Technology Futures

The New York Times (reg. required) has an article summarizing a new study on the impact of the Internet on our lives. As past studies have found, TV is the big loser, with Internet users watching about 17% less television. That's probably not bad news.

The article goes on to say that the Internet is also causing us to sleep less (by 8.5 minutes) and that it reduces contact with family members by 23.5 minutes per day. The researchers acknowledged that they cannot answer the question of whether or not it strengthens or weakens social relationships. That's been a burning question since the rise of the Internet, and many tons of paper was wasted in the mid and late nineties to print handwringing articles about how the Internet would probably turn us all into introverted, pale-faced geeks sitting in our basements in the dark night after night, hanging out in seedy chat rooms.

None of that ever happened, but this study is likely to produce an echo effect of those hysterical articles, using the data that contact with family members is down.

The problem with these studies is I have yet to see one that really tries to find out the other side of the story. I may talk slightly less to my wife face to face, but we are emailing each other all day long. So if you really studied the entire social interaction, you'd probably find we communicate more now than we did ten years ago.

The article estimates that 75% of the country has Internet access now. Unfortunately, we still have some elected leaders in our communities that don't think any of this is important, because they are viewing it through the lens of their own (somewhat limited) experience, rather than trying to look at the community as a whole. When 75% of your constituents are using the Internet, it's not a fad or a luxury for the well off--it's a necessity of daily life. In rural communities, the Internet has broken the chains of rural isolation and dramatically improved the quality of life in areas like shopping. Living in a rural area no longer means long drives (or doing without) to obtain needed items--a couple of clicks online and the products are delivered to your door, or even via broadband, if you don't live near a well-stocked music store, as just one example.

1995 was the year the Internet really took off. Ten years later, we've gone from a tiny number of people who had Internet access back then to 75% of the country--that's the fastest diffusion of a new technology ever. We're on to something here, and I believe it's mostly for the good. We're more aware of world events, better informed on local, national, and international issues, have more control over our time, and have all kinds of new business and work opportunities available to us.

Just one example: despite the sheer awfulness of the tsunami, we all know about it in a way that we never could have even five years ago, to say nothing of ten or twenty years ago. Is the knowing a good thing? Well, charitable giving, propelled by hundreds and thousands of Web sites helping to organize aid, will likely break every fundraising record in the world.

In the face of horrible suffering and pain, the Internet gives us an opportunity to demonstrate our basic humanity and caring for others--an opportunity to rise above our own needs, to rise above political, social, economic, and language differences--and we are doing so.

Happy New Year--all my best for a prosperous and healthy 2005.

Andrew

Walmart has backed off its mandate that all its suppliers use RFID (Radio Frequency ID tags) by next week (note: NY Times site requires registration). It turns out, among other problems, that the tags don't work very well.

The theory is wonderful--Walmart employees, instead of tediously counting stock or handscanning barcodes, would simply walk down the aisle of a store waving a wand and accurately count what is on the shelf.

In practice, no manufacturer's equipment has been able to provide 100% accurate counts, and Walmart itself says it has never gotten above 60%. As the article states, what's the point of all this if you can't even account for 40% of your inventory?

This is another example of the IT industry making promises it can't deliver, and you have to wonder why Walmart did not do more due diligence before telling suppliers to pony up millions if not billions of dollars in a complete revamp of their own IT systems to accommodate the tags.

As always, be cautious of buying new technology from vendors if you have little or no experience using it, and do not have qualified in house staff to evaluate it. Vendor promises, as Walmart has found out, are not always worth much. Disclaimer: Design Nine provides technology neutral technology advice to our clients.

I'll be posting irregularly over the next week and a half. Thanks for all your support over the past year. Traffic and readership on the site has quadrupled since this time last year, and I am deeply grateful that so many of you find this site of value.

All my best,
Andrew Cohill

Esme Vos at MuniWireless thinks that the real reason behind Verizon's fevered opposition of community wireless in Philadelphia is that Verizon is terrified of cheap VoIP over WiFi.

I'm inclined to agree. I've been saying for a while that the whole cellular marketplace is in deep trouble. The cellular companies are frantically trying to lash overpriced and relatively low bandwidth (a few hundred kilobits) data services onto a system never designed to deliver data (just like they are frantically trying to squeeze more data onto legacy copper systems). Meanwhile, WiFi already delivers megabit data services effortlessly, and VoIP works pretty well in a well-designed WiFi network.

Why would you settle for inadequate and expensive cellular if cheap WiFi services are available throughout your area?

Like the problem that the cable and phone companies face with their outdated copper systems, the cellular companies face the same discontinuity with cellular--how do make the jump (i.e. copper to fiber, cellular to WiFi) without losing your customer base and your investments in the old system?

A company that understands competition and has a corporate culture of competition would figure that problem out and be determined to compete. But the phone companies have decided that rather than reform their own outdated corporate culture, they'll simply make it illegal for communities to chart their own future.

What's the root problem here? It's lawmakers who are not adequately informed about the community and economic development issues at stake. Which is why I've always said broadband is not a technology issue, it's an education issue. Communities and regions need to make sure their elected leaders are educated on these issues.

Want to get started? It's easy. Organize a local "Take a lawmaker to lunch" program and have a rotating group of folks who are well-versed with the issues take lawmakers to lunch once a month. In a year, I guarantee you will have had a significant impact.