannot benefit from the other; there are lessons to be gleaned, and that's the root of the Public Private Partnership. One final thought - we're all stuck living in linear time. Absent a time machine, where we can race into the future, check things out and fly back, we have only hints and clues with which to make our plans on how to behave here in the present in order to get what we want. Unlike Biff Tannen in Back to the Future, we don't have the benefit of a sports trivia handbook to tell us the future outcomes of sporting events we place bets on. Too bad for us, there are no sure things in real life. But we can get pretty close to a sure thing. Stuck here in the present, watching the future unfold hour by hour, day by day, we make educated guesses about what will happen. Smart business people and smart government officials observe events around them, put two and two together, and gather up a pretty good idea on how things are changing and they position themselves to take advantage. When it comes to adapting to the impacts of technology change, the smart money is on betting that digital tools and processes will become more and more prevalent. Replacing older processes from the analog world with newer more efficient processes based on digitization is a relatively safe bet. The challenge, and the art of managing change then, is knowing how much and where to spend here in the present to accommodate such upcoming change and take advantage of trends. Like many others, I've determined that Broadband and Mobility are two of the only sure things we can look at with some certainty. I've bet the farm and staked my career on working to promote better infrastructure to hasten the changes that will bring us all more communication capacity and more mobility options. The evidence is all around us, if we only open our eyes. The daily challenge I face is in convincing the rest of the world that 1) the changes are happening faster than we think; 2) that preparing takes longer than we think; and 3) that the steps we need to take will be more dramatic than we think. Here in the US, most governments are taking Baby Steps into the Future. When it comes to infrastructure, it's mostly Baby Steps, if you could say we're moving forward at all as a society here in the US. But we need to be taking Giant Leaps, and it doesn't have to be as risky as it seems - there are ways we can do so while minimizing risk. We don't lack the evidence to assure us of the need to add broadband infrastructure, we lack imagination, motivation, and courage. In summary, its leadership that's in short supply. We're more comfortable here in the present taking baby steps, and lacking leadership, we're stuck with incremental change and evolution, which is fine, as long as we're willing to accept the consequences of not preparing adequately. The consequences are that other societies with better strategies and bolder moves regarding infrastructure race ahead of us. Over time, their superior infrastructure will stack the deck in their favor. They're becoming more competitive when it comes to areas that we have grown accustomed to leading, like development of innovative technology based on digital applications and broadband communications. This post is an appeal to government and business leaders to heed lessons from the past, focus on infrastructure, and prepare for a future where broadband dominates. Otherwise, it takes little brilliance to deduce that we will be left behind while other societies race ahead. We're ignoring lessons from the past, as well as signposts on current environmental change, when we neglect to give emphasis to building a robust broadband infrastructure in this country. We won't get where we want to go by continuing down the same path. We are entering a time of disruption when it comes to the Internet and broadband infrastructure, and unfortunately for us Americans, we are for the most part neglecting our future. Hopefully, we can turn this ship around and change some paradigms, with some well-publicized successes in the next few years. It's never too late to learn, it's never too late to change, and it's never too late to be redeemed. Managing to smoothly let go of the present and embrace the future, while keeping an eye on the past, is a learned skill, but one we must all learn given the pace of change in today's business and government climate. And as I try to tell my 6th grade son, learning a new skill can only begin with an open mind. That's where it all starts, keeping an open mind. Keep watching this space, keep an open mind, and keep mining distilled wisdom and applying lessons learned, and finally, keep your fingers crossed. The rest is out of our control. Posted on September 27, 2007 at 11:43 AM | Comments (0) Get Ready for Some Alternate ViewsI'm driving to Dallas tomorrow for the Broadband Properties Summit 2007 Conference. Broadband Properties is an outfit that publishes a good magazine and website, which cultivates discussion and viewpoints that are tangential to the Metropolitan Broadband industry, but also quite informative, which I find quite helpful. This summit will have lots of fiber companies, but also property developers and apartment owners and managers. I'm looking forward to a fascinating three days. I'll be blogging about the presentations and conversations, covering the conference, so stand by for some interesting stuff. Posted on September 09, 2007 at 09:08 PM | Comments (0) La Plus Ca Change, La Plus C'est La MemeThink change is hard today and that those pesky incumbents just won't face reality? Consider this: "The Telephone purports to transmit the speaking voice over telegraph wires. We found that the voice is very weak and indistinct, and grows even weaker when long wires are used between the transmitter and receiver. Technically, we do not see that this device will be ever capable of sending recognizable speech over a distance of several miles. "Messer Hubbard and Bell want to install one of their "telephone devices" in every city. The idea is idiotic on the face of it. Furthermore, why would any person want to use this ungainly and impractical device when he can send a messenger to the telegraph office and have a clear written message sent to any large city in the United States? "The electricians of our company have developed all the significant improvements in the telegraph art to date, and we see no reason why a group of outsiders, with extravagant and impractical ideas, should be entertained, when they have not the slightest idea of the true problems involved. Mr. G.G. Hubbard's fanciful predictions, while they sound rosy, are based on wild-eyed imagination and lack of understanding of the technical and economic facts of the situation, and a posture of ignoring the obvious limitations of his device, which is hardly more than a toy... "In view of these facts, we feel that Mr. G.G. Hubbard's request for $100,000 of the sale of this patent is utterly unreasonable, since this device is inherently of no use to us. We do not recommend its purchase." In 1876, Alexander Graham Bell and his financial backer, Gardiner G. Hubbard, offered Bell's brand new patent (No. 174,465) to the Telegraph Company - the ancestor of Western Union. The President of the Telegraph Company, Chauncey M. DePew, appointed a committee to investigate the offer. The amusing thing about this letter, in retrospect, is that Bell obtained controlling interest in Western Union by 1882! Bill's 200-Year Condensed History of Telecommunications, May 1998 Oh, the things you can turn up on the Internets! Substitute "Wi Fi" and "WiMAX" for "The Telephone," and you can almost hear the professional telephone and cellular types criticizing these new technologies that run on unlicensed spectrum. Toys!! Posted on May 31, 2007 at 10:31 PM | Comments (0) Small, Simple, Cheap, and Fast - OHMMMMMMMMWant to make a difference when it comes to broadband Internet? Try putting this mantra into practice. Repeat three times when you go to bed and again when you wake up. "Small, Simple, Cheap, and Fast...Ohmmmmmmmm" Recent comments and essays on the web have challenged and defended Wi Fi Mesh and the nascent Municipal Wireless industry. I commented recently this week on one of those essays, on one of my favorite sites, MuniWireless.com (see MuniWireless - Opinion: What municipalities should be asking in citywide Wi-Fi planning). I don't so much defend Wi Fi Mesh as challenge those who would throw it out on the junk heap - as a new, compelling technology, it deserves a fair evaluation, and we're in the middle of that process. And I do challenge those who would cite a few "failures" without analyzing the rationale behind such labels - we rush to judgment when we want to draw conclusions - it's just too early to tell. Often a trial can produce unexpected beneficial results - is a trial a "failure" if it produced success, but not the anticipated success? is a project a "failure" if the underlying assumptions are revealed to be flawed? is an individual network a "failure" if the exercise produces valuable knowledge that cities or companies can build on? There are many ways to look at this industry, but much of the current critique is rather single-minded, IMHO. These articles and comments are written with a bias towards current business practice and established technologies (e.g., "if it's not licensed spectrum, it ain't gonna fly"). As an aside, such two-way journalism is one of the fascinating things about blogs and broadband - you can easily talk back to the press, without going through an editor. I've recently debated whether its worth it to formally rebut the AP article that kicked off this recent round of debate, reprinted in my local paper. Should I bother to write a Letter to the Editor? A clue - I haven't. Yet. Back to my favorite mantra. When it comes to broadband Internet, imagine how most of us get onto the broadband Internet now - we get our Internet access from large companies that don't really buy into the underlying ethos of the Internet - open, free-wheeling communication - we get access from companies that are proud of being "LARGE and COMPLEX." Sure, large Telcos and Cable companies are reliable for what they promise to do, but their strategy of rolling out new markets makes them slow to get to new areas. They sell on value and represent their services as a bargain - they talk about blazing fast speed or the value of the bundled Triple Play of services - video, voice, broadband. They would never admit to being expensive or slow, but the bottom line is that relative to other countries, our current major providers are not aggressively growing their service models or cutting their prices, nor are they rapidly expanding into new geographic areas to ensure universal service. They're doing just fine by their shareholders by offering their service packages in the current business climate - quite simply, they prefer the status quo. A fact not often considered is that most residential consumers are paying around $1500/year combined to get broadband, TV content, and voice telephony to their homes. Add in mobile voice telephony, and that number goes up to maybe $2500-3000/year, at least. Wow! That's a lot of money and a big chunk of many household budgets, in after-tax dollars! How did it grow so much, when we used to get radio and TV "free" over the airwaves, and paid about $20/month for telephone service? Sure, we paid a lot more for long distance back then, but we were jealous of our minutes and didn't spend a lot of time on useless gabbing - its now a sign of age to recall your mother shouting to your father "Hurry up, it's LONG DISTANCE!" But every time I turn on my digital cable TV, I see an ad about bundled voice, and indeed, you'll see innumerable TV ads on just about any channel talking about the value of digital telephone service "as low as $29.95/month." How did telephone service get to be a "bargain" at such rates? Here's a sample bill (not scientifically accurate, but I believe close to reality). Digital Voice - $29.95 We've become so used to paying these fees, we rarely stop to wonder about an alternative vision, or if we are getting all that we could be getting. But the future version of these services are out there, in the form of newer technologies. In contrast to this status quo, imagine a solution that is Small, Simple, Cheap, and Fast. (and keep repeating that mantra). Small, because that keeps costs low and provides lots of choices, allows more focus on niche solutions, and lowers barriers to entry. Simple, because there are fewer moving parts (see above) and that means the solution is more likely to work/less likely to fail. Cheap, because the costs of these new solutions are quite a bit cheaper - going over the air without paying for spectrum rights avoids such massive capital expenditures as trenching and spectrum rights acquisition through auctions. Fast, because its fairly simple to hang up these nodes on light poles or mount them on rooftops. We're now living in a world that is undergoing near constant change, on a rapid basis. When you have such dramatic change so consistently, doesn't it make sense to approach things differently than you have in the past? Doesn't it make sense to experiment with new models and try on new ways of doing things? Doesn't it make sense to take some risks? That's yet one more benefit of using new business models enabled by these new technologies - they allow rapid feedback cycles, which enable rapid improvement cycles. It's just like Open Source Software. Lots of experiments, lots of innovation, lots of improvements. That is what I believe is the bottom line on the need for different approaches to broadband provisioning: A divergence from the status quo is called for, and an opportunity presents itself to model the success of Open Source software development. This is what we will see more and more of in the coming year - more experimentation, more innovation, more change. As consumers, we should open ourselves up to new ways of doing things, exploring what we value and what we can do without. There are multiple lessons to be learned if we will set off on this path. Posted on May 30, 2007 at 04:42 PM | Comments (0) Making Change Happen with Broadband IIWhat a whirlwind weekend! Yesterday morning, I posted a blog describing all the broadband tools I used to help me sell my car in less than two days. This is the second installment, the other side of the coin, if you will, as I describe how I used Internet tools to buy my car on Friday afternoon and Saturday. The whole process took about 24 hours. Satisfaction. Relatively pain-free. Amazing. It occurred to me during the middle of the process that the entire structure of new car buying is set up to keep me the buyer from attaining my goal, but that the Internet provides so many tools and so much information that I have a huge advantage I did not used to have. In most complex purchase processes, one of the hardest steps is to find the true market price. I guess in this case that this purchase process was not unlike other more complicated markets that we participate in, from home buying to major furniture. We have incredible choices in today's economy, and the challenge is to get the task organized and then to execute to a plan. When the buyer takes short cuts and leans on the seller, generally that works to the seller's advantage. It takes discipline and no small amount of skill and patience to make the purchase process work out to the buyer's advantage. But whether you're an individual looking to buy a car or a city looking at an upcoming metropolitan broadband decision, there are many similarities that a buyer facing a complex purchase decision encounters. Bear with me as I walk through my experience, because I found it revealing for what it showed about using broadband, as well as revealing details about a purchase process in a more general sense and how power has shifted to the buyer in the new digital broadband economy. I would not want to be in the business of selling cars these days. I've been day dreaming about a car for a while, but my thoughts came quickly into focus after I watched my old car drive away on Friday and I had to hang around and wait for my wife to get a ride - I was car-less-in-Texas, and lacking any serious mass transit options, I knew that this situation could not last beyond the weekend, or I'd be renting a car on Tuesday morning. So, a sense of urgency was a good first step in the buying process, a good motivator to get busy and make the process work. On Friday afternoon, we were motivated enough to visit two auto showrooms, my wife and daughter accompanying me on the trip. But before I tell you about the results, let me walk through the buying steps that led to our success by Saturday night. 1. Personal Inventory. In any buying process, from a grocery list to a trip to the mall, it's best to start off a purchase with some internal work, in order to determine what problem it is you're trying to solve, what needs you plan to meet by making the purchase - in short, your buying criteria. Edumunds.com has Buying Tips & Advice, a list of Ten Steps in Buying a New Car, which I recommend. My needs started with low emissions - I'm growing more and more green with each passing day, it seems. After that, I'm thinking this may be a car my daughter will drive in three years when she turns 16, so I value low operating costs and high reliability. I don't need a large car, or a particulary powerful car. Finally, some might debate if this is a need, but I want a fair degree of comfort, having grown used to the Lexus style of driving. My personal inventory showed these buying criteria, in the end: 2. Assessment of Market Options. These first few steps are heavily weighted towards information gathering, making the Internet a key ally. In Step One, I used the Internet to get oriented on the car buying process, because I hadn't done that in a while. Now I had to see what was out there that matched my needs - what product was I looking for? I spent quite a lot of time on the Toyota and Honda websites, researching their product lines. I had soon narrowed the search to the Toyota Prius or Camry Hybrid, or the Honda Civic EX (coupe or sedan) or the Civic Hybrid. 3. Demonstration Trial. At some point in the buying process, you need to get physical, to touch the product and try it on for size. By Friday afternoon, it was time to go to the dealers and do some driving. The wireless laptop at home has become for me the Yellow Pages, among other things, so I Googled Toyota+Austin and Honda+Austin and found the dealers and their operating hours. We visited the closest Honda and Toyota dealer, with dinner sandwiched in between. This part was fun. The Honda dealership visit was revealing in two ways - I found that I didn't prefer the Honda coupe as much as I thought I would - didn't like the 2-door aspect especially. And I really didn't like the particular Civic Hybrid that we drove - and it was the only one on the lot, and the color combination of blue and gray was off-putting. The sales guy explained how popular these cars were and that they weren't being discounted, and that this car would be gone by the weekend. "Good for you," I thought. Oh, and one more thing, I did not like the sales guy at all, and that was enough, along with the low inventory, to turn me away from that particular dealership, convenient though it was to my house. The Toyota dealership was a different experience altogether. The Prius had less to Wow me after this test drive (I had been out in a Prius twice before). My wife was unimpressed with the bells and whistles, such as the Navigation package, the camera for backing up, the push-button start. In contrast, the Camry Hybrid was a dream car - as close to a Lexus I would come to without actually buying one. On a whim, we test drove the Scion TC, and were surprised to find it fun and cool, if a little stripped down. At this point, I was likely thinking more of my daughter in three years than I was of my own needs. I couldn't picture myself in that car in the end. I drove home that night confused and perplexed - information overload. Time for a good night's sleep. 4. Information Organization. It's good to stay organized, and Microsoft Excel always helps me to make a data table that I can use to help me sort out my thoughts. With a clear head in the morning, and after writing that blog on the Used Car sale, I spent an hour or so laying out some different scenarios. I divided the purchase into capital and operating expense. Now I had to make assumptions on gas prices in the future, financing costs for the vehicle, and what purchase price I would be able to negotiate. I ended up grouping the purchase data in the table into two categories: a Hybrid (Prius, Camry, or Civic) and a Low-Cost conventional vehicle (Civic or Scion). The spreadsheet helped me to better understand Total Cost of Ownership (TCO is something every buyer should think about before making a purchase). 5. Vendor Engagement. Having turned the process into a more quantifiable exercise in sorting through commodities, I now went back to the Internet, this time to better understand the dealer situation, because that is how one has to buy a new car, through a dealer. Here broadband Internet proved valuable. I spent an hour sending out emails to dealers asking for quotes. The Honda website made it easy, listing ten dealers within 150 miles that would give me a price quote. I used their quote tool and included a note with each request describing a Request for Proposals for a purchase to be made by the end of the day. I began getting automated responses in my email box, and yet only three of those responded in timely fashion with good information. I called the dealers with the best emails, and began to get quotes that were based on Invoice Price rather than MSRP. Dealers like to base the discussion on MSRP, because that puts the price discussion to their advantage, where it looks like they are giving up a lot by discounting off that anchor. In fact, the Invoice price is easy to find, and is a better anchor for the purchaser, because it starts off lower. Sellers are still able to make money around invoice pricing through incentive payments, but they will make a lot less, which means a lower price for the buyer. Here's a decent discussion on Anchoring in a Negotiation, which is where you are when you start to get serious about buying a car. Negotiators who are aware of the anchor trap in negotiations can reduce the impact by: 6. Narrow the purchase to a limited set of options. I was able to get pricing at just over Invoice on all the Hybrids, which led me to dismiss the conventional options. And it became clear after I found a volume dealer near Houston that the Toyota Hybrids would not come in less than the high 20,000s. they're popular and relatively more expensive - not much competition to help a buyer here. The Civic Hybrid, on the other hand, emerged as the front-runner. Now that I had narrowed my purchase to identify what I was looking for, it had come down to a commodity purchase, which hinges on price as the deciding factor. The questions I was asking now had to do with how low I could get the price in a short amount of time, because I wanted to complete this sale before the weekend was out. Now I was in negotiation mode. I was not too harsh here, because I didn't have time on my side. I had a dealer in San Antonio offer a price at $400 over invoice, and another in Round Rock (20 miles north) go to about $200 over. Faced with this information, the dealer in S. Austin gave me a Best and Final Offer on a Civic Hybrid, just a little lower than the other price I had, which I had to conclude was a fair and competitive market price - I'd reached my goal in the negotiation, and then heard the magic words telling me it was time to go make the buy: "and we have plenty of Civic Hybrids in stock to choose from." Only when I had a fair price did I start to consider color choice options and if I would have to compromise my choice in this category. 7. Close the sale. The final process at the dealer was quite pleasant, because I had already negotiated the sale using Internet-provided information and finalizing details over the telephone. After finding the right color combination, I ensured that I could get the financing rate I needed through the dealer (another big plus over Toyota) and it was all over in about an hour. I avoided the "nibbles" at the end, the service contract and other "offers" they make right at the point of sale, as they attempt to nudge up the monthly price in increments of 5-20 dollars with high margin options. The individual offers don't seem like much, until you multiply the numbers by 60. With a $20/month bump, for example, you're at $1200 more for the sale price, or > 5% increase in this case. This is where dealers make money back that they gave away during the negotiation to get to the close, so buyer beware - you're not done yet! So now I have a !NEW CAR! sitting in the driveway. I'd forgotten how satisfying it is, and spending the time to be thorough makes the satisfaction all the more enjoyable. I know I got the right car at the right price. This blog was helpful for me to diagram this process once again, and it proved revealing to show how much I use the Internet as a tool to access information, identify opportunities, and communicate with buyers and/or sellers. I don't think I'm alone out there, as more and more buyers will discover that they can now begin to shed the intermediaries in any sales process and do a lot more on their own. I estimate I saved $3000 by spending a little time on both the sale and purchase transactions, probably working out to about $200/hour, which is about right. It just wasn't that hard. But DIY is not for everyone, especially in a complex purchase like metropolitan broadband. Many cities will find that the time and resources needed to get prepared prove just too much to do on their own. I really believe that there is much to learn from thinking in new ways about how new tools change our options and reshuffle the deck, both as consumers and as purchasing organizations. It helps to go back to fundamental process evaluation to ensure that you are doing your best in any purchase decision. I think about the Project Triangle often: Money, Time, Quality. You can have two, but not three. If you want Money (lowest price) and Quality (highest quality), then you better use Time to your advantage, and that means a thorough purchase process, starting as early as possible - don't delay starting - but not necessarily finishing fast. Use Time to your advantage. And these lessons apply not only to car purchases but also to wireless broadband systems. Whatever your situation or upcoming decision, I recommend you think long and hard about tools and process, because the world of buying and selling has changed, and whichever side you're on, you will be well served to have your eyes open to the new environment and market dynamics. Posted on May 28, 2007 at 07:30 AM | Comments (0) Recognizing Change from Using Broadband in our Daily LivesThere's probably not a day goes by that I don't feel fortunate to be where I am. I live in Austin, Texas, with a view from my backyard over the Texas Hill Country. I'm a minute away from the highway out my back door, Loop 360, which while it has grown increasingly congested, still is one of the prettiest highways in Texas, as it winds over the hills and through limestone cliffs blasted out 25 years ago to make way for "progress." They've so far kept the grassy middle and in the spring, the wildflowers bloom there. The spring wildflowers are fading now, transitioning to their summer cousins, and the green grass is starting to show signs of the coming heat of summer, as it begins to turn golden here and there. The fly in the ointment, the ants at the picnic, the speck in my eye ... pick your metaphor for the little thing that brings my idyllic dreams crashing to the floor, has been my old set of wheels. It hasn't been so bad in retrospect, because it was a very good car, but I've been driving my wife's old Lexus for four years, longer than I expected when I accepted the the hand-me-down as my wife transitioned to a new Expedition - the family truckster that holds all the kids and dogs and ranch gear - four years ago. After 11.5 years, I decided it was time for a change and put the car on the market. Two days later, yesterday afternoon, I found myself out washing the car in the rain. There was a first, in all my days, I've never washed the car in the rain. But I had two buyers coming over to look at the car in less than an hour, and both claimed to have cash in hand. So I finished cleaning out the inside as it began to rain, put away the vacuum cleaner, and recognized that I just had enough time to wash it, rain or no rain. It looked good (and wet) when I was finished. My neighbors thought I was crazy, I guess. The rain came and went as I washed the car. One shouted from her driveway and told me her horror story of selling a used car years ago. I kept on washing. My next door neighbor pulled up and commented that I looked like an illustration for an Aggie Joke. I finished the body and went on to the wheels and tires. After two rounds of wiping it down with a chamois skin as the rain continued to sprinkle, I called it quits and went inside, changed into dry clothes, and got the car papers in order. With a doorbell ring, the first buyers had shown up. They passed, I think because I wouldn't negotiate on price - I kept the price firm because I had another buyer on the way - maybe this would be harder than I thought. But the second buyer didn't even bother to take it for a test drive, handing me an envelope of cash. The paperwork was over in less than 10 minutes, the keys and title handed over and I stood on the front porch and watched and waved as the old Lexus and nearly 12 years of memories drove away. The proud new owner was a 20-something young professional. It felt good all around, but it was a strange day, and it all happened so fast. This used car selling experience was uniquely different certainly than the nightmare my neighbor described from her driveway, and indeed, from any sale I've experienced in my past - I've sold at least 15 cars in the 34 years I've been driving, and always have preferred to sell them myself than to unload them on the dealer at a steep discount. But this was almost too easy. Too easy, and not just because it was a Lexus. It made me wonder if I couldn't have made another $1000. It was that "seller's remorse" one feels, where one is happy, but there's that little nagging doubt that it was priced too low. I decided to hold on to the happy, and let go of the nagging doubt. I write about this experience because it demonstrates in a neat little package the wide ranging thoughts I shared on this website on Thursday, summarizing the reading on Internet change that I've done over the past couple of months. That post on my website came just 18 hours after I'd made another post, a short notice on Craig's List to sell the car. It was all pretty simple, really. 1. Set a Market Price. I researched Kelly Blue Book and Edmunds.com to help me not only fix the right price for the car, but also find out how many other cars like my Lexus were for sale in the area. 2. Market My Product. Then I made the post on Craig's List-Austin on Wednesday night (I have Craig's List bookmarked on my Firefox browser window, in the Local Information folder). No fee, no hassle. 3. Qualify the Prospects. Within minutes, I was getting short emails asking for pictures, asking other buyer questions. With short responses, I engaged in dialogue with those who appeared most serious, continuing into Thursday afternoon and evening. 4. Sell on Value. Out of six potential buyers, four had emerged by Thursday as serious. One appeared sincere, but wanted to bargain the price down, with stories of limited budget. Another was ready to buy for his daughter, but wouldn't be able to confirm until after the weekend. 5. Close the Sale. On to Friday morning, the ultimate buyer said he had to get a loan, and when I called back on Friday morning to tell him that another buyer was on the way over, he said he'd be there in an hour with cash. He came through and got the car. 6. Ensure Legal, Appropriate Paperwork. And in the thirty minutes between wiping down the clean car and selling it, I Googled "Selling a Used Car in TExas" and found a site on the Texas DMV, which had links to forms I would need to ensure a hassle-free sales process and protect against potential liability down the road, which I was able to print up and fill out in minutes. So if it wasn't Gone in Sixty Seconds, it was more like Sold in Under 48 Hours (in six basic steps). In my past experience, I've had to list the car in the classifieds or put it out on Auto Trader, first the magazine, then the website, both at a fee. I would be reluctant to tweak my ad, because it would cost me more. Or, I would put less information in the ad, because it would cost me more. It was a hassle for buyers to find me. I've had to put up For Sale signs in the car windows and drive the car around, or park the car in a high traffic area so it would be seen by the masses. It was considerable work to sell a car, for most of my life. I enjoyed the challenge because I treated it like a game, but it was still a challenge to find the right buyer and get the best price. But broadband Internet tools are changing this process, and the role of the middleman looks more and more tenuous because of the tools we can use now. Craig's List leverages the broadband Internet and a changing society to put people together, without a lot of hassle or other stuff that gets in the way. Craig understands that a tool should be a tool, it should do what it says it will do, and so he has kept it simple. I'd say the same for Google Search. What gifts to us all. I'm sure that any of you who has had success with Craig's List understands what I mean, and by now, who doesn't get Google? Maybe my experience this week was a fluke, but I consider it yet one more demonstration of the way things will be when we become a digital broadband society, because that's what we are becoming here in Austin, bit by bit. This economic activity had nothing to do with the cost of broadband, but contributed considerably to both my welfare and that of the buyer. We both walked away happy. A frictionless economy and harmonious society are two goals of metropolitan broadband but most of the press wants to talk about "free Wi Fi" and "laptops in the park." I think this story is far more relevant to my happiness, and should be written about a lot more. My next post will be on buying a new car, with the aid of technology, which I need to get to now, or else I'll be walking around the day after Memorial Day, wondering why I sold my car! We have a vast array of new tools at hand, more every day, as the Internet becomes more widely accepted and more tools are invented. And these tools are changing our daily life experience by removing hassles and headaches. Sure, sometimes the tools that are meant to help us bring even more hassle, but yesterday was one of the good days, and it's worth a pause to consider how much has changed, and how much will change in the days to come. Posted on May 26, 2007 at 10:33 AM | Comments (0) From Creative Destruction to Billionaire CreationI've enjoyed writing in the past about Joseph Schumpeter and Creative Destruction - a key aspect of capitalism, which is unique in that under this type of economy and society, we are ever churning and creating new businesses, even as the capitalist economy destroys the old ones. But when I read something like I just read tonight, that academic classic seems somewhat dated. JP Rangaswami, current CIO of Global Services at BT, has a blog, Confused of Calcutta, which I read on occasion. He had a great "musing" that I read tonight that I thought was highly complementary of Schumpeter's work from 40 years ago - updating it somewhat, if you will. The gist is to focus on the creation of great wealth and the value that comes about from the destruction of change and churn. When hardware meant money, there were hardware billionaires. They made money Shifting Tin, and gave software away for free. And one day there wasn't any margin left in hardware. Software ruled. When software meant money, there were software billionaires. They made money Shifting Code, and gave services away for free. And one day there wasn't any margin left in software. Services ruled. When services meant money, there were services billionaires. And so on and so forth. Infrastructure commoditises and is itself commoditised. Otherwise it wouldn't be infrastructure. When you dominate a market, you run the risk of becoming part of the infrastructure, and margins collapse as people look for differentiation beyond that infrastructure. This process of active commoditisation takes place in every economic cycle, changing scarcities to abundances and, in the process, creating new scarcities. The latest scarcity is talent, human ingenuity. Not something that is going to be commoditised in a hurry. Musing about Open Source Billionaires, from Confused of Calcutta, a blog about information With those thoughts in mind, think about the connection between Metropoitan Broadband and Attracting Talent, which I've written a lot about in the past month. If Talent is the current scarcity, then we should all be thinking about how to attract it - that is, if we want to be more competitive. And isn't it elegant to create a new abundance, broadband access, by abolishing a former scarcity with new infrastructure, and in so doing, address this new scarcity, access to talent? Posted on April 28, 2007 at 08:12 PM | Comments (0) Emergent Wisdom for University TownsTowns that have been around for a while are often located in scenic spots - the forefathers had a vast canvas of opportunity on which to paint their new town visions, and more often than not, they picked their sites based on major travel routes, hilltops, rivers, and other scenic beauty. Wouldn't you if you could? The location of San Marcos, established by the founders in the early days of the Texas Republic, is a continuing benefit to their descendants. It sits on the edge of the Balcones Fault, on the road in between Austin and San Antonio, now the I-35 corridor. The fault line thing is important because it cuts through Central Texas like a big gash, from the Northwest to the Southeast - the impact on towns that sit on the edge of the "Hill Country," as we call it, is to divide the town in half: the northwest half of town is hilly and the southeast half is flat. Different soil, different vegetation too. It's the same in Austin, and its quite appealing to the eye. And make no mistake, location is one of the key economic drivers for the future, and it means more today than it ever has. San Marcos has gone from being one of the signs along the highway in between those two large cities, to being smack in the middle of economic growth that is joining those two cities, filling in the gaps as it were. In Austin's sphere of growth more than San Antonio's, San Marcos is an attractive area and can generate its own economic boom with some proactive internal decisions. On the other hand, if it remains impassive, it will grow nevertheless, but in organic fashion, acted on by others. Either way it is going to grow, because of the giants to the north and south. A second element of change, one that all cities face in 2007 and beyond, is the impact of digitization and the Internet. The technology changes that we take for granted in Austin ripple through every city economy today. Those cities that embrace this dynamic landscape first will have a number of advantages over other cities. Those that fail to acknowledge this element of change will inevitably lag behind. Those that have an opportunistic attitude will find ways to benefit while others will be forced to spend more to accommodate the changes, making the changes either neutral or negative in total impact. It just so happens that a subset of cities, those towns that have a university inside them or adjoining them - college towns, we like to call them - have an advantage that non-college towns lack. These towns, both large and small, have a mass of young inquisitive minds (who are also early adopters of technology) and they have a trained faculty and administration who have access to a budget and self-determination. Universities, by and large, are early adopters of wireless mesh networks for their campuses. The key is getting city leaders into harmony with university leaders and transferring some of their experience in networks, to expand that campus network into a city network. It can be done, but it's not easy. Back to San Marcos. The question for these citizens is not if they can fight the changes of this new century, but if they can shape them to conform to their collective vision of their city and region and take advantage of the energy the changes bring to put themselves in an advantaged position. Vision is the essence of leadership. I talk about leadership and vision a lot on these pages, it's one of my favorite topics. But to get to a collective vision requires the community to come together and have a healthy discussion. And there needs to be a sense of urgency around this task, in my opinion, lest the squabbles and disputes of old delay the community in its task and prevent it from influencing inevitable changes. I draw a lot on my own experience with dysfunction. One of the first steps out of an unproductive behavior is to acknowledge that something is wrong and focus attention on fixing the situation. It's important to replace old unhealthy habits with new, healthy ones. In facing change, a city needs to start with an honest internal assessment of what makes it special and what qualities they want to preserve. I believe there's an easy consensus on some of those things in San Marcos, like preserving the San Marcos River. Finding early consensus can generate more consensus and momentum, helping citizens come to see what they have in common and the benefits of working together. Another strength that we see from the outside looking in when looking at San Marcos is the dynamic Texas State University, the largest employer and home to nearly half the city's residents. I think some San Marcos citizens have become blinded over the years to the dynamic potential of this university, and conversely, some at the university underestimate the importance of their surrounding community to their future. This is another area of focus for planning, vision discussions, and consensus building. A city facing change also needs to identify the negatives that will impact growth, the impediments or constraints that hold it back. Again, I think citizens know what they are, but making the constraints explicit will allow all to focus on them. This is one of the hardest conversations to have, and I think most towns just haven't yet had a sustained, honest and explicit conversation to define challenges, rank order them, and have a frank discussion about how best to address them or mitigate their negative aspects. This is where outsiders (consultants) can be a big help, because a third party, not unlike a counselor, can dispassionately walk them through a process to discuss these issues and put them into a context of a bigger picture of growth and the benefits it can bring. But this will be a hard pill to swallow. It's like doing sit-ups: a painful and unpleasant task, but one that provides undeniable benefits if practiced regularly. Wireless broadband comes into this discussion because it offers a focal point for collective visioning discussions that the city needs to have. Such a project can serve as a catalyst for economic and community development. I think bringing a community together and forcing a vision conversation are implicit benefits in some successful projects around the country to date, but that such positive aspects have been largely overlooked and undervalued when bringing a citywide cloud to an area. The citizen stakeholder focus groups, public forums, and press releases about wireless broadband that we have already started in San Marcos provide an opportunity to bring into the discussion some of these other items about the community's vision for the future. We can gently turn the discussion in that direction, if city leaders make a deliberate and conscious effort to bring out these other items. We can gain an extra benefit from listening to each other and exploring these issues while we talk about broadband, but it will be a delicate political task. I'm convinced that harnessing and leveraging the energy and leadership inside universities is the key for college towns like San Marcos. A wireless project puts the university front and center and begs the question of how and if leaders in both the city and the university will place a priority on working together to make change happen. A wireless project will ask that question of the leadership and hopefully provide an answer to benefit the whole community in far-reaching ways. Posted on April 20, 2007 at 07:30 AM | Comments (0) Building Bridges to the FutureI live about a mile from an iconic bridge that arches over beautiful Lake Austin, as Hwy 360 cuts through limestone cliffs and the green links of Austin Country Club lay below on the shores of the lake. A friend has called this highway just west of Austin one of the prettiest stretches in Texas and I can't disagree - click here for some views of the bridge and highway and my neighborhood. It's nice to come home to this. I have a watercolor of that bridge on my living room wall, painted by an artist who specializes in local Austin scenes like this. Spectacular. So as I was writing my last blog, it occurred to me that bridges are not only highly valuable for our physical mobility, but they are also a powerful metaphor as well for how we think about the future. The future is something we need to get to, and for some of us, we need a bridge to get there. Sometimes I think of the future as some distant island, laying out there across the water. On vacation in Kauai a few years ago, you can stand on the beach and see Niihau, another island off in the distance. But without a boat or a bridge, I was left to wonder what it was like over on that island - I could only imagine . Going back to the early 1980s, as a young adult (bum) I lived and worked on a yacht anchored in busy Nassau Harbor in the Bahamas, and the iconic bridge there stretched from New Providence, the big island where Nassau sat, over to Paradise Island, where the casinos and Club Med were. By the way, before the bridge was built, the island was Hog Island, but after the bridge, developers came in and the name changed to Paradise Island. What a difference a name makes! For years the island stood completely undeveloped, its beaches and tropical splendor unnoticed by the world. Suddenly, with the addition of luxurious hotels and a sparkling casino, it was transformed into one of the most glamorous and celebrated resort centers in the world, combining exclusive tranquillity and lots of action. Nassau/Paradise Island - history For the people of the Bahamas, at least when it comes to paradise, the future is what you make of it. They decided that "Hog Island" was not the future they had in mind, but "Paradise Island" was, and they built a bridge to get there. So here in the present, we sit on the shore and wonder what it's like over there, in the future. Our children, the next generation, will get to go across to see what's there, but we won't, not unless the bridge gets built. Technology is one bridge to help us reach the future sooner. Young people who bring innovation and embrace change bring energy to a community and help us reach across the water to the other side. Young people are another bridge to the future. A community can choose to accelerate its progress and bring the future in sooner than it would otherwise come on its own. Few do, however. The bottom line decision for most cities these days is the need to embrace change, which has always been a constant in our lives, but the changes just moved so much slower in earlier times. Technology has put us all on a treadmill that seems to get turned up another notch with each revolution of the Earth around the Sun. Doesn't it seem that changes happen faster now that the Internet is out there? Think about the pace of your own life over the past ten years. I believe this constant ratcheting up of the pace of change causes a sense of disempowerment: what can any of us do in the face of such a phenomenon? Well, some of us check out for the night and tune into Reality TV and the like. But city leaders have a responsibility to their constitutents and they can't check out. They have to pay attention and figure out what to do. And as they ponder, I think they wonder what the impact of these changes will be and how they can build a bridge to the future that will position them with some advantages. We try to imagine the future and make changes now so we're better off - that's what we do with our investments, isn't it? We bet on a future outcome by putting our hard-earned cash in places where we think it will grow fastest. Personally, I'm betting on the future at this time by paying my kids' private school tuition, which eats up money that would otherwise go into other investments. But I'm not complaining, it's a personal choice I make, because we see those two as our own bridges to the future, and I'm not alone in that assessment. Wi Fi Mesh, Municipal Wireless, Metropolitan Broadband ... pick the name, they all imply the same thing, which is another bridge to the future. In this new industry, there is currently a fascination with how the technology works and how it will impact our lives, in much the same way that there was a fascination with how electricity worked, or how the Brooklyn Bridge could be built. Initially, the technology was fascinating, but in time, it faded into the woodwork and we began to assume it was there to stay, and that new invention became another tool to accomplish tasks and make our lives better. That's where we are today, as wireless applications start to enter the conversation in a more serious way. Metropolitan broadband in university towns is a Killer App, because it combines two of the best bridges to the future - youth and technology - and it offers the fastest path for a city looking to get to the other side in a hurry. Efforts in this regard will pay a handsome return on investment, because they will let those early investors see what is on that island called the future, in advance of competing cities and regions, and they will have a head start in this very competitive race we call Economic Development. Once this wireless broadband network is in place in San Marcos, home of Texas State University, where I've been spending most of my time lately, we'll all get to start using it for new and excting things, and watching that happen will be like looking into the future of the rest of the country and the world. And that, my friends, is what I call a competitive advantage. Posted on April 19, 2007 at 04:22 PM | Comments (0) Chasing the Key Demographic for a Sustainable FutureWhat will it take for your city to attract and retain more young talent? Do you even want to go to the trouble to do so? Were you even aware that there is gold in keeping your youth at home, or in attracting dynamic young workers to town? I think the smart city leaders will spend a lot of time pondering this one, and here's why: Young people, smart young people, understand technology and innovation, are in touch with the marketplace of new ideas, and they bring tremendous amounts of energy and excitement to a city, and their presence attracts even more of the same - the definition of sustainability. That's the message of Richard Florida's work (see Wi Fi Mesh + the Birds and the Bees = Creative Class Attraction): young people like to live and work where there are exciting and stimulating activies, rich and diverse job opportunities, other young people, friendly people, and ... drum roll here ... a technology rich environment like what metropolitan broadband and widely availabile Wi Fi bring - Florida describes it more succinctly as the Three Ts: Talent, Technology, and Tolerance. I can offer a more succinct example based on my own experience within my church community, a microcosm if you will to demonstrate the value of the youth demographic to a community's future. Every church struggles with growth - they are all in competition for a portion of the population; they can grow by winning over new members from other churches or by active recruitment of the 'non-churched." I've been a member of my small neighborhood Episcopal church in South Austin for about 18 years, and a leader off and on during that time. Most members are called on to be leaders at some point or another. Ten years ago, one Sunday morning in 1997, it was my Sunday to usher, so there I was, standing in the back of the church listening to a visiting bishop talk to the congregation about the diocesan goal to grow the diocese by an impressive amount. At the time, we had a small congregation in our neighborhood church with an aging population. Some of the founders from the 1950s were still in attendance, but the dominant demographic were parents and grandparents who had joined in the 1960s and 1970s. There was a smattering of families with young children, including my own, who attended on a regular basis. While the church seats a little over 200 when full, the pews were only half-full that day, with average attendance hovering somewhere over 100, in a single 10:00 am service. Growth was less of an issue to the congregation than the comfort of a community where we all knew and cared for each other. Were we really ready for this message of growth? As we all do, I interpret the world based on my own experience. As I listened to the bishop, I couldn't help but reflect on my family's experience. With two small children under the age of 3, we were wavering as members of the church. We loved the community, but the accommodations were terrible for a young family with babies. My wife changed diapers either on the floor of the church office or out in the car. She nursed our kids - try telling a crying infant to "wait till we get home" - in the only private place available - again, out in our car, with the engine running so that she had air conditioning. Fresh out of graduate business school, I reasoned that if our church community were to take on the challenge of the bishop and grow, it would need to decide what it wanted to be - a "business plan" - and it would need a marketing strategy. As it was, it had grown somewhat comfortable with itself and was a really good church for the old-timers, but not such a good environment for newcomers, especially newcomers with young children. Lesson One: The beginning of a solution is an honest assessment of the problem and a willingness to take action to pursue the solution. If it wanted to recruit more of the older set, to continue the prevailing trend, as it were, it could spend a lot of energy to do so, but the new recruits would not add anything new. It made more sense to recruit younger folks for a sustaining strategy, but to do so, the community would need to make some changes to be more welcoming to that group. For young couples in our situation, who so desperately want to be a part of a welcoming church community during such a trying time in life, also have to face the fact that they need a good fit for their special needs on a Sunday morning, so they select based on their particular needs. Lesson Two: Time spent in crafting the strategy that fits best is not wasted time, but an investment in bettering the odds for success. We decided to take on the challenge to stimulate change in OUR church rather than leave and find a more accommodating church. I wrote a memo to the new rector suggesting a strategy to recruit young familes with children. We organized a group - the existing 10 families with young children - and gave it a name: "Young Families" (clever, huh), and designed a pretty simple strategy. We added diaper changing platforms in each bathroom and pooled our money to buy a glider (fancy rocking chair) for the church library, where a mother could close the door for privacy in nursing. We set up a monthly "parent's night out" with group babysitting and staged a few seasonal group events. That was all it took for community to begin to form and for young families to find our church. Lesson Three: Start simple and focus on making important, often simple changes to make a more welcoming environment to generate success and build momentum that will energize your community to take on more change. Ten years later, as we look back, that group has become a sustaining force for growth in our community. To accommodate the growth from this group and others, we had to shift to a 9:00 and 11:00 service schedule, and now average attendance is approaching 300. The "young family" demographic has become the dominant demographic in our church, having grown to more than 60 famillies. And the new families that have joined populate the ranks of our committees and church groups. Lesson Four: Community formation is a conscious activity that requires a deliberate strategy and focus, but once started, community activity is contagious and generates energy. We recognized that people go where their needs are met, they go where they feel welcomed, and they go where there is a community of like persons, because humans are social creatures. And young people, with their whole lives in front of them, realize that their choices of location and association are strategic decisions that greatly affect their lives and futures. Lesson Five: To attract a targeted demographic, spend time to understand their needs and then create the conditions that will attract or retain them - the underlying infrastructure is a good place to start. At St. Mark's, we focused on foundational infrastructure, in our own simple way. We addressed the immediate concerns - diaper changing and nursing on a Sunday morning - as well as the longer term: community formation and socialization with "parent nights out" and what were in effect community support groups. The result was a clear signal to visiting young families that this church had a welcoming environment where their investment of time, energy, and money would provide a sustainable return and would prove a good investment. Lesson Six: Keep it Simple and focus on opportunities to create synergy and socially reinforcing behavior patterns, and work together as a community. Every church community (and every town) has a certain set of characteristics that makes it special and unique. But without a strategy and a shared sense of purpose among the community, the odds of that special-ness translating into solid economic growth are slim to none. Lesson Seven: To stand out and enjoy sustainable growth in the highly competitive 21st Century, a community needs leadership, initiatiive, a business plan and strategy, commitment, and mobilization of all the resources in the community. Epilogue: Several years ago, I was part of a delegation from our church asked to attend a diocesan retreat to discuss growth; we had been identified as a parish with best practices. Indeed, I think we have one of the healthiest community environments around, thanks to our pulling together when it mattered. Community formation and sustainable growth don't just happen on their own, you have to make them happen. And these days when it comes to communities and sustainable growth strategies, I'm with Richard Florida: the keys to that future are found in defined strategies that foster an environment of Talent, Technology, and Tolerance. Posted on April 14, 2007 at 08:51 AM | Comments (0) Living for Today, Leading for TomorrowLeadership is a curious thing. Some leaders are born into the role, others acquire the skills over time, and still others find themselves thrust into a position of leadership because of events beyond their control. Leaders in cities and communities come from all walks of life. Don't be fooled by official titles. Leadership comes officially from the top down - from the mayor and city manager, from the university president and the school district superintendant - and unoffiically from the bottom up, from motivated university students and faculty, from city workers who realize there is a better way and that they're empowered to make a positive change, from citizen activists who step up to promote positive change in the community. I finally got up the gumption to watch United 93 tonight with my wife, the film about the everyday people who became heroes and leaders, as they stepped up to take back their plane that had been hijacked by the 9/11 terrorists. Their plane ultimately crashed into a field in Pennsylvania, instead of its intended target: the US Capitol. They didn't survive their ordeal, but those brave individuals took on the difficult role of leadership when it was thrust upon them and acted with dispatch to do what needed to be done. The nature of leadership is taking charge when the situation demands it - of one's own life, one's situation, a needed effort - leaders take charge and motivate others with a common, inspiring vision. They show the way forward. They do what is necessary and what is right. This movie shows us that leadership potential is imbedded in all of us - the key is stepping up and accepting the necessary role that is presented. It was difficult to watch this movie, but I'm glad I did, and I urge you to rent the DVD and watch it yourself. A clear message of the film, besides the sacrifice and leadership those heroes demonstrated, is the fragile nature of our lives and the idea that we should live each day as if it were our last, because it may be. It sounds trite and appears a cliche, but, hey, it's true. I was struck by the expressions of love by those hijacked in their last moments, as well. We just don't know when it will all end. I think that when one strives to live each day that way, as hard as that is to do, it becomes easier to step up and take the mantle of leadership. In the end, why not be a leader? What does one have to lose? Leadership, when it's needed, when it's based on principles, is about doing the right thing, with an eye to what's important and a singular vision and a goal, and a willingness to act. Posted on April 11, 2007 at 11:41 PM | Comments (0) What's in a Name? A Lot, if it Signifies an Attitude and an ApproachThe IT Director or CIO of a mid-sized city has a daunting task. He/she must work within a limited budget with limited means in order to manage an evolving job description with evolving tools, for a client base not entirely sure what it is they really want. Make no mistake, in these days and times, public sector budgets ARE limited, but the tasks are expanding, especially in areas of high growth. Such is the nature of the beast when it comes to managing High Tech in 2007. And public sector IT managers do all of this under the scrutiny of a demanding public, a sometimes entrenched bureaucracy, and a political environment that can turn reality on its head in its worst moments. An ISP representative told me yesterday that once a City Council member told them he was going to oppose the city's wireless project - for the simple reason that the mayor supported it - and he always OPPOSED EVERYTHING the mayor supported, as a matter of principle! Insanity Rules. Why bother to work in such an environment? Because service in the public sector is fundamentally a noble cause, and in particular, service in applying technology to the tasks of the public sector is increasingly an enjoyable challenge. People that do this job do it for more than the money, it's more than a job, it's a mission. The advent of Metropolitan Broadband networks changes the environmental dynamic of the city IT Director or CIO, making their job both bigger and ultimately, easier. Now their task of using high technology to help city departments accomplish their goals can use the same infrastructure that the rest of the city will use for other tasks. Do we talk about city streets as a private network that is there to get city workers around to accomplish their city tasks? Is the electric grid a private network? Indeed, city streets and electric grids are apt metaphors for the city Local Area Network (LAN) that is used as a shared common infrastructure. So, imagine this paradigm shift driven by a simple name change. What if we look at a Metropolitan Broadband Network not as an IT Project led by the IT team, with backing from city government leaders, to accomplish the laudable city goals of more efficient city government? What if instead we start of thinking of the task as a Community and Economic Development Project, led by a cross-section of government, business, and community leaders, to provide not only efficient city government, but also widespread access to broadband for all citizens, as well as long-term, sustainable economic development? Now the perspective shifts, and the IT Director / CIO becomes a leader and technology adviser to a much broader project, and one member of a much larger team. MetroNetIQ is using just such a shift in focus to give a new perspective to metropolitan broadband projects. There are trade-offs that come with this shift, but they are worth it. The project will take longer and will have more up-front expenses. But it is likely to turn out better in the end and pay long-term dividends. As we begin to understand better the nature of deploying a citywide common broadband infrastructure, it makes sense to incorporate lessons learned from earlier projects and challenge the assumptions that developed in the early years. Let me detail briefly some of the benefits that flow from this paradigm shift. First, a community that works well together can accomplish anything. When a community is united behind a common goal and a compelling vision, it leaves behind the rancor and disagreement that can become a habit and paralyze a less unified city. There will still be rumblings and eruptions of discord from the disaffected minority, and the road may be bumpy, but such disturbances will pale in comparison to the unified voice of the majority, no longer silent. When a community starts listening to each other, acknowledging the views and opinions of all groups and focusing on the future and its children, dreaming of a possible new future in the 21st Century, a spirit of hope begins to define its vision, and good will creeps back in - it starts to feel like a community again instead of a city, and there is a signficant difference in that name change. Second, beginning with an orientation to consensus and a deliberate sense of purpose innoculates the project and its leaders from a potential political hijacking down the road by an opportunist when the project hits a snag, as they all will at some point. Politics can turn these projects into inspiring political visions or damaging political fights. When a broad majority of the community understands and supports the project, it becomes bullet proof to negativity. The political aspect of these projects should not be minimized; going in with one's eyes wide open with a strategy for addressing potential problems is a sign of good leadership. Finally, these projects often end up in different places than they intended, as they take the community into new and positive directions. They start off with a vision and a set of objectives and goals, like all good projects, but they inevitably morph as new discoveries are made and advances in technology open up new possibilities. By starting off with an inclusive attitude and an open mind, inviting in all stakeholders to participate in what is in essence a grand experiment in leveraging technology for a better society, project leaders acknowledge what we have learned in the past three years: one rarely ends up where one was pointed when one began one's project. The reason is not poor project management, it is the very plastic nature of this broadband infrastructure that allows it to be turned to so many ends by so many people. Last night at the Men's Group monthly dinner at my church, we had a lively discussion about the past and how these metropolitan broadband projects compare to the advent of electricity in the early part of the 20th Century. The older men reflected on their early childhoods in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s. They could recall visiting their grandparents in the summer, and the excitement that filled the air when the small town out in the country watched as high-voltage wires were mounted on towers and they approached the town. There was a buzz in the air that these elderly gentlemen remembered - not from the electricity on the lines, but from the prospect of leaving behind the back-breaking work of hauling water from the well, and the tedious task of cleaning kerosene lanterns and trimming wicks, mundane tasks that often fell to the children. Finally getting the benefits of modern life that city dwellers had grown accustomed to years before, these townspeople understood that electricity was their future. With metropolitan broadband coming to our mid-sized cities, the impact may well be less dramatic in this more modern age. But our children today are likely to look back and remember how bringing a citywide broadband network to town had a more far-reaching impact than the leaders of the time could have begun to imagine without the benefit of hindsight. Metropolitan broadband is rapidly becoming the essential utility of the 21st Century, not unlike the way that electricity ultimately became the essential utilitiy of the 20th Century. Energy and Information are the two fundamental qualities of life, so the infrastructure that brings them into a community should not be underestimated or delayed. Imagining this change as a shared responsibility of all community stakeholders, not just the city's IT Department, is a first step in making this vision a reality. This name change implies a different, more expansive vision, where the metropolitan broadband project becomes a community-wide project, not a limited IT project for better city government. While efficient city government is a laudable goal, keeping the project bottled up in city government limits its potential and raises unnecessary risks. Better to move slower, give up some control, but in so doing, share the project's glory and spread the project's risk with the community at large. Posted on April 10, 2007 at 07:24 AM | Comments (0) Nature Abhors a Vacuum, so does Capitalism...the idea of "Nature abhors a vacuum" came from the ancient Greeks ...In a letter to a friend, Descartes said Pascal had "too much vacuum in his head." from a website titled, "Pascal's Triangle: From Top to Bottom" The website above is a great example of the abundance of bizarre webstes there are out there - who knew Pascal and Descartes had this personal-conflict thing going on? I never cease to be amazed to see where I end up when I Google a term. How strange! "Nature Abhors a Vacuum" highlights the connection between the order of natural laws and the changing order we see happening in the business world - in our capitalist society, there is churn, as highlighted in my last post. One could just as well say, "a capitalist economy abhors a vacuum," and indeed, I believe it has been said. Problems beg solutions, and new problems beg new, innovative solutions. This came up in conversation today, as I tried to explain the potential future of a community after a metropolitan broadband network is deployed. In nature, a dramatic change in the environment creates openings for new species to come in and exploit. And so it goes in business. A metropolitan broadband network creates a new playing field, reshuffling the deck as it were. This dynamic restructuring of the local market place and the new infrastructure combine to open up the local economy to new web-based service models and businesses. Get ready. In nature, we see regional ecosystems where every species has a place in the food chain and in the natural order of things. Nature enjoys harmony and balance, but when there is a new niche to be filled, plant and animal species rush in to find a way to fill it. In fact, there's a term that describes the occurence of different creatures that all fill roles in an ecosystem: "Species Diversity." Nature abhors a vacuum, indeed. Two hundred years ago, biologists of the day spent their time marvelling at the variety of birds and insects, cataloguing them, but not able to explain WHY there were so many different species. That is, until Darwin came along with his revolutionary theory, and his groundbreaking book, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" in 1859. They ate it up. We tend to think of the modern controversies regarding evolution, creationism, and natural selection when we think of Darwin, but HIS big motivator at the time he wrote his book wasn't to upset the apple cart of society, but to explain his observations on why he thought there was so much diversity of species in nature. There's no doubt we have an abundance of business "species" to fill the niches in our national economy. But at the micro-level, local economies can suffer from a lack of diversity and struggle to get out of a hole. Watch these new metropolitan broadband networks in the next five years, especially in cities that have a preponderance of one or two types of jobs. There will be new businesses, new products, and new services that will move in to the fresh economic territory created by the networks. They will arise to take advantage of the new capabilities of these metropolitan networks. Beyond their original intentions with these networks, cities will come to appreciate the economic diversity these networks bring. As a footnote, for my friends at Texas State University, check out the taxonomy of the Bobcat, another bit of "Google Serendipity" I found while surfing.... Posted on April 07, 2007 at 04:34 PM | Comments (0) Small is Good, Simple is BetterThis is what gives the Internet its vitality. Complexity is a barrier to entry and simplicity, with the ability to survive mistakes allows experimentation and discovery. The Web was created by one guy in a basement trying out an idea. One of millions - and it is only a hint of what is to come. Bob Frankston, from his comments in the Broadband Connectivity Competition Policy Workshop (Feb 25, 2007) What if high-speed Internet went everywhere you went? That, Bob Frankston argues, is the real future and next evolutionary step of the Internet, not broadband! Making access speeds faster and faster, but keeping its distribution limited to where it already is, serves the existing incumbents, but doesn't serve society. It's an intriguing argument, counter to the agenda of the reigning telecom, cable, and government elites. To maintain their business model, Frankston says, large broadband providers require continuing protection from the FCC and the government, thus their devotion of tremendous resources to lobby state and federal governments and maintain the status quo. The value of municipal wireless is that it is a relatively cheap, modular, and functional technology that fosters experimentation and learning and challenges the prevailing wisdom. It's good enough to provide basic connectivity, so it's available for cities to experiment with. That's the origin of my catchphrase: "Small is Good, Simple is Better." I believe that small cities are a key to unlocking the secrets as well, because this experimentation is more likely to happen where the motivation is strongest, out in the sticks in Small Town, Rural America. In the face of rapidly changing technology, it makes sense to engage in a massive amount of rapid experiments, which provide lessons to all of us and move an entire industry forward. Rather than make very large experiments that unfold very slowly (e.g., Verizon's fiber roll outs) in urban areas that already have decent connectivity options, large numbers of cities can deploy numerous Hot Zones using a variety of combinations of technologies and then provide feedback to each other for the development of an alternate telecom paradigm, based on a very large number of self-empowered, open-minded emergent laboratories. By keeping the deployments small, rapid deployment becomes possible. By keeping network design and objectives simple, we can isolate what goes wrong and improve on the process in the next round of deployments. It's as if we all were research scientists. But Small and Simple runs counter to what you will hear when you watch an ATT advertisement, where they will tell you that because telecom is so complex, you need a very large - global- company to manage it. What the heck, I'd do the same thing if I were ATT, it's their best argument to play to their strengths and highlight what makes them different. As rational as that is for ATT, it's not the direction that technological change points us to, according to Frankston. Frankston argues that an alternate paradigm is to leverage new network technologies to make telecom distributed and locally controlled, in order to keep it simple and spread it everywhere very fast. With that approach, you don't need the size and capital of telecom companies. You let the technologies of the Internet and the very nature of networking work their magic. He says that telecom companies control the industry so it will evolve in a way that favors their continued dominance. It's a powerful argument, but one that requires you to throw away much of the dogma that you grew up with. Imagine if we all paid low, low rates for broadband access? In fact, what if the rates were so low that they could be disregarded, covered by corporate sponsors and advertising? The practical person would object, saying that somebody has to pay for all that infrastructure. Sure, there is an initial capital bump, Frankston acknowledges, but the new paradigm eliminates the massive amounts of service fees we all pay - check your monthly telecom bill - and that would free up tremendous budget for consumers to spend on what they really want - applications and content. It's a redistribution of spending, and that is my long-term vision for telecommunciations and metropolitan broadband. I think that there will be some telecoms that get this, probably the smaller, more motivated companies. It's refreshing to read Bob Frankston's long-form commentary, if mind-boggling and a little daunting, because he says much the same thing in his commentary available by clicking here. Before you stop reading because I must be insane, I urge you to follow through and read this essay, but leave your assumptions about some of your most fundamental beliefs on hold for a while - suspend your disbelief - because this is what Municipal Wireless is really good for - to challenge the prevailing conventional wisdom, which has the impact of pushing out the envelope for all of us and opening up new possibilities. But be sure you're able to concentrate when you take on this task, because even though Bob writes well, he takes the reader on a long tour. It's fascinating to look at the telecom world through his perspective, because for him, a pioneer in computers and networking, what a long strange trip it must have been. He highlights new technologies and the wonder of the Internet, which demand a new paradigm. Following that thread, he declaims the very need for telecommunications companies, which rely on government-enforced scarcity to keep service revenues high, to maintain their large infrastructures and expensive business models. They say - "if you want us to build the new broadband infrastructure, we need incentives in the form of market protection to continue our revenue streams, so we can raise and spend the billions of dollars that will be necessary." An alternate approach is to try another way and let the market drive us to the best solution. Let's not put all of our eggs in one basket. It was a similar argument that led to the creation of the public power industry in the early parts of the 20th Century. President Franklin Roosevelt's admiinistration fostered the development of public power in part to prevent private entitites from capturing control of all our nation's rivers, which would then be used to generate cheap hydropower. They also wanted the government to have insider access to the true costs of producing electricity, to ensure that large private companies didn't charge too much money to the detriment of consumer interests. Local governments today can provide the same countering balance of consumer protection from large broadband providers with municipal wireless. To many, this must seem a heresy, but Frankston challenges us all to think in new ways about how we communicate, given the amazing potential of the Internet and the rapid pace of change in the technology world. It's the 21st Century, after all. Time to put on your thinking cap and Open Your Mind to New Possibilities. Long live diversity, new frontiers, and the free market! Posted on March 03, 2007 at 07:13 AM | Comments (0) Meet MetroNetIQ, Raise Your Network IQ, Feed Your HeadIn a couple of days, I'll be hitting the highway, driving up to Dallas to attend the MuniWireless Texas 07 Conference. I've been focusing on local business in Central Texas for the past year, so I've been off the conference circuit since last year's Digital Cities in Houston in March. Hard to believe that it's been a year since then. I'm looking forward to the conference: it has a good agenda of events, and there is some excitement in the air this year about municipal wireless ... and, it will be nice to see all my old friends and associates in this little industry. Blogger's Oath Aware that I'll meet new people, hopefully lots of city officials ready to kick off a project, I thought I would cull some of my best material for those readers who may be hitting this website for the first time. Here's my informal Best of MetroNetIQ below. There are over 400 posts on this blog, so this is but a sample, but if you just check these out, you should enjoy the conference more. So scan these items to get a quick grasp of municipal wireless issues and other deep stuff. I urge you to check out the START HERE!! sections on either side of the website homepage. These will give you a quick overview of the website, and then you can just hop around. There's a lot to keep you busy! Check out this document first, which provides a good overview of the industry and the value propostion of municipal wireless: MetroNetIQ Explains Metropolitan Broadband. To understand the potential of radio and wireless in general, I'm particularly fond of this whitepaper from Kevin Werbach, a former senior staffer with the FCC, entitled Radio Revolution. You will be a genius on the arcane aspects of wireless after you digest this, making you very impressive at cocktail parties! Meet new friends and influence people with your newfound knowledge of radio spectrum! This whitepaper written nearly two years ago provides my analysis of the structural changes in our economy and in telecommunications in tthe past few years, which are driving new opportunities like municipal wireless: UnwireMyCity on Structural Change I especially like this Planning Document post - Planning and Engagement: A MetroNet in Ten Easy Steps - written nearly two years ago, but updated February 5, 2006. It provides these 10+2 steps for would-be MetroNet city officials to kick off a MetroNet project. 1. Get informed on metropolitan broadband technology options. Next, I recommend this post from September 2005, What's In Store for Community Broadband?, which covers my keynote address at a PTI seminar on Wireless and has my assessment of Why and How Community Broadband will happen. Check it out 18 months later and see how accurate I was. You can access the Powerpoint slides and text here as well. Stay tuned and read my coverage of the upcoming conference, and if you want to talk about getting a network started in your town, drop me a line by clicking here! Posted on March 02, 2007 at 04:36 PM | Comments (0) A River Runs Through ItBenchmarking Box Every city now aspires to be the next Silicon Valley. The motivation is obvious. As Pittsburgh has learned, high tech startups experience two-and-a-half times the job growth of existing companies. And high tech employment pays 50 per cent more than average work. But while many localities pursue this Holy Grail, few are likely to succeed. And in this national competition, Pittsburgh trails many comparably-sized cities. Steel Town to Tech Town: The Metromorphosis of America - Council on Foreign Relations "What do you want to be when you grow up?" This was a common, even serious question when I was young, but today it carries a note of irony, because I am grown up. In fact, I'm "way grown up," turning 50 next year. And now that I'm grown up, I realize that that is one question that never really get's answered. "Growing Up" is a process and a journey, maturing is what we do as adults, as we remake ourselves, over and over again. Sure we are different people at 20 and at 50, but the real challenge is to be different at 40 and at 45 and at 50. Those of us lucky enough to realize this secret don't stop growing up, we grow up purposely and aggressively, readily taking on new challenges and acquiring new skills, because like sharks, if we stop moving, we die. That's the rule of the jungle in this 21st Century, when technology-driven change and innovation, globalization, and ever-increasing competition transform our environment at an increasing pace. We have to change and adapt to our environments, or else we fall behind. I've been thinking a lot lately about how cities are like people, with personalities and attitudes and characters all their own, unique to themselves. It's a helpful analogy. And I've been thinking about change in my own life, how I can get stuck, and how it's often a catalyst, from an illness or injury, an (unwanted) change in employment circumstance, or a family disturbance that forces me to change, reluctantly, and on later reflection I realize that the change was just what I needed, but that I also needed a whack upside the head to get me to change. So what leads a city to change? Similarly, its often a crisis of some sort. What was working before no longer works. Often, actual physical change in a city is preceded by political change in response to some unsolved problem. I've been thinking about how a municipal wireless project can help a city to transform itself. Many cities, the most attractive ones in particular, have a river running through them. It's no coincidence, because in the past when cities formed, a river was generally the preferred means of transportation and it also provided water and sustenance. Many cities with the most promise have purposefully highlighted this historical amenity and turned it into green space and a focal point. They're blessed with a certain beauty that cities lacking a river don't enjoy. A river is a great metaphor for change as well. Like time, a river flows, and the river is never the same, from moment to moment. Our lives, and the lives of the cities we live in, flow like a river, and they're never the same, from moment to moment. The question for all of us, especially poignant as this old year winds down and the new one revs up, is this: " Does change happen in my life TO ME, where I am passively watching the river flow, or does it happen BY ME, where I actively control the flow and determine its direction? Are you an agent of change in your own life? in the life of your city? That's the question we all should be asking, and especially that city leaders should be asking. And if they're not asking that question in your city, perhaps you should start asking it, and see what kind of response you get. That will tell you a lot about your city's leadership. It will also help you to determine what you can do personally to make things better. I you'd like to talk more about how starting a metropolitan broadband project can be a means to force a dialogue on that question, drop me a line, because I've realized this past year that the principal benefit of a municipal wireless project just may be that it shakes things up and by asking questions about the future and challenging the status quo, it acts as a catalyst for change. Even a burr under the saddle can be worthwhile, and these projects can be as disruptive as you want them to be. A well-managed project has a way of asking all sorts of questions that challenge the status quo in a healthy manner, not only making the comfortable uncomfortable, but also benefiting the entire city and all of its citizens. Uncomfortable change often accompanies growth. Just think of what a caterpillar goes through to become a butterfly. It may be time for your city to pick up the pace and start growing up, again, so it can find out what it will be when it grows up. Posted on December 28, 2006 at 06:40 AM | Comments (0) Wireless Mesh: To Tell The Truth"Sliced Bread?" "Little Black Dress?" "Duct Tape?" "Humbug?" These days, its hard to know whom to believe. Personally, untiil I've done my homework on a subject and/or gotten to know someone as a person, I hone to "In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash." So what to make of this still relatively new wireless mesh technology that has enabled this upstart new industry known as Municipal Wireless and/or Metropolitan Broadband? I'm reminded of the old To Tell The Truth TV series - this is dating me - where the contestant had to pick the original from the other two imposters, by asking questions and discerning which ones were bluffing. So which identity holds for municipal wireless, more particularly, wireless mesh technology? Is mesh the best things since sliced bread? A foundation like a little black dress? A highly versatile and cheap tool like duct tape? Or is it a humbug / charlatan / poseur? On one extreme in this industry, promoters would have you believe that a wireless mesh is "All That," "the greatest thing since sliced bread." It can replace DSL and cable broadband, as well as cellular data, and even landline telephony. That position would be what I would call "a stretch." There is plenty of hyperbole out there, and the "All That" pitch should be seen for what it is, optimistic exageration to promote a new technology and solution. On the other extreme in this industry, we find detractors who declaim wireless mesh because 1) its running on unlicensed spectrum and there's no option to overcrowding; 2) it has inherent insecurities, because it's wireless and open; 3) it's insufficiently powered to overcome noise in the RF environment; and 4) with its multiple nodes, its still way too expensive to be a competitive solution. These are just a few of the objections we hear from skeptical audiences, and they too are exageration, but of the pessimistic variety, intended to delay or put off a decision to go down this path, for a variety of reasons, some well intentioned and others not so much. And what about the "little black dress"? OK - let's be up front here - when I open a blog with a reference to fashion, you know I'm going out on a limb ... you can tell how fashion conscious I am by the row of khaki pants in my closet. I'm not. But I've heard my wife and other ladies reference the little black dress as a must-have foundational item in a woman's wardrobe, good for so many occasions. Well, that does it, that about sums up what I know about women's fashion. Now duct tape - or perhaps"duck" tape to you - that's a subject I can get wrapped around, so to speak. Was there ever a more utilitarian product put up on a shelf? Running out of duct tape is unthinkable in our house. Re the Apollo 13 disaster, duct tape played a key role: Ed Smylie, one of the NASA mission control engineers who designed the scrubber modification in just two days, said later that he knew the problem was solvable when it was confirmed that duct tape was on the spacecraft: "I felt like we were home free" he said in 2005. "One thing a Southern boy will never say is 'I don't think duct tape will fix it.'" Wikipedia on "Duct Tape" So what, you may ask, could wireless mesh possibly have to do with a woman's wardrobe or a hardware product, like duct tape? Is wireless a fashion statement? Is wireless a mere tool in a toolbox? Is it something that makes you feel good when you put it on? Does it solve an immediate problem, quickly, at least for now? Well, the answer to all of these questions is "Yes," but as the speaker often tells me when I respond to one of their questions for the audience, "That's a great answer, but not exactly what I'm looking for." As usual, the truth lies somewhere in the middle of these two extremes, even between the black dress and the duct tape. And that's where I tend to gravitate, to the middle. But first, let's debunk the two imposters on the extremes. Wireless Mesh is not "All That." It does not provide the same throughput as fiber, yet. It is subject to interference as a wireless technology. If cheap DSL is available, that's probably a more attractive consumer option. Neither is Wireless Mesh a humbug , a fraud if you will. "Humbug" is such a good, but archaic word. I like the reference to "Humbug" in Wizard of Oz, when Dorothy castigates the Wizard as a fraud on getting a peek behind the proverbial curtain. So beware of those who would tear down what wireless mesh offers without offering you an alternative, more competitive solution. Often the bottom-line of their argument is "I don't know what the answer is, but I know its not Wi Fi." In other words, they're saying "Wait and tolerate your current solution," and for many that is no alternative at all. Don't let negativists rain on your parade, or spoil your Christmas like Scrooge would do, with a curt dismissal and a I can attest what I see in Wireless Mesh, what it is to me. You draw your own conclusions. I trust this technology, this new tool, for what it offers right now. A wireless mesh can become a foundational element of a city's communication infrastructure, like a little black dress. It can also become an answer for what ails you right now and into the near term (next few years), like duct tape. The presence of a wireless mesh network enables so many things for a city, and it can take the city in so many directions. Its ultmate value depends on your situation and your imagination. Want new police applications for improved public safety? A wireless mesh will make selecting applications that much easier. Want an automated meter reading system? Start with a wireless mesh network and you won't be disappointed. How about a parking meter overhaul, or improved traffic lights? Again, the wireless mesh network is your starting point. Need to lower broadband rates and stimulate your local economy? Mesh is looking more and more attractive to accomplish that. A municipal wireless system is a highly versatile tool for a city that can be what you need. It's a general purpose system that can enable specific applications that would be out of reach but for an affordable communications infrastructure. So as usual, simple answers elude us. The answer to the question "Is a wireless mesh network right for me, at this time?" is more complex than either polar argument would lead you to believe. The answer is "It depends," and it depends on what you want to use it for, how urgent your situation is, how compelling the solution that depends on the network, and the out-of-pocket expense. To answer these questions, you are going to have to roll up your sleeves and do some homework. The alternative is to buy in to one of the extreme positions, which like most quick and simple short term decisions, will leave you disappointed in the longer term. Municipal Wireless technologies do present a useful solution for many, making them worth a longer look before jumping in on a pitch or writing off a proposal. So, roll up your sleeves, and get busy on finding some answers - you could be missing an answer to your problems. Why stay stuck where you are? You can do better, start today to give your collective imagination a work out, to learn more - initiate an investigative project in your town. A better future awaits any one of us when we get busy and start working together, focused on the best that is yet to come. Let faith and knowledge drive your decisions, not fear and ignorance. And what better time to turn over a new leaf and start a new project than at the New Year? Happy Holidays and Happy New Year to you, my unknown but beloved readers. May the New Year lead you and your community to a call to action that will bring better times for all! And who knows, maybe that package way back there, under the tree, almost hidden by that low branch and so overlooked...maybe that package is your own little black dress or roll of duct tape, a versatile gift from Santa, just what you've been looking for... Posted on December 15, 2006 at 11:00 AM | Comments (0) Wi Fi Mesh + the Birds and the Bees = Creative Class AttractionIn this early stage of metropolitan broadband and municipal wireless industry development, most attention has been focused on such practical mobile application benefits as more cost effective public safety and city services, as well as the social equity of ubiquitous and affordable access to broadband, AKA Digital Inclusion (formerly "Digital Divide"). While these two principal benefits will remain stalwarts in the Benefits Argument made by proponents of Municipal Wireless, there's a new horse I see coming up fast in the outside lane: Economic Development and Regional Competitiveness. Let me explain. In nature, the battle to attract is well-known. Whether it's flowers attracting bees with colorful displays so that their pollen can be picked up and transferred to other flowers, or bucks attracting does with massive racks, peacocks attracting pea hens with massive tail feathers, or babes attracting dudes with hundreds of dollars spent on Jazzercize, sexy red dresses, makeup, perfume, and highlights and permanent curls, the Art of Attraction is alive and well in our modern biological world of competition for resources and success. Cities fit in this model as well, with the most successful giving considerable thought to highlighting what makes them attractive and different, what makes them appealing, and then executing on strategies to promote their cities as viable sites for relocation and development. For many cities, 2007 will be the year when they realize they can deploy a Hot Zone or even a city-wide network, and use that new asset as the basis of an economic development campaign to recruit companies and individuals. According to this recent article in the New York Times Cities Compete in Hipness Battle to Attract Young, cities are in a pitched battle to attract not only companies and employers, but they are also waging a new battle to attract young knowledgable workers, representatives of the "Creative Class" a demographic category (and new budding one-man industry, by the way) touted by economic development rock-star Richard Florida, formerly of Carnegie Mellon and now at George Mason University and author of the 21st Century Economic Development bible The Rise of the Creative Class and his more recent Cities and the Creative Class, followed by The Flight of the Creative Class. (Watch the Books and Whitepapers section on this website, where I'll add reviews of these best-selling books by Richard Florida, which I consider valuable reading for any student of metropolitan broadband). Attracting factories, manufacturing plants, corporate headquarters, data centers, and other major employers is old school Eco Dev, the bread and butter of regional competitiveness, and it has not gone away, not by a long shot. It's just been added to, one-upped, first by such cultural amenities as sports franchises, museums and art galleries, and more recently by newer cultural amenities like hiking and bike trails, skate parks, live music venues, all amenities that appeal to the younger more active set of knowledge workers we can refer to, with a nod to Florida, as "Young Creatives." And next on the menu of cultural amenities, so goes my argument, are wireless mesh Hot Zones and city-wide wireless networks. The benefit of these assets is that they are highly versatile. Not only is a ubiquitous wireless broadband network a practical means to support the more mundane aspects of city government service delivery, such as mobile data access, sensory device support, and public safety and disaster response. That same network is also a means to attract companies and individuals who have come to acknowledge broadband as a new utility, as vital as electricity and telephony, and in some cases more important than television or film as an entertainment medium. It's a one-two Economic Development punch: efficient city government AND attractive social amenities. The trend line is apparent if you just look. Business enterprises deployed internal wireless LANs to support more efficient business practice and early adopter consumers purchased Wi Fi access points to network their home environments as price points declined. Soon, coffee shops, hotel lobbies, and airport terminals adopted small wireless Hot Spots as a strategy to attract and retain laptop-toting guests. Then began the move outdoors. Almost behind the scenes, college towns around the US saw small campuses become early adopters of wireless mesh zones and Wi Fi technology, promoting a services hospitality trend that continued to expand on college campuses, where masses of students congregate in open-air environments and in the areas surrounding buildings. So, small towns that began to deploy downtown networks as early as 2003 are not altogether different. Large city network plans with signficant media coverage may have shifted our attention away from the small towns and more modest networks, but that hasn't slowed the trend or muted the potential of smaller networks. As price points come down and the technology matures, Wi Fi mesh begins to look like a very affordable and safe technology to light up a downtown area, in even the smallest towns. A Hot Zone can be a focal point of an economic development strategy for any town, well within the reach of all city budgets. And a Hot Zone, loosely defined as an outdoor network of 10 or less wireless mesh access points, holds the potential to be a first step to a larger network for thousands of towns and cities nationwide. What's missing is a guiding hand and the will to act. But as the New York Times and Richard Florida indicate, creating an attractive environment to target and attract a specific demographic is the new incarnation of economic development and that provides a compelling reason to act on a wireless broadband project. I'd suggest that Wi Fi Mesh Hot Zones will make a name for themselves in the coming year as a tool to implement these economic development strategies and make a community more attractive. Wach the small college towns next year. Posted on December 02, 2006 at 07:29 AM | Comments (0) The Art and Science of Metropolitan BroadbandPerhaps because telecommunication systems like metropolitan broadband (wired or wireless) networks and municpal wireless networks fall under the general heading of High Tech, they are widely viewed more as scientific projects than they would ever be considered as works of art. But if we consider the definitions of "art" and "science," with that all-important open mind, we find that in any new endeavor (and metropolitan broadband and muncipal wireless are most definitely "new endeavors"), art and the creative process play a bigger role than we might at first assume. Indeed, in any work we do, there can be an artistic element. To digress for a moment, I'm a strong proponent of bringing a healthy dose of the artist's craft to any project I undertake - being creative and innovative adds to the enjoyment of the task and I believe, to customer satisfaction in the end. There's a strong argument to living life as an artist, but now I'm really digressing. Back to metropolitan broadband as art - I'm thinking this concept will take more than one blog to develop. Consider this: Creative impulse From one perspective, art is a generic term for any product of the creative impulse, out of which sprang all other human pursuits, such as science via alchemy. The term 'art' offers no true definition besides those based within the cultural, historical, and geographical context in which it is applied. Though to artists themselves, the impulse to create can be strong.Wikipedia So this writer has science springing out of art by way of alchemy. What then does Wikipedia have to say about the definition of "science?" Science in the broadest sense refers to any system of knowledge attained by verifiable means. In a more restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on empiricism, experimentation, and methodological naturalism, as well as to the organized body of knowledge humans have gained by such research. Wikipedia I try to resist these either-or discussions, because generally speaking, most of the truth lies part way between either extreme. In this case, municpal wireless networks can, and should be partly a science project, and partly a work of art. As scientists, the project participants design a network, measure results, try different solutions as problems arise, and measure some more. All this in order to determine the best approach and design. By acting as scientists, we can build on our collective knowledge base and get better at these networks as we accummulate experience. As artists, the project participants draw on their creative roots and innovate around problems. They combine different elements of technology, business, and political problem solving as if they were oil paints on a palette. Given that we are dealing with the vagaries of radio science, new technologies, government spectrum management, competing business models, and political compromise, any truly successful municipal wireless network project will enjoy the benefits of the artist's touch. The result can then be viewed as a work of art. I believe that if we approach these projects with both of these hats on - at once both a scientist busy observing and measuring, and an artist forging new solutions and solving problems on the fly with innovative new approaches and the tools we have at hand - if we do that, we will find ourselves with a creation that works and one that we all can be proud of. Being both a scientist and an artist allows us to draw from all the options on the table and provides us with the best possible results in this new field we're in. Posted on November 27, 2006 at 07:32 PM | Comments (0) A Tale of Three ElephantsOne Story, Three Elephants. I often use analogies to walk my clients through the complex story of technological change and the potential of muncipal wireless networks. You may recognize these analogies, and you may recognize your own city situation as well. On the one hand, a municipal wireless network is a way to get a city to launch a digital transition, a business process improvement project that will take the city into a new state, where it is poised to accommodate a dynamic technology environment and begin to thrive, rather than simply to survive ("The elephant in the room."). On the other hand, it is a highly complex project, requiring a phased approach and consensus ("Eating an elephant in small bites."). Finally, it's a project that is many different things to many different people, depending on their own unique perspectives ("The blind men and the elephant."). 1. The Elephant in the Room The elephant in the room (also elephant in the living room, elephant in the corner, elephant on the dinner table, elephant in the kitchen, etc.) is an English idiom for an obvious truth that is being ignored, for various reasons. It is based on the fact that an elephant in a small room would be impossible to ignore. Another equivalent expression would be, 800 lb gorilla in the room. It sometimes is used to refer to a question or problem that very obviously stands to reason, but which is ignored for the convenience of one or more involved parties. The idiom also implies a value judgment that the issue should be discussed openly. Wikipedia With Municpal Wireless, the "Elephant in the Room" is Internet-driven cost reduction and technological change that demands a strategy. Pressing in on city governments, over the next decade this change will force leaders to make major changes to accommodate these new options and keep pace. Such change will impact every department and every employee, and things will never be the same. Those cities that acknowledge this dynamic are already working together with open minds, to craft solutions to adapt and plan for the future. Those that don't are continuing down the same path, some postponing action, and others not even aware of the coming changes. Either way, it gets harder and harder to hold on to the old ways as years go by. Preparing for the future starts with acknowledging the elephant in the room, evaluating long-term options and then working together to forge a consensus around a shared solution ... like a municpal wireless network. 2. How do you eat an elephant? The answer is, one bite at a time. This is also the best approach for digesting large integration and systems deployment projects. The key to success is to reduce complexity by breaking the problem up into smaller, manageable pieces. IBM I use this analogy often, because its vivid and widely understood. All that time on the Cisco Road Shows the past two weeks, innumerable conversations with a diverse collection of city leaders, have me thinking more lately about the issue of city networks and complexity. As I meet with cities and describe the steps needed to get a city network project off and running, I often quote that adage, and it well, it just works for municipal wireless. Eating an elephant in small bites is deliberately planning a complex network acquisition project in phases. 3. The Blind Men and the Elephant One of the most famous versions of the 19th Century was the poem "The Blind Men and the Elephant" by John Godfrey Saxe (1816-1887). The poem begins It was six men of Indostan They conclude that the elephant is like a wall, snake, spear, tree, fan, or rope, depending upon where they touch. Wikipedia Depending on who you talk to within a city government, a Municipal Wireless Network is viewed in a number of different ways. To the network technologists, like the IT Director, the Communications Director, or the CIO, the Network is an extension of the IT system or an enhancement of other communication infrastructure in the city. To the application users, like the Police Chief, the Fire Chief, or the Chief Building Inspector, the Network is a means to make the new digital Applications and Systems they need function in a mobile environment. To business managers, like the Finance Director or the City Manager, the Network is a means to manage growth without dramatic growth in the workforce, a way to cut the cost of delivering city services while enhancing flexibility and productivity. To political leaders, like the Mayor or the City Council members, the Network is a way to promote social justice by closing the Digital Divide and making broadband universally affordable,as well as a way to enhance the economic development potential of the city by branding it as forward looking and making it more competitive. Three Stories in One The job of MetroNetIQ when it engages with city clients is to define the moral of these stories, to spell out the common thread. A municipal wireless network project can be seen from many perspectives, which makes it a confusing story to tell. That's one reason cities have been slow to adapt to the potential of this new technology, and slow to adopt these networks. That's where a consultant like MetroNetIQ can help out. I'm a story teller, and apparently, a zookeeper and elephant specialist. Posted on November 21, 2006 at 08:55 PM | Comments (0) Declaration of Independence for Broadband Connectivity 2.0Last Tuesday, July 4, caught up in the spirit of 1776 and inspired by essays by Robert Cringely and Bob Frankston, I drafted this Declaration of Indpendence for Broadband Connectivity. With this flicker of hope and the outlining of the issue, I'm struck by the need and the potential to fire up the imagination of the everyday men and women who don't track these issues so widely, yet would be the prime beneficiaries of such independence. We need a vsion to get them motivated for change. Call last Tuesday's document a first draft, and here below I'll take a stab at a second draft. Based on annecdotal evidence (social conversations), I'm convinced that most people are not aware of emerging alternatives to the predominate paradigm: paying large corporations for fixed and mobile voice telephony, broadband, video as subscribers to their services. We see the first alternative when muniicpalities get active and begin to advocate for their citizens for universal affordable broadband access alternatives (ie., Municipal Wireless). A second emerging alternative is for groups of individuals in residential areas, or groups of businesses to gather together and take control of their own destiny by acting collectively to provision their own broadband connectivity (e.g., Fon, MetroNanoNet, etc.). Many more alternatives will arise as technologies and market awareness progress. With these alternatives in mind, it is vital that many more step up to take control of their individual destinies - and our collective destiny as a society and an economy. History shows that if we stay in our traditional roles as subscribers, as we have done so far, waiting for the large incumbent telecom and cable companies to bring us ubiquitous, affordable broadband services, we will be waiting a long time. We will get these services on the timetable of the incumbents - and it is to their advantage to move slowly, because they will seek to preserve their market control, manage a controlled build out of infrastructure, and maintain subscriber revenue streams. They have to do that - they're pressured in the stock market as they lose regular voice subscribers and begin to battle each other and they have no incentive, indeed, a disincentve to open up the market to the other alternatives that technology enables. Here below I'm taking a second stab at the Declaration, hoping to bring more organization and clarity. 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 08, 2006 at 01:13 PM | Comments (0) A Declaration of Independence for Broadband ConnectivityNOTE: The Declaration of Independence signed 230 years ago today reflected much deliberation and collaboration and was a finished product when it was signed. In contrast, this declaration is only the beginning of a process, which is unlikely to conclude at any time in the near term - it's a work in progress. This document is an open invitation to contribute your thoughts on connectivity and free will. Please feel free to comment and join in the dialogue. A Declaration of Independence for Broadband Connectivity With all due respect to our nation's Declaration of Independence from political domination by the British Empire 230 years ago today, we also face an opportunity today to unite and collaborate to establish our own independence. Albeit, the stakes are somewhat less grave. Today when we talk about ubiquitous connectivity, we talk about economic and lifestyle independence, more than the political independence of an earlier day. We've arrived at a point where it's now vital for our collective good to declare independence from narrow alternatives for personal communication. We have a right to declare our freedom to communicate in whatever fashion makes the most sense from our own first/last mile perspective. This does not mean a right to free high speed connectivity, as some would suggest. No "broadband should be free" comments here. But it does mean that affordable and accessible data and voice communication options - connectivity at the edge - have become key to our economic success and fulfillment in life, and that right to connect is becoming as vital as other fundamental rights in our lives. Communicating with others is as natural and as necessary to humans as is access to food, clothing, and shelter. Or life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In less modern times, communication would have meant freedom of speech and the right to assemble, speaking one's mind without fear of persecution. Today, those freedoms must be expressed on-line. We need open and robust communication infrastructure to support a healthy democracy and a capitalist market-based economy. In today's world, access to communication - connectivity - includes broadband Internet access and ubiquitous connection options at the "first/last mile" - out on the ends of the networks. Humans and societies, diminshed in isolation, thrive in collaborative environments, stimulated and supported by high levels of open and affordable communication. We all benefit when we are all connected. In the United States, telecommunications has historically been provided by large corporations in the private sector, regulated by different levels of government on the public sector side. They have continued in place systems and processes that reflect a sensibiity from a bygone era; our viewpoints as well as our infrastructure have not been updated to provide US citizens the best options, or to make the United States as competitive as it could be. A dispassionate assessment of the current telecommunications system in the United States must conclude that it is broken, but not beyond repair: most data and voice access in this country is provided by incumbent duopolies (large telecom and cable providers) and access is not available at affordable rates to all citizens in this country, nor does the access we do have take advantage of the most current technological possibilities - we have set the bar very low on what constitutes "broadband," for instance. We are not only behind other nations, we are falling further behind in terms of digital inclusion: even as some segments of our society progress, others that do not become separated by a still wider gap. To date, the state and federal regulatory and legislative officials that oversee telecommunication infrastructure and services companies as representatives of the public interest have acted, well, conservatively. In general, they have acted more to preserve the status quo and address incumbent player interests than they have to embrace a future enabled by radical technological change. As citizens, we must continue to work within the system that we have to affect positive change and reform, but it looks like it will take a long time for those in power to fix the system, if indeed they are ever successful at reforming themselves. We must pursue an alternate path for connectivity or suffer the consequences. We need independence - we need a "Plan B." The solution that will benefit the most citizens of the United States may well lie outside of existing authority and power players, so we must begin a separate path around these problems; for better or worse, we need a new connectivity plan - and that's a revolutionary concept. Call it a Declaration of Independence for Connectivity, on this Fourth of July, where we begin an explicit, national dialogue on what it means to be independent with regard to connectivity. Indeed, technology advances have already set us free and provide us with the tools, but what we're still missing is widespread political will to shake off the old paradigm - when institutions and government act in harmony to keep our options under their control, they exert a very strong hold on our psyches and define our universe of possibilities. When they say "Telecom is a complex scale business - leave it to us to take care of you - your role is to keep on buying and consuming - you're a subscriber for our services," individuals become disempowered and find it difficult to imagine a different way of doing things. At the individual level, most lack the skills and experience to conceive, much less implement new connectivity concepts on their own and are at a power disadvantage relative to the big strong players in the private and public sectors. Many are unwilling to compete with these giants, having seen others fail in the past. Try getting financing for a new business plan in this area! But working collectively, we can be much more than subscribers and consumers. We can own our networks and produce and distribute our own content. Some cities are already leading in this parade, but all cities have a role to play and should at least be allies to this new movement. Small, targeted residential and commercial wireless cooperatives and networks are acheivable; we are limited only by our imaginations and political will. Imagine a linked network of infrastructure-access cooperatives - what a vision! Is that so different than global Internet created by linking local area networks with common protocols? In a future that is less and less predictable, there's safety in a portfolio approach. We may well be much better off as a society with tens of thousands of innovation-friendly cooperative broadband access networks, that each have a few thousand voluntary cooperative members. This is a revolutionary paradigm shift away from the predominate view: a handful of conservative, shareholder-focused telecom corporations that service millions of captive subscribers each, by way of a network infrastructure that was built within a regulatory framework of public subsidies and mandated rates and is even still supported by USF monies. Decision-makers at large corporations tend to act primarily to preserve and enhance corporate revenues (as well as their jobs and their personal wealth) - it's not only the rules of capitalism that make it so, it's human nature as well to hold on to what one has in the face of threatening change. But why not harness the horsepower of capitalism and human nature to a different paradigm wagon? Community cooperatives, in contrast to the prevailing paradigm, will experiment and learn from each other, reinventing the nature of communications and connectivity. Telecommunications and Connectivity in the 21st Century face a period of transition and change brought about by a disruptive Internet and advances in digital technology. Ubiquitous connectivity now has the potential to become more "edge-oriented," and we can apply new knowledge about how nature deals with risk and change. Connectivity can and should become more adaptive to change and innovation; it can become more biologically-oriented, developing and changing in a bottoms-up fashion, harnessing the power of natural selection and adopting an ecosystem approach. In a rapidly changing technology world, such a flexible approach makes more sense by better mitigating risk and providing more upside through more rapid adaptation and adoption of new innovations. There is a middle path between big traditional incumbents and newer municipal wireless franchises on the one hand, and more radical non-profit community network approaches on the other hand. That middle way is customer-owned, professionally-managed community cooperatives. Moving expeditiously past this infrastructure debate, visionary communities can install networks and cross over to the more interesting and rewarding world of new broadband and wireless applications, showing the rest of us the way to go. Our national community should pursue a more action-oriented discussion on this provocative idea of customer-owned networks. Every community across the US should begin with this conversation - everything interesting starts with a conversation, and there is much work to do. Principles for Connectivity Independence 1. Complexity v. Simplicity. Wired or wireless networks are complex, to a degree. Complexity doesn't go away with independence, but it's no longer used as a smokescreen either. We should infer from rules like Occam's Razor that the best solution is likely to be the simplest solution. A simpler design can minimize complexity and we should be free to pursue more simple solutions to connectivity. This is just a beginning - please add to this draft and look for changes over the near term. Posted on July 04, 2006 at 02:27 PM | Comments (0) On Citizens, Subscribers, Consumers, Owners, Users, Producers: What's in a Name? An IdentityOn this Fourth of July, I woke up and hung my flag on the wall outside, read patriotic editorials over coffee, and now I'm churning homemade ice cream (well, my kids are, with me supervising). Tonight, we'll go see the fireworks with a picnic in downtown Austin. I'm feeling very American, very mainstream, on this Independence Day, but also, a little revolutionary. I just read the U.S. Declaration of Independence, signed 230 years ago today. Those guys had a bone to pick with King George et al! I recommend a reading to you as well - it only takes a few minutes and it's an awesome document and undertaking. They were putting their lives on the line. This is one of my favorite holidays, and it's good to pause and consider all that we have to appreciate and how we got here, but also all that we could become, if we only worked together with deliberation. In my last post, I asked for some consideration and perspective when it comes to the pioneers of municipal wireless industry. Today, I'm reflecting on those more ancient pioneers, patriots and revolutionaries who became statesmen by their sacrifices, wisdom, insight, and initiative, setting in motion the events to create a new country on a new set of principles, 230 years ago. And I'm reflecting on our collective duty to carry on where they left off. It took tremendous courage to stand up to authority back then - really, the British and King George were the ultimate political authority in the world back in 1776. It's an understatement to say that it took hard work to preserve what all those before us created and to build on it in the ensuing 230 years. It's been a constant balancing act, as America and its economy have always been about finding synergy and political accommodation in the space between the haves and have nots, as well as between the forces of preserving the status quo and the need to adapt to new opportunities, while staying flexible to change. That dynamic tension has made our country and our economy great, so far. My personal view is that the pendulum has swung too far over to the protectionist / conservative / big corporation side, not only favoring the haves over the have nots, but also the preservation of the old over the incubation of the new. When did we become so timid and where did our vision and statesmanship go? While this assessment can apply to many industries and aspects of our lives today, the time is ripe in particular for a re-evaluation of our national approach to telecommunications and connectivity infrastructure, one of our largest and most important industries today. In short, we deserve a national conversation on this important topic. I think it's time for a new revolution, so much has technological change shifted the deck and changed the balance equation. I draw inspiration from our forefathers, but I don't equate our struggle with theirs. Our nation's citizens today have the freedom to choose to remain subscribers to telecom services, as consumers paying out of their household budgets for an array of new voice and data services. Many will be content to continue on with the status quo. Others will choose to evaluate a new paradigm where they own their own networks and enjoy greater freedom to both consume from the marketplace, but also produce and sell into the marketplace. If we acknowledge this as an alternate path, how will it start? Change on this front won't be easy, and it will be resisted fiercely by the powers that be, on both the private and public side, who have a tremendous investment in the status quo. Talk about dyanmic tension! I believe the incumbents have begun to represent more of the problem than the solution when they act in their own self interest, as they are bound to. As the debate continues over a new Telecommunications Act in Washington, for instance, there's a distinct feeling that the fox has gotten into the henhouse. Can the FCC and the Congress really act dispassionately on behalf of the long-term national interest, given the tremendous amount of political influence that big telecom and cable companies represent? Have they so far? What does the history of the Federal Telecom Act of 1996 teach us? It promoted competition and instead we got consolidation and a return of a monopoly. Given the innovation and creativity born of current unlicensed spectrum, do any of us expect the FCC to make more unlicensed spectrum available to foster more innovation, or will the spectrum be auctioned off to large companies? Why does the tremendous amount of revenue collected under the Universal Service Fund flow disproportionately to the established telecom providers? Why are the telecom incumbents not held accountable for their failure to fulfill their promises to roll out broadband infrastructure over the past decade? Where is accountability in this equation? What have we the people received lately in exchange for our tax credits, government subsidies, and use of the public airwaves? What leaders are asking these questions? Why aren't more of us connecting the dots and dreaming of new solutions? My focus on this website, as well as WikiMetroNet and MetroNanoNet and in my consultant practice has been to educate and equip a broad array of interested parties with information and insight to think about new forms of communication infrastructure, wireless mesh broadband in particular, and practical tools to get started. The sooner we act to test out new technologies and business models, the sooner we will benefit from the value of our infrastructure. My recommendation is to go simple and small with the MetroNanoNet model, described here and here. Since I began blogging I've drawn a tremendous amount of energy and wisdom from great and innovative thinkers like Om Malik, Bob Cringely, Martin Geddes, and most recently, Bob Frankston, as well as a host of others. They all do a much better job than I could on the high-level topics that ask "Why does it have to be this way?", protesting policy, etc. Instead, my chosen role has evolved to fill a missing niche by answering the question "How do we get from here to there?" What are the painstaking details that can get the ball rolling? In the past few days, I've read and reread Bob Cringely's June 29 post "If we build it they will come: It's time to own our own last mile," and then I read a great deal of Bob Frankston's essays and articles. In a nutshell, they came to much the same conclusion I have over the past six months: 1. Connectivity infrastructure ownership and operations should be split from access and content services to ensure a level, fair playing field and optimal market conditions. I started out an avid promoter of municipal wireless, (and critic of status-quo obstructionist incumbent behemoths), but have since tried to shed the negatives of criticizing the status quo. I've become more enamored of building bridges and lighting candles, primarily by promoting broader participation by the body public through smaller network units, with a more peripheral role for government at all levels. My conclusion is that the system is broken and that the people of the United States are in need of a Connectivity Declaration of Independence. While our situation pales in comparison to that of our forefathers, nevertheless we can learn from their initative and deliberate action. The best interests of individual citizens are not at the heart of the current debate. New technology has enabled, and will continue to enable alternatives to the traditional paradigm, but few of us are aware of the potential or able to take action on our own. We need to work together, as they did 230 years ago. We need a plan. We need a vision. We need to start by acknowledging that the rules of the game have changed, and we have an opportunity to fend for ourselves, to be independent. Some will agree, many will not. But any change must start with a conversation, with everything on the table. Posted on July 04, 2006 at 12:42 PM | Comments (0) Are Boosters Liars? No, They're Pioneers and We Need ThemAt times, we should all take a step back and get our footing again. There's been a debate on the blog pages in the past few days that can only be described as a tempest in a teapot. (See both these links and be sure to read the comments to get the full gist of it - it's a little like watching the Jerry Springer show, I'm afraid Point w/ Derek Kerton on techdirt: Putting A Little Lipstick On Muni WiFi, CounterPoint w/ Ron Sege on muniwireless: Chaska: Real Results are Not Lipstick). I slept on it and now I'm ready to say what I think. At the root of the debate is the quality of service experienced in the Chaska, MN deployment and the claims made about that deployment in a case study by Tropos. I have to say, "come on folks, let's get some perspective here." (By way of disclosure, I should say that I had Tropos as a client last year - so I feel that I know them well, but with eight months removed from that engagement, can also speak with some independence in my comments). First, those of us who are currently benefiting from the significant momentum in municipal wireless industry today should ask ourselves "Where would we be without our pioneers?" We shouldn't assume our current position and then cast stones at those who brought us here. Second, we shouldn't measure early stage players and their results with the same yardstick we use to assess well-established incumbents and what they've done. It is relative. Finally, we should take pioneers as a package deal. The pioneer personality is a booster personality - part salesman, part rationalist, they market the benefits and discount the negatives to paint a picture with broad brush strokes with the ultimate goal of making their mark and establishing a following and changing things for the better. We all benefit when the dust settles. Would I be sitting here today in Austin enjoying my life without early immigration boosters having described Texas as a paradise to potential immigrants, instead of the mosquito-infested, hotter-than-hell, deadly Indian territory cesspool that it proved to be for early stage immigrants? Many surely would not have come if they knew all the hardships that awaited them. At times, a little lipstick is needed. (I won't even go into the benefits of cosmetics in this space.) So, let's hear it for our pioneers in the municipal wireless field! (Sorry if I left anyone out you guys, but I'm drawing the line on significant personal influence that stood out from the pack, in addition to talent and input - there have been a whole host of players who've made a contribution, but these particular individuals have stood out for me by their personalities and their actions). This is an unscientific poll of one, but I've been in this space since 2003, and these are the pioneer individuals, groups and deployments from my perspective that have stood out as exceptional. They each stood up and took arrows in the back by taking strong positions and yelling from the mountaintops. So here in this space, I'd like to publicly thank each of these folks for their hard work, bravery, insights, and chutzpa. And now a word in defense of Wi Fi. These individuals saw the potential of using a lowly, limited LAN technology as a club to start beating over the heads of incumbent giants who had been unwilling to extend broadband at a pace to match leaders in other countries. I call that creative. On the sale side, they saw a need among municipal leaders and filled it. On the buy side, they saw a new technology and tried it. Thank goodness! My second disclosure: I think that unlicensed Wi Fi mesh has its warts and has been oversold in the past. But despite its shortcomings, it remains a very useful and affordable technology that can do amazing things when applied correctly. I think that WiMAX will be a very good complement in the near term, and that while Wi Fi mesh goes well with lots of technologies, it will continue to face challenges as a stand-alone solution when it over reaches, when the strategy is not thought out, and when the community is not well informed. My third disclosure: I think that large-scale deployments are as yet an unproven application of Wi Fi Mesh and not necessarily the best way to go. I believe that small-scale deployments make more sense at this stage, for a variety of reasons (see my arguments on MetroNanoNet). But big city deployments are still a good thing - we are moving down this path so I think we should forge ahead and do our best to make them work. The upside of large-scale Wi fi Mesh networks still far outweighs the downside, the market wants them, they stimulate the rest of the industry and they generate lots of press, raising awareness. Even with my own opinions, I still have to acknowledge these folks for what they've accomplished so far. They're the ones who have pretty much created something out of nothing. That's what a pioneer does - "goes where no man has gone before." It's messy, but the results are positive and we need the growth and progress that pioneers provide.. Let's consider life without Wi Fi Mesh for a moment. Here's what we have on the flip side, over in the incumbent telecom and cable space - thanks to Fred Wilson, in his blog, A VC. We have four companies that largely control the last mile into our homes in this country, two telcos and two cable companies each control significant market share. Some of their CEOs have gone on record that they want to use tiered pricing to fund new development on their networks. Sounds good, but its crap. First because the telcos and the cable companies have not done much to improve their networks here in the US. At best, we have 6mpbs service into our homes in the US. There are countries in other parts of the world that think that 6mpbs is so slow they don't even offer it anymore. 25mpbs is the standard and they are headed to 100mbps while we are trying to figure out how to get to 6mbps. So putting more money into the telco and and cable pockets is not likely to result in higher bandwidth networks. It's more likely to result in more golf courses and G5s for their CEOs. In our country, all the innovation has happened in the startup world. The startup ISPs and CLECs are the ones who first rolled out the services that the telcos and cable operators are now making money with. But would they have rolled them out if they hadn't been put at competitive risk by the startups? I think not. I'm not necessarily casting stones the incumbents way either, because I think that these two industries have brought us a long way over the past century and that there are great companies among them. But I feel that at this point in time, they could definitely do more, faster. Most of the leaders in those two industries need to be more open to new solutions. They're milking the cow, focused on leveraging their considerable political influence to hold on to what they have, and way too comfortable to move the ball forward on broadband deployments at a pace that would most benefit the rest of us. They need the burr in the saddle that municipal wireless has become. I'd echo Fred's comments on ISPs and CLECs with regard to the pioneers in this still very-new municipal wireless field. Would we have come half as far as we have without our pioneers? Would we have state prohibitions against municipal wireless? Who will offer an alternative to the incumbents' preferred pace of change? Where will our leadership on broadband strategy come from? So, how harshly should we judge the statements made by pioneers and early stage boosters? Let's not. Instead, let's take what they say with a grain of salt, draw our own conclusions, and enjoy the benefits of all the energy they have poured into making something out of nothing. And let's keep in mind that our cell phones still drop in some places ("Can you hear me now?") - but we love them just the same- and that wired networks do not provide us with all that they could - but we still stay hooked up and pay our bills. Finally, we should be wary of applying the rules of established industries to fledgling industries. Why not acknowledge that we're in the middle of creating something here and be more tolerant of each other? On the rare occasions when I cook, I'd prefer that my guests appreciate my efforts and judge me by how good my dishes taste out in the dining room, (or by the fact that I tried), and not criticize the mess I left behind in the kitchen. Having said my two-cents worth, I predict that human nature being what it is, we'll have a lot more of this type of critique and point / counterpoint in the blogosphere, as the larger municipal wireless deployments roll out. Hold on to your hats! Posted on June 24, 2006 at 07:18 AM | Comments (0) Killing the Goose that Laid the Golden EggAre we at a flexion point in the development of the Municipal Wireless industry? We must ask at this point, "has the pendulum swung too far?" In their zeal to show that the public coffers are not at risk, have cities become too-strong advocates on behalf of their citizens? Recent news articles would seem to confirm that hypothesis and show us that change is afoot. I would argue it's time for cities to move back to the center and consider again just what a partnership entails. In MobilePro's view, a higher-speed free access based on ads would not be financially viable without subsidies from the city. "It's got to be a win-win for both the city and our shareholders," Sullivan said. The Sacramento city council will decide how to proceed this week, and Ferguson thinks another RFP will be issued soon. "We have a lot more experience now, we know what other cities are getting. The city council just wants deal points that are comparable to what we see in other cities and we were a ways off of that." I for one was depressed on hearing last week that MobilePro withdrew from the Sacramento project. Private companies have limits in the amount of risk they can take, and that goes double for public companies. MobilePro is public. For profit companies cannot engage in poor risks and expect to stay in business for long. It's a complex alchemy between the city and the private sector company as they seek to forge a win-win in this new area and it looks like there's a long way to go before they truly understand each other's needs. We must ask "are we being creative enough in how we define a win?" While city officials in Sacramento defined winning as getting "deal points comparable to those offered in other cities," wouldn't it have been more appropriate for them to define winning as "determining a positive ROI business case in Sacramento by cutting costs and increasing service levels"? One hopes they will get to the point where their needs will be met with their future RFP. What was the cost of delay that resulted from their increasing the ante and causing their partner to bolt? Time will tell. This process starts to look lke the no-win world of tax abatements, which have evolved to the point where cities compete with each other to get employers to move to their town, often losing sight of long-term negative impacts to their own tax base. It appears that municipal wireless has come to the point where cities are trying to outdo each other by offering to their public constituents an ever better deal through their hard-ball negotiating with vendors. To repeat an oft-heard phrase, "there is no such thing as a free lunch." Free services are not free, so much as they are subsidized in one manner or another by a party that sees a win from their own perspective. In my own city, the determination by our city management to accept donated wireless gear following the WCIT last month, coupled with a press release offering "free" services downtown had a chilling effect on private companies I was engaged with discussing a for-profit business model for Austin. They wondered if this was a signal that there would be no profits to come by working in Austin. While I assured them that was not the case, there were delays with real costs invovled. There needs to be some gold at the end of this rainbow, or these private sector pioneers will steer their wagons away from this frontier towards greener pastures. See yesterday's posting on Wi Fi Net News, From Municipal Paid to Gratis: What Cities Want, where Glenn Fleishman comments on an excellent article in the Wall Street Journal yesterday, opining on the migration of the municpal wireless business model, from "cities are taking unacceptable risk in owning networks" to "we will work together" to "gimme, gimme, gimme." Or see also Intel's Paul Butcher's guest editorial in the June 2006 Digital Communities newsletter by Government Technology: Municipal Wireless Sustainability and Promise, where Paul talks sense about municipal wireless, digital cities, and digital access. In Wi Fi, we have a technology that offers low barriers to entry, so out on the fringes, we see a plethora of small WISPs who have taken advantage of the confluence of low cost and business need to provide services and make a business. But in the largest of cities, there's a different attitude inherent in evolving RFPs that ask for more and more from the private sector bidder. Now, its not enough to share risk with the private sector partner - they must take all the risk and give away their services to boot! I think that we will all benefit the more these network proliferate. Isn't that what Metcalfe's Law shows us? And I think that paying for a service makes one value it more than getting it for free. We tend to discount things that are offered for free. The cost of my "free" Wi Fi in any one of the Hot Spots in Austin is generally that I buy something from my host. On the rare occasion when I've dropped in and because of a long line, skipped that important step of making a purchase - well, I've felt like I took something from the provider, because I know there is a cost involved. I hope we begin to hear more about minimal service fees in lieu of "free" and that we see more RFPs that probe the full extent of the value that these networks can offer, in a joint search for a sustainable "for-profit" public private partnership model. Otherwise, we may see these smaller pioneer companies withdraw from the market, leaving us with the monopolies and duopolies we've had in the past, and that would be a shame. Please show your support for innovative wireless access alternatives by buying that cup of coffee or by supporting private sector pioneers with innovative and creative business models . And put your "Free Wi Fi" signs back in the closet. We should be feeding these pioneers with partnerships, not starving them with demands for more and more. It would be a shame if these new-age wireless pioneers were to steer their wagons away from our towns and move on to greener pastures elsewhere, because we asked for too much. It's time for all of us to focus again on the meaning of a partnership and risk-sharing, and the costs involved in getting something for "free." Posted on June 21, 2006 at 07:18 AM | Comments (0) Trip to Arizona is revealingI just came back from a week long business/personal trip to Arizona, and the meetings I had earlier this week were revealing. I had a great mini-family reunion, then flew out to Prescott to visit my friend Hal Hayden. On Monday, I met with Hal and his partner, Bill McNamarra, the management team at Agility Solutions. They've put together a growing small business providing equipment financing to the wireless ISP (WISP) community. Over the past two years, they've sorted through the details on nearly 350 WISPs to identify the most promising, cutting deals to help their clients grow faster by releasing their cash for customer acquisition, providing financing for the purchase of network infrastructure gear and customer premise equipment (CPEs). Then on my way out of town on Tuesday, I spent a couple of hours with Ryan McCaigue, who as Network Engineer at NeoReach has acted as project manager for the WAZMetro deployment in Tempe. Ryan and I drove around Tempe and talked about the new network: at over 40 square miles, it's currently the largest deployed wireless mesh network in the US. There's nothing like getting out from behind the desk and visiting a site to get a full understanding of what is important, what matters, and conversely, what doesn't. On Monday morning, Hal, Bill, and I had a rousing discussion in Agility's offices on the current state of the wireless ISP and infrastructure industry. Because of their focus on the private sector, they look at the municipal wireless industry realistically, aware of the hurdles the industry has yet to overcome. One challenge is the long sales cycle. Another, made apparent by MobilePro's withdrawal last week from Sacramento, concerns the desire by city governments to cut the best deal possible, shifting as much risk as they can to the private sector partner. As we saw last week, there is a limit to the risk a private sector firm can manage, and cities are testing those limits in these public private partnerships. We agreed that the most potential in wireless may well be in targeted smaller scale deployments, where the right management team can make good headway with focus on distinct market needs and execution of well-thought-out plans. Highlighting the need for advanced marketing, Bill provided a memorable quote: "if you don't presell, you're gonna fail." And after this visit, my hat's off to Ryan and his team in Tempe, considering what they were able to pull off. With all the buzz in the press about the potential of pending wireless mesh in cities such as Philadelphia, San Francisco, Portland, Houston, and Chicago, we would all do well to heed the lessons learned in a network like Tempe. First, it's not the case that Tempe is a lay-down hand just because it's located in the flat-land desert. To the contrary, I found a heavily treed environment in residential neighborhoods with limited line of sight: an urban setting not unlike many other cities. The Tempe network uses Strix Wi Fi Mesh nodes, which have four radios each, including 802.11a radios for backhaul. Ryan stressed the need for a well-designed backhaul system that integrates with a well-designed local network - note that the word "design" comes up often in talking with Ryan. His network uses just 8 take-out points to support the approximately 800 nodes, covering the 40-some-odd square miles of the network, which is a key element on why this network should prove to be cost-effective over time. Second, the deal that MobilePro, the network's corporate sponsor, made with the city provides for free bandwidth in exchange for mounting assets (rooftops and poles) and power - the city works with the utility to secure mounting rights and power on behalf of the project. This is a win-win that should work for both the city and the network operator. Finally, it's vital that the deployment team know what they're doing. As the industry grows, it will be increasingly important that the type of knowledge that Ryan's team has developed be applied to future deployments. The larger the deployment, the more complicated its interactivity and the greater the potential for the environment to impact its performance. I would stress the value of pilots so that the parties can work through issues on a small scale in advance of a larger, more complex deployment. These two visits showed me the value of starting small and staying focused. It appears that the equipment will work as vendors have claimed, but that appropriate network design is vital for that to happen. To make money on the network, costs must be controlled tightly, and it helps to have a creative approach (e.g., limited backhaul points) that minimizes costs. Network like these must be well-planned and deliberately deployed. Getting an experienced and skilled team focused on the task at hand will be a vital component to success as these networks progress. I am encouraged after seeing first-hand how these two successful companies work prudently and methodically to support two different perspectives on wireless broadband, from the micro to the metro. Wireless is coming to your town...are you ready? Posted on June 17, 2006 at 09:56 AM | Comments (0) Footsteps in the Hallway ... quick, lock the door!!!A staple of the older horror movies (back in the days before the explicit gory slasher ones) was the suspense that a few sound effects could create, like footsteps coming down the hallway, or that scene in the dark street where the hero hears footsteps, but then when she stops to listen, the footsteps stop, then they start up again when she starts walking, and then ... well, you get the picture. Those footsteps create suspense by way of Apprehension, because we can't help but fill in the blank of what will come next when the footsteps turn into something more tangible, like one of our worst fears. I think that in the quiet times when they are alone, that's what it must be like inside incumbent telecom executives heads these days. All these footsteps, and they just won't stop! i guess that's just the nature of change: exciting for some, painful for others. Everyday, it seems, there's another disruptive business making an announcement about taking advantage of new technologies and the Internet to offer a better ISP / voice / video service. I stumbled on three such services in the last couple of days, as I scanned email newsletters and websites. First, here comes a service that seeks to outSkype Skype and outVonage Vonage. Jajah, a Luxembourg-based VOIP service, gets rid of both the Skype software download and the Vonage hardware component, turning telephony into a straight Web-based service, where you go to a website to place a call, by typing in the phone numbers - all over the Internet on the PC, and calls are charged by the minute - I think the rates sound steep, but I'm not calling from Luxembourg, where most calls are International. Still, you have to admire the ingenuity. Footsteps - can you hear them? And then, back in the good old USA, right around the corner here in Austin, there's this announcement I picked up off of Glenn Fleishman's WiFi Networking News (great site, BTW) that promises to give the Community Internet folks a boost: 2hotspot is a free - there's that word again - downloadable solution to expand your access point into a Hot Spot and share it / commercialize it with your neighbors and passers by. The footsteps are getting louder. And just the other day, I downloaded (for free, of course) a service called Loki , which is a tool that sits on your browser - it will, and I kid you not here folks - it will use a preloaded database of Wi Fi access points (they have millions catalogued) to locate you on a map, real-time, and ultimately will serve you local content and ads, based on where you are, at that moment. More Footsteps. Again. There is so much going on in the background that it's hard to piece it all together, even harder if you aren't watching it daily like many of us in the blogosphere are. But when you do stop and think, it adds up to dramatic change on the horizon. Many in this field already think we're in the middle of that change and it's just hard to perceive right now. I am one of those folks, who recognize that it's not just surface change, but buisness fundamentals that are getting wobbly. No, gravity won't be repealed, we won't do the dog food thing again, but the underlying assumptions on whcih many of our great busiensses are based, are changing, constantly, inevitably, as the Internet matures, and those are the footsteps we keep hearing. Listen, and you'll start to hear them too. Open your eyes and ears and you'll see that the changes around us, growing everyday, are not your garden-variety changes that you could call evolutionary. They are fundamental to how we do business and live our lives. I think its exciting! Posted on March 29, 2006 at 04:17 PM | Comments (0) Lighting a Candle by Building a Better MousetrapIt's hard to see this crisis; it's made up of a million incremental steps. But it's happening. The terrible state of broadband penetration in this country is just a visible symptom. The solution isn't going to be found in short-term market players who have every reason to act monopolistically (and uniformly bad track records). The people who lead us need to recognize that this country is steadily declining, and that pride in our former accomplishments won't save us. We need vision, and we need it now. Susan Crawford Blog What words of wisdom and insight - I'm glad I discovered this blog. You should check it out. Where have all the good leaders gone, long time passing? So many of our leaders today seem to be out to fill their pockets and get theirs. I just commented on this excellent blog by Susan Crawford, who writes with insight on telecom and policy matters, and in this particular piece, "A Gentle Decline," bemoans the building crisis of lack of broadband infrastructure (and leadership) in the US. My comment below: Susan, I found this to be a dark blog, and I sense your despair at a seemingly insoluble crisis. I too despair when I think about our situation, but I just came from SXSW and Barcamp in Austin last week, and it was so full of hope and optimism and creaivity, I guess I'm still feeling pretty buoyant. But I too ponder this infrastructure crisis often in my business, and I feel the despair too, most of the time. I do love your thoughts and insights and your writing though. I'd like to offer a different perspective on this topic, perhaps a little more optimistic in tone. First, I'm with you on the recognition that we're in the midst of a national, as yet largely unacknowledged crisis. But I would argue that our crisis of broadband infrastructure is one more symptom of our greater crisis - that of leadership, which you also implicate in your blog, and which I feel is the deeper problem. Still, I would challenge your call for better leaders - in fact, we get the leaders we deserve, and we as a people continue to re-elect and tolerate the meager minds that we call leaders these days. I think the problem and solution then lies within ourselves. As individual thought leaders, we need to find our voices and articulate our visions - both leadership traits. I believe our hope lies in the growing concept of emergence, as evidenced by such things as the democratization of journalism (blogging) and other forms of media creation enabled by new technologies. I'd suggest such emergence is becoming possible when it comes to infrastructure as well. In fact, never has the man/woman on the street had more power at his/her fingertips than today - today's world enables emergent leadership - we all need to find our voice and take action to make things better and that includes our infrastructure crisis. What could communities do, for instance, if they formed Internet Cooperatives to provide for their own infrastructure needs collectively? That's what rural coops did to get electricity 70 years ago. I believe that we can now conceive of a world without big telecom companies (I know I can, its a favorite fantasy). That's a challenge to all you thinkers that read this blog. What would a world of distributed locally-self-provided telecommunications services look like? Instead of the dark image of Its a Wonderful Life that shows what the world would have looked like if the telecoms had had their visions realized and the Internet had not happened, what if we were to focus instead on a fantasy where the telecoms are now made irrelevant and infrastructure access becomes the commodity it deserves to be? I think the act of creatiivty begins with imagination, so I'd challenge you creative types to imagine a way out of our infrastructure crisis. Here's a wacky idea: Why doesn't some big corporation, maybe one whose name rhymes with oodles of money (does that ring a Bell?)create a contest like that one with the rocket that goes up to space, comes down, and goes up again the next day. That was thought impossible but it was finally accomplished through lots of trial and error. Thankfully, infrastructure is not rocket science. So this particular contest to stimulate emergent thinking would be about how we could as a world of users create an emergent communications system that would fulfill the need for last-mile broadband connectivity, so that everyone would finally be on the Internet. When the whole world gets on, doesn't Metcale's Rule tell us that the Internet is worth - well, I can't do that math, but wouldn't it be a WHOLE LOT more valuable with million/billions more nodes? Anyone? Posted on March 24, 2006 at 11:34 PM | Comments (0) |
METRONET VENDOR DIRECTORYMY OTHER BLOGSWikiMetroNet - A work in progress, we are taking content from MetroNetIQ and from other sources and pulling together a Users Manual for Metropolitan Broadband, Wiki style, so that it will grow and users can contribute! |
|||
| Powered by Movable Type | ©2006 MetroNetIQ.com | Website Design by zilkoweb | |||
