Exploring the impact of broadband and technology on our lives, our businesses, and our communities.
New Zealand phones go all IP
New Zealand Telecom has announced it will switch every phone in the country to the Internet-based VoIP system, starting in 2007. The company estimates it will take approximately five years to get every phone changed.
Voice over IP is moving rapidly, and the biggest benefit is reduced cost. A typical incumbent package of local and long distance calling in the U.S., using the old, 19th century phone system we currently have, cost between $40 and $50 on average. An equivalent VoIP package averages between $20 and $25. Savings are substantial for businesses with multiple phones. Another benefit is an increased set of services, like call forwarding and simultaneous ring, which are often included as part of the base package with VoIP offerings, but cost extra or are not available at all with the old 19th century phones.
Simultaneous ring is especially valuable for businesspeople who travel and/or have to be out of the office frequently. To set up the service, you enter two or more phone numbers (e.g. cellphone, home phone, etc.). Once the service is activated, when the primary phone number receives a call--typically your business phone number--all the phones you have listed will ring at the same time. The call is transferred to the first phone you pick up. It's a much more efficient version of call forwarding.
Technology News:
Community news and projects:
Laptop fuel cells coming
A laptop fuel cell will be available soon, as reported by Gizmodo.
The fuel cells are powered by methanol (alchohol), making them easy to charge--no hydrogen required. They will pack twice as much power as the lithium batteries that are currently used in laptop computers.
The methanol fuel source is interesting too, because methanol can be refined from corn--no fossil fuels required. As the technology matures, look for fuel cell vehicles powered by corn-derived methanol.
Pop quiz
Q: Who grows more corn than any other country in the world?
A: The United States.
Q: If methanol powered fuel cells become a primary energy source for vehicles, what country could become the world's largest energy producer?
A: The United States.
Q: Where does that leave the oil-rich countries of the Middle East?
A: In trouble.
Q: Does your regional economic development plan include a strategy for grabbing some of the new Energy Economy jobs?
A: If it doesn't, when will it?
Technology News:
Fuel cell motorbikes
In a major leap forward for the Energy Economy, Gizmodo reports that a fuel cell-powered motorbike will be offered for sale in 2006.
The bike is lightweight, can go as fast as 50 mph, and has up to four hours of running time--plenty for around town trips.
The timing of this offering is excellent, as sales of mopeds, electric scooters, and other unlicensed motorbikes is breaking records. High gas prices are getting Americans to look at alternative transportation seriously.
And that's why I'm not worried about gas prices. High prices for something like gas creates a market response that represents business opportunities and jobs for others. High gas prices will create one of the greatest economic booms in history, as the entire world economy, over the next ten to twenty years, begins to shift to alternative fuel sources.
Technology News:
Google World Domination, Part 3
Internet discussion forums and techie news sites are filled with talk about Google's latest attempt to take over the world. The search company has launched an instant messenger service (Google Talk) that is interoperable with other common IM systems like Apple's iChat, and AOL's system.
But most of the speculation centers around the voice capabilities of the software. Like Apple's iChat, the software lets you talk to the other party, but although the text messaging works with other software, the voice service does not, even though it would have been simple to do so. Apple's iChat uses standard (SIP) protocols, as one example.
The prevailing conspiracy theory is that Google plans to kill all the other VoIP services by using the company's immense pile of cash to finance better software than anyone else can afford, and give the software away for free longer. Skype, one of the best known free/fee VoIP services, lets users talk to other Skype users for free, but charges a fee if you want to place a voice call to someone on the old phone network.
Google has bundled the new service to their GMail email service: you have to register for a Google email account in order to use Google Talk. I've written before about the problem I have with GMail, in which Google gives you a free email account but reserves the right to search, index, and classify every email you send or receive.
Google is using the Microsoft model, which is to buy its way into markets, and crushing the competition by cross-linking products (e.g Google search and Google email), and by providing only limited interoperability with other software and systems.
The biggest loser, potentially, could be Microsoft. Several years ago, Microsoft announced big plans to capture online transactions with services like .Net and Passport. Neither has performed well, and Google, as it offers more and more net-centric services rather than desktop/Windows-centric services, may capture some of Microsoft's marketshare.
But I'm not betting big on Google to win. They've already stumbled several times with new service rollouts, showing that a lot of money does not necessarily produce great marketing or services. If there is a bright side to Google's attempt at world domination, it is that at least we now have two giants battling, rather than just one. It evens the playing field a little.
Technology News:
Another WiMax delay
The Register reports on more delays certifying WiMax equipment. New wireless equipment has to be tested to ensure that it meets the specifications of the 802.16 standard before it can be sold.
It is just one more sign of the danger of spending too much, too fast on wireless "solutions" if you don't have a technology master plan in place. An example of this is Philadelphia's plan to cover most of the city in a WiFi blanket.
A thoughtful plan would roll this out very slowly, mainly to understand market demand, before spending millions on a technology that has several more capable competitors waiting in the wings.
What's wrong with WiFi? We have several years experience using wireless systems, and what is emerging as a wireless marketplace is NOT fixed wireless, which is what WiFi (802.11) was designed for. WiFi is a coffeeshop solution; you take your laptop somewhere, sit down, and connect to the Internet.
What people really want is mobile wireless, which has two components: true mobile connectivity, as in, "riding down the interstate while connected to the Internet." Notice I said "riding," not "driving." Hopefully, someone else is doing the driving while you are Web surfing.
The second kind of mobile wireless is the ability to connect from virtually anywhere, but not necessarily in a moving vehicle. This requires different radio spectrum than WiFi, that can travel farther and that uses fewer hotspots. As I've previously noted, cellular-based systems like EVDO and Flash-OFDM may eclipse WiMax because the products have already been tested and are in deployment.
Planning is essential if you are thinking about community investments in wireless. You need to identify who will use it, under what conditions, and how you will cover the cost of maintenance and operations. And do not take the word of vendors that their "solution" will solve all your broadband problems.
Technology News:
WiMax vs. EVDO: Who will win?
WiMac boosters like Intel think the new wireless technology is just the thing to solve everyone's broadband connectivity problems. Of course, the firm makes WiMax equipment, so you have to take their marketing hype with a grain of salt.
But WiMax and it's little brother, WiFi, offer a unified wireless model that says, "Let's use the Internet to transport everything, including voice phone calls (via VoIP)."
On the other side of the ring, we have the cellular companies, who know that VoIP and wireless have the potential to make their old-fashioned wireless systems obsolete.
The Internet crowd have technological superiority and simplicity on their side. The wireless Internet model is just a better way of doing things. The problem is that virtually no infrastructure is in place to offer those services, and it will cost billions to get enough service in enough places to create markets of paying customers.
The cellular companies are rolling out enhanced data services like EVDO that are not really as good as a pure Internet model, but the big advantage is that the cellphone firms already have lots of infrastructure in place and a large group of paying customers, some of whom are ready today to pay extra for broadband access.
Who's going to win? This looks like a replay of Betamax and VHS.
If the phone companies get enough early adopters to use their enhanced data services, it will make it even harder for new wireless Internet ventures to gain marketshare. If the phone companies are greedy and overprice data service just because competition is currently limited, many customers will jump ship if more affordable Internet wireless becomes available.
It is too early to tell how this will shake out. WiMax equipment is just now beginning to hit the shelves, but there is a lot of pent up demand for better wireless Internet alternatives. It may take six months to a year to see who is winning. In the meantime, don't spend more on Internet wireless than you have a clear need for in the next six months.
Technology News:
Is Iowa the telecom battleground?
Iowa may be the new battleground for broadband. Successful projects like the Cedar Falls fiber system and the statewide Opportunity Iowa project has shifted the battle from Louisiana, where the phone and cable companies lost a battle against the city of Lafayette.
The most interesting thing in the article is the arrogant attitude of the president of Quest:
Max Phillips, Iowa president of Qwest Communications International Inc., said the interests pushing the community fiber programs are misguided because people should focus on the speed and quality of service, not the medium that carries it.
"They propose building a four-lane highway to every home in town," Phillips said, "when what they really need is a sidewalk."
Actually, towns and cities should be focused on the medium, and let the private sector offer a variety of services with varying levels of quality and service. By providing a communitywide transport medium, Qwest's monopoly status is broken, and that's what Qwest really hates.
Even more telling is the remark that citizens deserve nothing more than sidewalks. That's a nice sound bite, but the communities of Iowa are in an economic development battle with whole countries that are building "four lane highways" to homes and businesses.
What Qwest has decided is that the communities of Iowa should have sub-standard, noncompetitive broadband services so that Qwest can preserve its monopoly status. Let's hope the citizens of Iowa educate their lawmakers about the wrongheadedness of this approach.
Technology News:
Community news and projects:
Say good-bye to cable franchise fees
Communities that rely on cable franchise fees to finance local government initiatives like a public access TV channel may have to find other ways to pay for those services.
As the FCC continues to level the playing field for telecom services, cable franchise fee revenues will likely disappear.
Communities will have to reposition this as a right of way fee, instead of a tax on the cable franchise but not on other right of way users. It can't just be regarded as easy money from a single company.
They also have to do a better job of tying the fees to the actual cost of managing right of way. Communities have to catalogue and track what is in public right of ways, and then begin to track how much public works and planning money is spent on managing private uses of public right of way--otherwise there is no way to justify a right of way fee. The old way of just pulling a number out of the air ("We'd like $50K to support our public access station") is not going to work anymore.
It's more a land use issue than a technology issue. And they aren't making more right of way, so it is perfectly appropriate for communities to have an active right of way management program--that's one key role of government--management of scarce resources on behalf of the entire community.
What happens to public access TV? One option is to go all digital and deliver the content via IP TV, rather than the old-fashioned cable system. It could end up costing less, and the public would benefit since the public access "channel" would no longer have any restrictions on the amount of content available. Communities would just put all the programming on a server, and it would be available all the time.
For communities that already have some form of broadband, this is quite doable today. For communities that do not have affordable broadband, it is one more reason to start doing something about the problem.
Technology News:
Freakonomic analysis of the energy "crisis"
Much has been made in the past week or two of the rising oil prices, with much prognosticating about inflation, not being able to afford to drive to Walmart (the New York Times), and other mostly negative economic impacts.
For a different view of the situation, the authors of the book Freakonomics, a popular bestseller that deconstructs the economics of a lot of different phenomenona, see no "the sky is falling" scenarios, and in fact, forecast lots of opportunities.
One of the things the authors point out is what I have been saying, which is that as oil prices go up, alternative fuel and energy systems and sources become more attractive--meaning business opportunities and new economic development alternatives. Nobody likes to pay more for gas, but the higher cost of oil is one sign that the Energy Economy is kicking into a higher gear. Is your region factoring that into its economic development plans?
Technology News:
Public roads, private roads
Imagine if there were no public roads. We would have to pay a private company to drive to and from work, probably in the form of tolls and/or a monthly fee. We might not be able to get certain kinds of goods and services delivered to our homes and businesses because the toll fees made uneconomical for a company to provide delivery services in some areas. In many rural areas, there would be no paved roads, only dirt lanes, as no private road company could make enough money to cover the cost of paving.
What's worse, some essential public services would be limited or unavailable. Residents in rural areas would be without public safety or fire protection whenever the dirt lanes were blocked by snow or muddy from spring rains--no private company could afford to plow the snow or put gravel down.
With the recent FCC decisions that give the cable and telephone companies complete control over their own systems, that's what we have--private digital roads.
What the FCC has missed completely is that there is a deeper issue involved. In principle, I agree with the approach the FCC has taken with these private companies--they should not have to share their own systems with competitors. It's like telling UPS they have to let FedEx use UPS trucks.
As I said, I agree in principle. In practice, what the FCC has missed is that affordable broadband goes beyond just being a nice private sector service to have. It's essential public infrastructure, and so the question becomes, "What is the FCC doing to ensure that communities can build and manage their own infrastructure, and do so in a way that actually supports and promote private sector investments?"
Right now, I'd have to say, "Nothing."
Technology News:
Pages
