what?

China, Russia Propose UN Cyber-Code

2011-09-20T17:04:00.008-04:00

Concerns related to network- and cyber-security, which have increased rather dramatically in recent years, are reaching an all-new crescendo. Notwithstanding the sometimes-strident nationalist rhetoric of one or another country, what is missing from cyberspace are Geneva Convention-like international rules to standardize (and/or "govern") cyber-behavior.

And, lo (and behold), just over a week ago, on September the 12th, China, Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan asked the UN Secretary-General to circulate a proposed voluntary International Code of Conduct for Information Security at the 66th session of the General Assembly (taking place this week in NYC), and further called on UN member countries to consider the document as a framework around which to reach a near-term consensus on international norms and rules standardizing national behavior related to information, cyberspace and network security.

Bravo!

...Wait. China, Russia? Really? Aren't these the cyber-bad guys? Or, are they just the ones that get caught more often than others, or, could it be that they're just more regularly on the receiving end of Western-based media attention than other cyber-perps?...

...Ok, ok, leaving that cynical tidbit-for-thought aside for the nonce, what does the proposed Code suggest?

Well, as should be expected of any formal intergovernmental document, the preamble is chock full of "recalling," "reaffirming" and "recognizing" to set the stage for the actual proposals, but it's worthwhile to take note of some (not all) of the lofty and unobjectionable objectives outlined in the lead up to the actual (remarkably brief) proposed code. To wit:

- Recognizing the need to prevent the potential use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) for purposes that are inconsistent with the objectives of maintaining international stability and security, and may adversely affect the integrity of the infrastructure within States, to the detriment of their security...

- Highlighting the importance of the security, continuity and stability of the Internet, and the need to protect the Internet and other ICT networks from threats and vulnerabilities, and reaffirming the need for a common understanding of the issues of Internet security and for further cooperation at national and international level...

- Recognizing that confidence and security in the use of information and communications technologies are among the main pillars of the information society, and that a robust global culture of cyber-security needs to be encouraged, promoted, developed and vigorously implemented...

Good stuff. Good framework. What about the key elements of the proposed Code?

Well, each State voluntarily subscribing to the Code would pledge, among other things not related directly to network/cyber-security:

- Not to use ICTs including networks to carry out hostile activities or acts of aggression and pose threats to international peace and security;

- Not to proliferate information weapons and related technologies;

- To endeavor to ensure the supply chain security of ICT products and services, prevent other states from using their resources, critical infrastructures, core technologies and other advantages, to undermine the right of the countries...or to threaten other countries' political, economic and social security.

- To lead all elements of society, including its information and communication private sectors, to understand their roles and responsibilities with regard to information security, in order to facilitate the creation of a culture of information security and the protection of critical information infrastructures.

Again, good stuff. Cyber-motherhood and broadband apple pie, as it were...

Hey, I'm the first to admit that rhetoric is little more than nothing in the absence of action and accountability, but that's no reason to look a rhetorical gift horse in the mouth. It is in all of our best interests and the interest of global commerce and security - physical and digital - to address the proliferation of cyber-threats. Any UN member country that rejects or ignores either the call for action or the proposed Code should at the very least be challenged to deliver an alternative.

This should be interesting to watch...

Meanwhile, in other news, Network World reported yesterday on an interview/Q&A with former cyber-security czar Richard Clarke. Clarke, who served in the State Department under Reagan, as chair of the Counter-terrorism Security Group and member of the National Security Council under Bush I, as National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism (the chief counter-terrorism adviser on the National Security Council) under Clinton, and Special Advisor to the President on Cyber-security under Bush II, had some interesting answers to some probing questions, including:

If you had the influence, what would you change to improve U.S. cybersecurity?

"...In a regulated industry -- finance, power and telecommunications -- I'd require all the software be vetted for all kinds of mistakes."

When the question of supply-chain security comes up, and with so much manufacturing coming from China, do you think there's reason to be concerned about security of products made in foreign countries where sometimes there are political tensions?

"My attitude is whether it comes from New York state or Shanghai, it probably has the same risk in software. There are people in the U.S. who can be bribed, too."

I think that pretty much sums it up folks: cyber-security is a global issue demanding global solutions - solutions that are agnostic to infrastructure provider and/or geography...

Stay tuned.

** cross-posted to Facebook from www.mbplrcbd.blogspot.com **

Cyber Security: A Fact-Based Primer

2011-07-24T13:30:00.003-04:00

While the mainstream dialogue related to “cyber-security” most often focuses on issues related to consumer privacy and identity theft, the more cloistered industry and government debate circulates around espionage and so-called cyber-war. The concerns are legit, but the debate is all-too-often hijacked by political or competitive agendas, undermining progress towards true solutions.

So let’s try and dissect this - what are we talking about when we’re debating non-consumer-oriented cyber security concerns? While there are multiple and competing definitions of cyber security, most would all include at least the following: Network exploitation or attack, including espionage and/or the disruption of networks via software in or for or otherwise through the manufacture of network equipment, including via hardwired backdoors in chipsets, routers or other physical parts of the network.

In terms of potential “cyber weapons,” they might include: Unauthorized access to systems (hacking), viruses, worms, trojans, denial-of-service, distributed denial of service (including using botnets), root-kits and, of course, social engineering. Such tools can be used to compromise confidentiality or otherwise facilitate identity theft, web-defacement, extortion, system hijacking and/or service blockading. Key to note, cyber weapons can be used individually, in combination, and – generally most concerning - blended with conventional kinetic/physical weapons as force multipliers.

Who’s in the game? Pretty much everyone, ranging from the Russians to the Israelis, but the big dogs would be the U.S. and China, both of which have been quite public in communicating their cyber capabilities and intent. Indeed, reported instances of China-based cyber-incursions are significant. A couple of well-publicized examples:

Titan Rain (Government espionage) was a series of coordinated attacks with reported Chinese origin on U.S. Government, defense industrial base and R&D institutions, originally identified in 2003. Among other targets, hackers reportedly gained access to: U.S. Army Information Systems Engineering Command; Defense Information Systems Agency; U.S. Army Space and Strategic Defense Center; NASA; and Sandia Labs.

Night Dragon (industrial espionage), according to a February 2011 report from McAfee, was a coordinated series of cyber attacks which began in November 2009, aimed at global oil, energy, and petrochemical companies to harvest sensitive information on industrial operations in Kazakhstan, Taiwan, Greece, and the U.S. McAfee identified the tools, techniques, and network activities used in these attacks as originating in China.

But China is not alone in terms of being perceived (if not absolutely proven) to be engaged in strategic cyber warfare activities. Other examples, specifically geared to more concerning disruptive activities, include:

Estonia: In April and May of 2007, Estonia experienced a heavy barrage of coordinated cyber attacks against information networks, Government services and news portals. The attacks, which followed a decision to relocate a Soviet-era grave marker, were primarily in the form of distributed denial of services (DDOS), including the remarkably coordinated use of sophisticated botnets. The Russian Government was suspected but has not been proven to be responsible. While there were no long-term consequences from the attacks, short-term impact in terms of unavailability of online services were significant, particularly in a market where 98% of banking transactions take place online.

Georgia: In the weeks leading up to a Russian physical invasion of Georgia in 2008, Georgian communications, Government and financial networks came under significant cyber attack. While the immediate and most public perception of the assault was related to the defacement of Government sites, more impactful was the repeat of a strategic and coordinated DDOS attack which, as a force multiplier, disrupted communications and online activity impairing critical Government and citizen communications before and during the physical attack. While the cyber-attacks are widely believed to have originated in Russia, no Government involvement has been proven.

Iran: Stuxnet, a MS Windows computer worm, was discovered in July and 2010. Designed to target Siemens Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems, Stuxnet is the first discovered malware that spies on and subverts industrial systems . It is widely acknowledged that Stuxnet was targeted to disrupt the uranium enrichment infrastructure in Iran, with the U.S. and Israel most regularly referenced as the likely perpetrators, although without any proof having emerged. Notably, computers across the globe have been infected – an early example of cyber collateral damage.

These instances notwithstanding, in the U.S. the spotlight remains fixed on China, and U.S. authorities, politicians, pundits and media, perceiving China through the prism of the all-powerful State-controlled past – which is no longer a universal reality – regularly hand-wring about the potential for independent Chinese companies to do the Government’s bidding.

There are certainly some legitimate concerns to be had, but the legitimacy gets all too easily and quickly lost in fear- or politics- or commercially-competitive-based spin. After all, who’s to say what passes for a “Chinese” company today? If one were to be even marginally intellectually honest, and acknowledging for the sake of argument that the Chinese Government is just as committed to cyber tactics as is the U.S., wouldn’t one acknowledge that any company with a presence in China is vulnerable to Chinese Government manipulation, however well-hidden that might be?

Let’s consider this from the perspective of the information communications technology industry, one which has become utterly globalized, resulting in virtually every major ICT company having significant research and development, production and software coding capabilities in China. Why? Well, among other things, comparatively speaking, China possesses rich resources in available talent and low labor costs. Indeed, in 2010, China's college graduates reached 6.31 million, while in the U.S., the figure was 1.65 million. And, the average salary for an engineer in China remains below $10,000 a year, with the average disposable income per capita resting below $3,000, while in the U.S., it’s around $50,000 (and engineers command salaries many multiples of their Chinese counterparts). All of these – and other- advantages have attracted global ICT companies to move manufacturing bases and significant R&D functions to China.

So what does this mean in practice, in terms of major ICT players that supply the guts and intelligence to cyber-threatened global networks?

Ericsson: Ericsson opened its first office in China in 1985 and as of 2009 had 7,900 employees in China, 27 offices and 10 joint ventures. Ericsson’s second largest global supply hub is in Nanjing, China, producing wireless network equipment - over 50% for export. And, Ericsson has over 1700 R&D personnel in China and an annual R&D investment in excess of $155 million, developing as many as 100-150 products each year for Ericsson’s global markets (indeed, Ericsson’s first “3G” (WCDMA) base station was developed by Ericsson’s China R&D shipped to Europe in 2004). And, finally, Ericsson has a strong China-based service Organization featuring 36 customer network support centers and 5,000 local engineers.

Alcatel-Lucent: Shanghai Bell Telephone Equipment Manufacture dates back to 1983 (pre-Lucent AT&T) and, after uniting with Alcatel’s China-based operations following the Alcatel-Lucent merger in 2006, was ultimately renamed Shanghai Bell Co, Ltd in 2009. Shanghai Bell, employing approximately 10,000, is a 50-50 joint venture between Alcatel-Lucent and China’s State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Council. Shanghai Bell hosts several China-based global R&D centers employing over 6,000 people, has full access to Alcatel-Lucent’s global technology resource pool and develops technologies that serve all of China and over 50 countries worldwide. And, Shanghai Bell’s two Chinese manufacturing bases generate products for fixed-network, mobile, optical, and multi-media with annual production values of approximately $2.48 billion.

Cisco: Since its entry into China in 1994 and the 1998 establishment of Cisco Systems (China) Network Technologies Co. Ltd., Cisco has promoted the development of Chinese innovation and the Chinese ICT industry. In1998, the Cisco Network Technology College project officially entered China establishing over 220 Cisco Network Technology Colleges that teach comprehensive courses on the latest network technology. In 2005, the Cisco China R&D Center was launched in Shanghai, accompanied by promises to further invest $37.7 million to co-construct 35 model software colleges along with China Ministry of Education. And, in 2007, Cisco announced investments and joint ventures in China totaling $16 billion, committed to expand its Networking Academies to 500 to train an additional 100,000, and to double its manufacturing in China (a production value of as high as $14 billion).

Intellectual honesty would demand an acknowledgment that to the extent that cyber security concerns are real (and they are), then they apply to all of these global companies with operations spread across the globe, including in China. And yet, in the U.S., the focus – for political and competitive reasons – circles around global players with a Chinese heritage, like Huawei, the second largest telecommunications equipment provider on the planet.

Why? Well, Huawei is based in China and the U.S. and Chinese Governments are engaged in competition on multiple fronts, from politics to economics, and beyond. And, well, like the U.S. Government, the Chinese Government has been vocal about its cyber-intent and, certainly more public than any American activities, China-based cyber-incursions into foreign networks are well- and regularly-reported. So, with all of that in mind, ill-founded beliefs that Huawei is somehow state-influenced contribute to ill-founded fears that Huawei might facilitate Chinese Government-endorsed espionage or disruption.

Without getting into the silliness of such concerns in the context of a global leader with a presence in 140+ markets and far more sales outside China than within, intellectual honesty would still demand that any true solution to cyber security concerns would demand agnosticism. Consider:

The quality and integrity of Huawei solutions have been audited and passed the security requirements of 45 of the world’s top 50 global operators and no company or government has found Huawei solutions to vary from international standards in any manner material to security. These are facts. And, given that Huawei’s solutions are built to the same global standards as those of competitors, all of which manufacture product and code software in China and all of which share common potential vulnerabilities in component and code origin, manufacturing, logistics, distribution, installation and support, it is intellectually honest to say that Huawei’s solutions are no less secure than the equipment its ICT peers.

So where does this leave us? Well, if we take a fact-based, intellectually honest and politics-free approach, we should all agree that legislation, regulation or policy intended to address cyber-security concerns based on a company's country of headquarters is akin to throwing a mosquito net over a reservoir to prevent an outbreak of cholera…

…Not only is the prophylactic mis-used (mosquito nets are of course meant to manage the spread of pest-borne malaria), but such measures do nothing to address the true issues of plumbing, sanitation and water supply.

The facts are that true, rational and effective solutions to cyber-security concerns will only emerge from an industry-led, non-politicized, pragmatic process that acknowledges the common vulnerabilities of all ICT companies and addresses the challenges in a manner agnostic to nationality.

Later...

Calling Foul On Exim's Huawei FUD

2011-06-16T17:43:00.002-04:00

In a speech at the Center for American Progress in Washington, D.C. on June 15, 2011 (yesterday), Fred Hochberg, the Chairman and President of the Export-Import Bank of the United States, detailed "How the U.S. Can Lead the World in Exports: Retooling Our Export Finance Strategy for the 21st Century." Among other things, Hochberg bemoans "the proliferation of state-directed capital into the global marketplace" as disadvantaging U.S. firms. To the extent that such concerns are fact-based, they are legitimate. However, the legitimacy of Hochberg's arguments is effectively gutted by his willy-nilly parroting of what would seem to be competitor-inspired talking points.

Hochberg's speech (full text linked here), makes a number of factually false references to global telecom giant Huawei (recall, I work there).

Per Hochberg: "...One of the central reasons the company’s growth has been so dramatic – is that it’s backed by a $30 billion credit line from the Chinese Development Bank. This backing allows Huawei to significantly reduce its cost of capital and to offer financing to their buyers at rates and terms that are better than their competitors. This financing model not only affects the bottom line of companies trying to compete, but it also affects the bottom line of our economy – particularly as exports play an increasingly important role in our economic recovery and job creation. The reality is opaque state-directed capital allows foreign governments to target their financing at specific sectors and companies, while aggressively grabbing market share in an attempt to dominate a market."

All of that would be disturbing, if it were true. But it's not. And it is increasingly disturbing to hear U.S. government voices repeating statements that are patently false, and known to be so.

The facts:

The China Develop Bank (CDB) and Huawei have signed Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) under which the CDB has indicated its willingness to make available export credits to potential Huawei customers. Such MOUs, which serve as marketing vehicles for the CDB to gain overseas business, are not the same as Lines of Credit because there are no funds actually committed by the CDB. One such MOU was signed in 2004 referencing $10 billion in credits with a five year validity period. A second MOU was signed in 2009 referencing $30 billion, also with a five year validity period. Since 2005, 35 Huawei customer projects have tapped the CDB export credits, with the aggregate amount of financing agreed to totalling $4.25bn, but with only $2.99bn having actually been extended to Huawei customers - at going market rates and according to open market-based practices. Huawei’s global sales over the same period exceeded $110 billion. Clearly, Huawei's growth is not driven by CDB or other "state-directed" support.

So, while we're at it, let's consider some additional facts. How does Huawei finance itself? Well, in terms of external financing,mainly through loans from commercial banks. Since 2000, with the growth in international markets and in order to prevent systemic risks, Huawei has adopted a diversification strategy in terms of financing resources, types and terms. Huawei now collaborates with 28 banks: 10 China-based and 18 non-China-based banks (Note: Huawei is now one of the top 50 global platinum customers of HSBC Bank, Citibank and Standard Chartered Bank). In total, these commercial banks have granted $25 billion in credit facilities to Huawei, at going market rates and terms, in compliance with the credit policies of each commercial bank, and in accord with relevant national and international laws and regulations. To date, Huawei has utilized $3.58 billion of the $25 billion, over 50% drawn from non-China-based banks.

Facts. They can be fun. Indeed, let me repeat one more set (verbatim from my June 5, 2011 post - linked here):

In his speech at the Center for American Progress, before blasting Huawei, Hochberg poses a number of rhetorical questions about America's long-term economic growth, quality of life and competitiveness. Perhaps Hochberg and others that view companies like Huawei through the complex geo-political prism of the U.S.-China relationship should jettison the politics and actually consider the answers to those very questions that he poses. Consider, for instance, the significant contributions Huawei makes to American innovation and livelihoods. In order to fuel Huawei’s global supply chain, in 2010 alone Huawei purchased more than $6.1 billion from major U.S. technology companies, indirectly sustaining over 30,000 U.S. jobs in addition to the 1,100 U.S.-based workers Huawei employs directly. Beyond that, each year, Huawei invests about 20% of its North American revenues into local R&D, totaling $135 million in 2010 alone. Yet further, Huawei is committed to university partnerships to foster the next generation of American telecommunications experts, investing more than $10 million in 2010 to support programs at Georgia Tech, Harvard, MIT, Stanford, UC Berkeley, UC Irvine, UCLA, UC San Diego, UT Austin, UT Dallas, Washington University and Yale University.

Food for thought...

Whither Nokia...

2011-06-08T18:18:00.004-04:00

Since departing Nokia two years ago, I've posted to this blog a number of times on the company, at first reiterating thoughts related to what seemed (to me, at least) strategic mis-direction, later recalling key missteps and suggesting course-corrections, yet later wondering about potential Hail Mary solutions, and now, well, just wondering...

Nokia's share of the value-oriented smartphone market has plummeted from 49% prior to the 2007 introduction of the iPhone to 25% in the first quarter of 2011, with no bottom in near-term sight. Nokia's revenue and net income have declined by 10% and 39%, annually, on average, since 2008, and Nokia's market cap now rests somewhere around $23 billion - a gonad-shriveling fall from the peak of around $145 billion in late 2007. And, this year alone, Nokia's share price has dropped a whopping 35% - 19% in the last five days following the announcement of surprisingly "okay" first quarter results accompanied by very, very gloomy forward-looking guidance.

Damn.

On the upside, Nokia remains an Interbrand "Top 10 Global Brand" (#8 in 2010 - although this is an iffy measurement of Nokia's brand "value," which is generally acknowledged to have collapsed over the last three years)) and is still the world's largest mobile phone manufacturer, selling as many as a million entry-level and feature (non-smart) phones a day. But, alas, even the slim margins on such volume-oriented product are increasingly at risk as a host of lower-cost rivals powered by disruptive enablers like Mediatek are eating away at Nokia's last bastion.

Damn (again).

It makes you realize that the Nokia fealty to Redmond pledged in February really is a make-or-break play.

I wonder, however, if we'll even get to see if it might work, as rumors of takeover abound. Last week, Microsoft was rumored to be contemplating a $19 billion buyout - both parties denied the possibility. Huawei, HTC and ZTE were mentioned as other possible suitors - none deigned to comment on market rumor or speculation. This week, Samsung has been suggested as yet another potential contender (doubtful, but, then again, snapping up the newly WP7-committed Nokia could address Samsung's historical hiccups related to Windows Mobile and could make them a leader in two of the three dominant mobile OS's). And, of course, Google has also been referenced as potential buyer (other than to derail Microsoft's near-term plans, I have a hard time imagining why Google would consider this. Maybe three years ago. But not today - they've got a healthy stable of venders building to Android, they don't need to own one).

All interesting possibilities, some more likely than others, but, long story short, I don't see any of this happening until Nokia does some serious housecleaning and experiences some additional and significant pain that no suitor would likely be willing to stomach. For instance, if Nokia were to bail on NSN, lay off a few more thousand employees and offload the low-end and feature phone business and related assets, the resulting newly-fit and trim Nokia "smartphone" business (incorporating the in-retrospect-remarkably-overpriced Navteq assets) with a market cap around $10 billion (and retaining a significant portion of today's $8-9 billion in cash) could be an attractive purchase.

Just wondering...

At the heart of FUD is fear - enough already!

2011-06-05T19:33:00.003-04:00

Last week, The Economist featured an article about global technology leader Huawei - The long march of the invisible Mr. Ren (linked). All-in-all, it wasn't an imbalanced piece. It did, however, inspire some thoughtful clarifications, as follow (full disclosure, again, I work for Huawei):

Ours is truly a globalized economy and Huawei is the proof.

Born in the free-market Special Economic Zone of Shenzhen, Huawei epitomizes the Chinese version of the American dream: A start-up made big, owned by its employees, exploding across the global stage to lead markets and technological innovation. Indeed, Huawei, which blends its Chinese roots and local innovative and work-force advantages with the skills of the best-and-brightest recruited locally in markets worldwide, should be celebrated as a poster child for the global digital economy. And yet, as The Economist reports, there are indeed a handful of politicians in Washington who might well instead describe the company as somehow sinister and subsidized and linked to hostile forces. All of which is hogwash.

That Mr. Ren, Huawei’s Founder and President, does not have a history of doing media interviews is hardly grounds for suspicion, other than perhaps that he’s developed a pretty solid understanding of how the media works when it comes to Huawei. Nor is his over-a-quarter-century-old military service relevant in any way to his 20-plus year leadership of Huawei, or even unusual in the company of his global corporate peers. Indeed, if Mr. Ren weren’t Chinese – if Huawei did not have a Chinese heritage – we’d all likely have been spared years of undue media- and government-inspired Huawei-related FUD, particularly in the U.S. But, Huawei cannot change its roots in China any more than it can resolve the tensions between the U.S. and Chinese Governments which seem to be holding hostage Huawei’s further success in the U.S. marketplace.
To the extent that Huawei’s February 2011 Open Letter may not have offered sufficient fact-based clarification, particularly in the area of financing as indicated by The Economist, consider the following:

Huawei's financing – which is regularly mis-referenced as related to some sort of preferential government treatment - is mainly in the form of loans from commercial banks to meet Huawei’s capital structure and business planning requirements. Huawei’s approach is one of diversification: Huawei collaborates with 28 banks: 10 China-based, 18 non-China-based. In total, these banks have granted $25 billion in credit facilities to Huawei according to going market rates and practices. Huawei has utilized $3.58 billion of those credits, $1.88 billion from non-China-based banks, $1.70 billion from China-based banks.

Also regularly mis-understood are so-called “China Development Bank (CDB) lines of credit to Huawei.” The facts are that the CDB and Huawei have signed MOUs under which the CDB has indicated a willingness to provide export credits to potential Huawei customers. These MOUs are not lines of credit because the funds are not actually committed. Indeed, while one five-year MOU was signed in 2004 referencing $10 billion, and another in 2009 referencing $30 billion, since 2005 a total of only 35 projects have tapped the CDB export credits and only $2.99 billion have actually been extended to Huawei customers. Meanwhile, Huawei’s global sales over the same period exceeded $110 billion.

These are facts. So too are the significant contributions Huawei makes to American innovation and livelihoods. For example, in order to fuel Huawei’s global supply chain, in 2010 alone Huawei purchased more than $6.1 billion from major U.S. technology companies, indirectly sustaining over 30,000 U.S. jobs in addition to the 1,100 U.S.-based workers Huawei employs directly. Beyond that, each year, Huawei invests about 20% of its North American revenues into local R&D, totaling $135 million in 2010 alone. Yet further, Huawei is committed to university partnerships to foster the next generation of American telecommunications experts, investing more than $10 million in 2010 to support programs at Georgia Tech, Harvard, MIT, Stanford, UC Berkeley, UC Irvine, UCLA, UC San Diego, UT Austin, UT Dallas, Washington University and Yale University.

Huawei is no more mysterious than Mr. Ren is "invisible." Perhaps it is time to focus on the facts. In which spirit, I would add one more: In a market where an effective infrastructure vender duopoly exists, where there is no competitive incentive for the duopolists to innovate or rationalize their pricing, using non-commercial geo-politically-inspired shadowy “national security” excuses to lock out an innovative global technology leader with a history of competitive market-based pricing does a remarkable disservice to capital-sensitive local telecommunications carriers and each-and-every individual American consumer who very much wants to benefit from the affordable ubiquitous broadband services he/she deserves and has been promised.

You got some other "facts?" Then put up, or shut up. Enough already.

Patents, Perceptions and Paranoia

2011-04-29T16:53:00.004-04:00

Interesting news this week in the ever-expanding arena of intellectual property rights lawsuits: China-based Huawei sued China-based ZTE for patent and trademark infringements. The quick takeaways are a) Companies with a Chinese heritage like Huawei have become world-class technology and IPR leaders and b) contrary to sadly-lingering dated beliefs, such companies solidly appreciate the value of IPR’s, respecting those of others, and fighting to protect their own.

The less obvious takeaway is what would seem to be the demonstration that the hysterical advocates that persist in driving the yet-more-unfortunate and slanderously-perpetuated misperception that Huawei is somehow controlled by the Chinese Government are, at best, on crack.

Think about it: ZTE, by its own admission, is somewhere between 15-20% owned by organs of the Chinese Government. Huawei, privately held by its employees, is regularly and wrongly reputed to also be under some or another nefarious Red thumb. So… for those that purport to subscribe to this latter belief (and I say “purport” because I’m pretty sure that anyone with half a mind knows that it’s all bullsh*t, but some folk nevertheless maintain the charade in order to drive parochial xenophobic or anti-competitive agendas), Huawei suing ZTE would amount to the Chinese government suing itself. Really?

…but wait, having spent the better part of the last year learning how the average paranoid half-a-mind functions, could it all be a ploy, a marvelously Machiavellian machination?

I bet they’ll be thinking something like this: In an elaborate multi-decade plan, the Chinese Government manipulated Huawei’s R&D to ensure that Huawei would over the years invest in and develop and patent specific technologies after which the nefarious Reds arranged for ZTE to pirate the same technologies in order to set up a scenario years later in which Huawei would sue ZTE with the real goal having all the while been for Huawei to prove it is in fact not controlled by the Chinese government.

Yeah, right, and the White House faked Obama’s birth certificate (incidentally, that last comment was “not intended to be a factual statement”).

Whatever… At the end of the day, notwithstanding a decade of blended accidental and contrived misperceptions related to Huawei, the truth will ultimately out, and the truth is that Huawei defines the essence of tomorrow’s successful companies – a multinational technology leader strategically leveraging markets and minds across the planet to most efficiently deliver the highest quality technology, solutions and services.

The E’s New C's, by HCA (1837) – Recast (2011)

2011-04-11T21:18:00.005-04:00

There once (still) lived a lawmaker who was so bent on bashing certain foreign-based telecommunications companies and forwarding select special interests that he devoted countless taxpayer-funded hours to pursuing his agenda by spreading ill-founded rumors and falsehoods. He did not, seemingly, care for his constituents, who would benefit from a more competitive telecommunications marketplace, and, it seemed, sticking to the facts did not interest him; the only thing, in fact, he obsessed on was issuing multiple mis-informed missives to random Cabinet offices unfairly attacking said companies. He had a bit of myth or innuendo for every hour of the day, and for every letter he sent; and as one would say of a king “He is in his cabinet,” so one could say of him, “He is writing hate mail.”

The great city where he resided was very partisan; every day many lobbyists from both sides of the aisle circulated the Halls of Parliament. One day, a number of mysterious characters called on the lawmaker; calling themselves secret-keepers, they made people believe that they had information that could prove all of the as-yet-unfounded myths and rumors to be true. Their stories and facts, they said, were not only exceptionally damning, but they were of such a level of classification as to be un-disclosable, and, further, would only be doubted by any man who was unfit for his office or unpardonably stupid.

“Those must be wonderful secrets,” thought the lawmaker. “If I were to repeat such rumors and innuendo, I should be able to not only maintain my bashing, but also find out which Parliamentarians are unfit for their places, and to distinguish the clever from the stupid. I must have access to these secrets without delay.” And, so, he bestowed monstrous credibility to the secret-keepers, in exchange for which they committed to set to work without any loss of time. The secret-keepers donned their sunglasses and sped off in black Suburbans and otherwise pretended to be very hard at work, but they did nothing whatsoever related to fact-checking their intelligence.

Not long later, the lawmaker thought: “I should very much like to know how they are getting on with the secrets.” But he felt rather uneasy when he remembered that he who might doubt the secrets was not fit for his office. Personally, he was of the opinion that he had nothing to fear, yet he thought it advisable to send somebody else first to see how matters stood. Everybody in the city knew how remarkable the secrets were, and all were anxious to see how stupid their neighbors were.

“I shall send my Staff Director,” thought the lawmaker. “He can judge best the nature of these secrets, for he is intelligent, and nobody understands his office better than he.”

The Staff Director went to meet with the secret-keepers and, after a lengthy briefing, thought “Heaven preserve us! There’s nothing substantive behind any of these secrets, other than that they are defined as ‘secret’ and cannot be disclosed.” But he said nothing. The secret-keepers asked again and again: “Is it not frightening? Are you not concerned? Our country is threatened, is it not?” The Staff Director tried his best to see reason or rationality behind the swirling innuendo, but could not do so. “Oh dear,” he thought, “can I be so stupid? I should never have thought so, and nobody must know it! Is it possible that I am not fit for my office? No, no, I cannot say that I doubt the secrets.”

“Have you got nothing to say?” asked a secret-keeper, while he pretended yet again to be busily fact-checking.

“Oh, yes, your secrets are very enlightening,” replied the Staff Director, looking through his glasses. “Our country is in danger! I shall tell the lawmaker that these matters are not to be doubted.” The secret-keepers then leaped back into their ebony Suburbans and, Bluetooth encumbered, tore away, saying nothing to the no-ones over their empty lines, ever preserving their pretense as protectors of truths.

Soon afterwards the emperor sent another Staff Member to the secret-keepers to see how they were getting on, and to learn if they had concocted any new and fabulous secrets. Like the Staff Director before him, this staffer too tried and tried to elicit some fact-based justification behind the litany of “secrets” presented by the keepers. “I am not stupid,” thought the man, “but these secrets seem nothing but myth and innuendo. I must not let anyone know my thoughts.” So he praised the secrets, and the keepers themselves for the integrity of their fact-checking and their high levels of clearance. He returned to the lawmaker and reinforced the inviolability of the keepers’ product.

Everybody in the whole town talked about the worrisome secrets, even the media, which, while perhaps skeptical, were as often as not driven more by recounting a steamy story than investigating the facts. At last the lawmaker himself decided to visit the secret-keepers to sample their wares firsthand. With a number of staff in tow, including the two who had already been there, he called on the clever keepers, who tirelessly plied wireless keyboards and mobile phones, which may or may not have had any connectivity. Upon hearing a freshly-concocted batch of innuendo, the two staffers who had been there before said: “Are these not magnificent secrets?” “How inflammatory! How damning!.”

“What is this?” thought the lawmaker, “Statements of so-called fact with no substantive backing beyond ‘it’s classified.’ This is terrible! Am I stupid? Am I unfit to be a lawmaker? That would indeed be the most dreadful thing that could happen to me. I cannot voice my thoughts.” So, instead, he said: “Really,” turning to the keepers, “your secrets have our most gracious approval;” and, nodding contentedly, he silently pondered the empty rumors, for he simply could not say what he was thinking aloud. All of his staffers similarly mulled quietly, and, although they too - if intellectually honest - were skeptical, like the lawmaker, they nodded their communal consent. And all advised him to add references to the secrets to his next missive.

A few days later, with staffers and other lawmakers atwitter (in every sense), and the media poised over their figurative pens, the lawmaker issued yet another roundhouse letter, chock full of glorious secret-keeper myth and misinformation. “Are we not frightened?” postured the lawmaker. “What horrific threats,” he scare-mongered. His comments were echoed, hollowly, by a lawmaker or two, and his letter, handily leaked to key media, drew the requisite headlines. In short, there was great and political harrumphing and marvelous media hype.

“But there’s nothing to it,” said a lone but brave blogger. “It’s just a bunch of protectionist, xenophobic crap with no basis in fact.” “Good heavens! Listen to the voice of an uncompromised and honest observer,” posted an anonymous commenter. And another posted the same, and another, and yet another. And they asked for facts, for truth. And they objected to misinformation, intended or otherwise. And this made a deep impression upon the lawmaker, for it seemed to him, at last, that they were right; but, he thought to himself, “Now I must bear up to the end.” And he continued to sling mud, cushioned by loyal staff, and an ever-dwindling handful of lawmaker colleagues.

Disinformation 101: Hua Mei (not Huawei) and Iraq

2011-02-13T11:57:00.008-05:00

Long-lingering innuendo suggesting that Huawei supplied fiber optic equipment supporting Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi Air Defense Communications Network appears misleading, whether or not intentionally.

Over the last eight months, an August 18, 2010 letter from eight Republican Senators to Obama Administration Cabinet officials (link to the letter),referencing the purported sale by Huawei of advanced fiber optics equipment used to support Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi Air Defense Communications Network, has driven countless media reports on the same topic. The August 18 letter contained the following hearsay “The Iraq Survey Group reported that Huawei sold communications technology to Saddam Hussein' s regime in possible violation of UN. Sanctions…Some reports indicate that this communications technology included fiber optic equipment used in Saddam Hussein' s air defense network, which routinely fired on US. military aircraft.” (Two subsequent Congressional letters have made similar, if less detailed, references)

The August 18 Senators’ letter did not footnote the “Iraq Survey Group” report, but it did footnote a March 19, 2001 Asian Wall Street Journal article (link to mirror) reporting “U.S. intelligence sources confirm…that Huawei Technologies, one of China's leading makers of communication networks, has helped Iraq outfit its air defenses with fiber optic equipment.”

According to multiple online references, the Iraqi (purportedly NATO code-named "Tiger Song") fiber-optic air defense system may in fact have incorporated American-made technology that evaded export controls administered by the then-Clinton Administration Commerce Department. Specifically, a U.S.-China joint venture called "Hua Mei" is said to have facilitated the sale of advanced, secure AT&T (pre-Lucent) fiber-optic communication systems for "civilian use" inside China.

The U.S. side of the joint venture is reported to have included two American companies: SCM and Brooks Telecommunications International Inc.

The Chinese side of the Hua Mei venture was reportedly run by a newly-formed firm, "Galaxy New Technology," run by a PLA Lt General who was married to the then-head of the PLA military research bureau (COSTIND – the Commission on Science and Industry for National Defense).

It is rumored that the PLA’s Electronics Bureau subsequently modified the American fiber-optics communication system, changing it into a secure air-defense/missile command system, and then exporting the newly modified system to Iraq.

Suggestions that certain Department of Defense entities (specifically the Defense Technology Security Association – DTSA) may have objected to the technology transfer to Hua Mei were addressed in a DoD letter responding to then-Chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on National Security Floyd Spence, who was one of those expressing the concerns (link to DoD correspondence with Chairman Floyd as reportedly obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request – page down from the initial link). In short, the DoD response to Representative Floyd communicated that there was no DTSA or other objection or, for that matter, any DoD review of the transaction due to coincidental 1994 amendments to U.S. Export Control rules which allowed for a new classification (GLX) for exports to civilian entities, beyond DoD’s purview. The DoD letter to Chairman Floyd specifically denied any knowledge of COSTIND or other PLA involvement in Hua Mei.

Further, again at the request of Chairman Spence, the U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO) undertook a 1996 review “to determine (1) the civil and military applications of the exported telecommunications equipment, its availability, and the importance of these applications to China's military and (2) the process and rationale for liberalizing the export of telecommunications equipment, such as the ATM and SDH equipment shipped to Hua Mei.”

Among other things, the GAO’s resulting report (link to the full GAO Report) commented that while “U.S. company and government officials stated that Hua Mei was a civil end user,” the GAO found that, in fact, “Hua Mei, while a commercial enterprise, has as its principal Chinese partner, a company controlled by the Chinese military... Several members of the Hua Mei board of directors are military officers or have direct ties to the Chinese military. Such a high degree of involvement in Hua Mei could indicate a strong military interest in this company.” The GAO also noted that “The equipment was exported to Hua Mei without Commerce review, even though the company was partially controlled by several high-level members of the Chinese military.” In other words, commodity classification GLX should not have been applied had the facts been properly communicated.

Yet further, in 1997, Congressman Henry Hyde wrote Attorney General Reno a letter outlining his concerns about Galaxy New Technology (link to the Hyde letter). According to Congressman Hyde's letter to Reno, "In 1994, sophisticated telecommunications technology was transferred to a U.S.-Chinese joint venture called HUA MEI, in which the Chinese partner is an entity controlled by the Chinese military. This particular transfer included fiber-optic communications equipment which is used for high-speed, secure communications over long distances. Also included in the package was advanced encryption software."

Also in 1997, the Director of the Commerce Department’s Office of Strategic Trade and Foreign Policy Controls, responded to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request communicating that the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Export Administration (BXA) had identified seven documents related to Hua Mei in its files (link to letter – scroll down). Commerce released three of the documents, withheld one, and referred to the State and Defense Departments to review and determine whether to disclose the other three documents, which Commerce reported to have originated from those Agencies.

The Hua Mei story went more or less dark after that.

The Huawei misinformation began to emerge a few short years later, such as in the Asian Wall Street Journal article referenced above, as well as other remarkably similar and contemporaneous media accounts, like the March 17, 2001 Washington Post article (link) reporting “Pentagon officials have accused the company [Huawei] of laying optical communications cables between Iraqi antiaircraft batteries, radar stations and command centers, which they say could significantly aid Baghdad’s efforts to shoot down U.S. warplanes patrolling the ‘no fly’ zones over northern and southern Iraq.”

And thus, notwithstanding the contradictory facts openly available on the public record, a myth was born, and has perpetuated since...

Export Financing: Pots and Kettles

2011-02-04T13:43:00.010-05:00

Big hullabaloo out of Europe this week, with a European Commission investigation reportedly finding that China's largest telecommunications equipment makers benefit from "massive" credit lines from state-owned banks. (see WSJ article)

Yawn.

Seems the Europeans are catching up to their American brethren who've been ramping up the crying-foul-rhetoric over such "preferential financing" for better than a year now. Frankly, if you consider the facts, it seems that there really aren't any pots or kettles in this global kitchen of ours that are not decidedly black.

Ah yes, facts...

Let's look at Huawei (full disclosure: I work there). In recent years, and increasingly stridently in 2010, there have been countless media reports and hyperbolic political rants about the $10 billion in "financing" Huawei purportedly received from the China Development Bank (CDB) in 2004. The fact is, Huawei received no such financing. Rather, the CDB essentially created a "buyer export credit" pool that Huawei's customers could borrow from, provided they met the bank's credit assessment, risk profile, etc. From 2004 to 2009, the total credit extended by or for Huawei's customers from the CDB amounted to around $5 billion (and far less was actually drawn), in pretty stark contrast to Huawei's almost $100 billion in sales over the same period. Doesn't seem as if "massive" Chinese Government credit lines had much to do with Huawei's growth, does it?

But hey, while were doing the fact-checking, let's review some of our other kitchenware. According to the U.S. Export Import Bank's website, specifically the "FY 2010 At A Glance" PDF, the Exim Bank supported over 3,500 transactions in support of U.S. export sales last year alone, to the tune of almost $25 billion in loans, guarantees, and export credit insurance. Last year alone. But all in accord with Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) rules, right? Well, almost. According to a January 12, 2011 WSJ article, "...in a move crafted with White House involvement, the U.S. export-financing agency agreed for the first time to match China's cheaper financing terms to get the Pakistan government to buy 150 General Electric Co. locomotives." This, per the Journal, required the U.S. to "work with" the OECD to craft a "new loan model" to come up with the financing terms for the $477 million deal, "one of several steps the Obama administration has taken to pursue its goal of doubling U.S. exports over five years."

Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing the U.S. Government for trying to help U.S.-based companies compete against Chinese-based or other companies, nor am I defending any country's manipulation of the marketplace or other industrial policy. I'm just highlighting that we should at the very least remain intellectually honest about what's going on in the world. One-sided media reports and xenophobic political rhetoric that serve to fuel protectionist or, worse, nationalistic fervor, are not in our best interest as Americans. What we deserve, instead, is a fact-based and balanced dialogue.

But, wait, what about the Europeans? That's where this latest salvo came from, right?

Ugh... Europe's a lot of geography to cover, with far too many national and regional and pan-regional organizations and governments, etc. to consider, so, since all of this started around the telecommunications equipment industry, let's take a gander at Sweden, home to world-leading telecommunications infrastructure manufacturer Ericsson.

Sweden's EKN, per the website, "has been commissioned by the government to promote Swedish exports and the internationalisation of Swedish companies...by insuring export companies and banks against the risk of non-payment in export transactions...". Risk free. Nice. According to the EKN, the demand for its guarantees increased sharply during 2009, amounting to 80 billion Swedish Krone (roughly $12.5 billion), more than doubling the previous year. And, as of January 2010, the Swedish Parliament approved a doubling of the guarantee limit to 500 billion Swedish Krone (roughly $77.5 billion) - pretty impressive for a country with a mere 9.3 million inhabitants.

It will come as no surprise that, according to the 2008 EKN Annual Report, EKN guarantees backed "several large Ericsson transactions in India, Pakistan and Turkey." Go figure...

Again, I'm not taking sides, or endorsing anyone's policies or practices, I'm just pointing out that, strangely enough (or actually not at all so), the playing field is actually a lot more level than it is often portrayed to be.

So let's get to the real concern: Biased (intentional or not - I'll be gracious on that point) media reporting or government speak that mis-represents or one-sidedly presents the facts in order to push broader protectionist or nationalist agendas on an under-informed public. Indeed, if you follow the logic of some of the suggestions made in Washington and in the media related to certain Chinese telecom companies, you'd have to assume that should the U.S. and Pakistan go to war, GE - beholdened to the U.S. Government to the tune of almost half a billion dollars for the Pakistan train deal - would naturally respond to its government benefactor's military and political agenda and derail all of the Pakistani locomotives...

Silliness. Utterly ridiculous. GE is an independent global company with obligations and responsibilities in all of the markets in which it does business. GE doesn't answer to the U.S. Government any more than any independent Chinese-based or Swedish-based companies answer to their respective governments.

Enough already. Pot, kettle, black, indeed...

A Fable For Our Times...

2010-12-15T19:28:00.002-05:00

In the economically struggling free-market democracy of FUD, the airline industry was comprised of four major commercial carriers. Two of the airlines dominated the industry, carrying almost 80% of passenger traffic. All of the airlines relied heavily on two aircraft manufacturers. While there had been a more competitive vender environment in the past, other companies had either shut down, been acquired, or evolved into more specialized aircraft-related industries.

Enter an up-and-coming overseas aircraft manufacturer called 21st Century - based in the economically thriving country of UhOh - which had developed an alternative approach to building aircraft, with a significantly lower cost structure, and yet more advanced technologies, industry-leading safety solutions, and none of the legacy baggage or overhead the incumbent manufacturers carried. While 21st’s approach to manufacturing planes was new and innovative, it relied for the most part on the same downstream supply chain companies, components and inputs as the other two dominant incumbents.

Needless to say, airlines across the globe welcomed the introduction of competition and innovation in the marketplace and were quick to trial and approve 21st’s planes, anticipating significantly lower capital and operating expenses in the future due to the competitive pricing of the 21st Century's aircraft, a direct result of the company's lower cost structure. The airlines looked forward to the opportunity to translate their savings into enhanced service offerings as well as lower costs to their passengers. Their shareholders in turn anticipated higher returns on their investments. 21st Century quickly experienced great success, selling hundreds of planes to major airlines in multiple markets across the globe.

But, the Government of FUD had a range of geopolitical and trade-related concerns, some quite legitimate, others perhaps less so, with the government of UhOh. In fairness to FUD government officials, UhOh was only just emerging from decades of non-democratic rule, and had only just begun to align itself with global trade rules and free-market norms. But the FUD concerns went far beyond those factors, and were colored by lingering economic malaise in FUD, as well as FUD’s cultural, societal and political struggle to accept, in an era of globalization - in large part spurred by FUD’s shining example - a role on the global political and economic stage as a leading peer among peers, rather than a sole super-powered juggernaut. FUD and UhOh were increasingly at global odds with each other, with tensions rising on multiple fronts. In this context, the Government of FUD began communicating perceptions that 21st Century was somehow connected to and a potential tool of the government of UhOh, which, in truth, was not the case.

Nevertheless, the Government of FUD began questioning 21st Century’s business practices, its financing, and, most importantly, the integrity and safety of 21st’s aircraft. FUD officials went so far as to express concerns that, should tensions between FUD and UhOh worsen, the Government of UhOh might somehow exercise influence over 21st Century to somehow endanger FUD-based airlines or passengers. 21st Century repeatedly attempted to explain to the Government of FUD that its concerns were unfounded, stressing, among other things, that 21st’s planes had been carefully inspected and reviewed and had passed major airline performance and safety requirements in markets all over the world.

Even so, select FUD Government officials persisted in attacking the company, ignoring the fact that the incumbent aircraft manufacturers serving FUD-based airlines were also building their planes in UhOh and, should the FUD concerns be real, those other aircraft would be equally subject to those fears, requiring a cross-industry solution, not singling out a single company. Yet, quite stunningly, and without any due process or other respect for national law or global trade rules, the Government of FUD dictated to a FUD-based 21st Century customer that they could not purchase 21st-Century built aircraft. Needless to say, this action – widely reported in the press – had a chilling effect, at least in the near-term, on other 21st Century business in FUD.

It was not long, however, before the real impact of the unfounded FUD interference in the market-based decision-making process was realized.

The Government of FUD hadn’t thought about the impact of its interference in the market in terms of the thousands of 21st Century employees working in FUD, nor the impact on their FUD families. They hadn’t thought about all of 21st Century’s downstream FUD-based suppliers and the tens of thousands of jobs those companies supported related to 21st Century’s billions of dollars in annual procurement. And they hadn’t thought about the multiple other ripple effects that their market-distorting action would create: Chilled much-needed investment in FUD from other UhOh-based companies, the failure of struggling FUD-based airlines that might otherwise have survived via the CAPEX and OPEX savings related to purchases of 21st Century’s planes, lost investments of shareholders in those failing FUD carriers, and, decreased competition in FUD’s airline industry in general – both in terms of manufacturers and service providers, which, of course, translated to yet poorer services and higher costs for consumers.

A sad, sad state of affairs…

The moral of this story: Governments should not express their economic and/or geopolitical fears and woes by mis-using legitimate and industry-wide concerns about issues like safety and security to veil political gamesmanship and/or good-old-fashioned protectionist and illegitimate manipulation of the market-based decision-making process. In an increasingly and forever-globalized economy, such measures are almost certain to backfire, damaging a country’s own best interests, and those of its innovators, workers, and consumers.

(All countries and companies referenced in this fable are fictitious. Any resemblance to real countries or companies are purely coincidental).

A Manifesto (of Sorts) for a Brave New World...

2010-10-06T20:41:00.002-04:00

This is gonna be a long one...

Setting the Stage

In mere weeks, we will experience an election cycle that may well shift power in the Congress from one partisan group to another. And, the result may well be utter gridlock for the next two years, or more, perpetuating the challenges we face in terms of economic recovery, also threatening global economic growth, cooperation and security.

Why?

Now is the time to rise above partisanship and division. Now is the time to rise above the past. Now is the time to rise above nationalism. Now is the time to recognize and and leverage our role as a global leader – a leader among leaders - and to drive, as a trusted partner, global security and economic growth and development.

The last few years have been trying for Americans. Our financial system has suffered severe disruption, our housing market has yet to recover, health care remains out of reach for millions, unemployment is sky high and, terribly painful to watch, our college graduates are struggling to land their first jobs. Our national confidence is shaken. And hard.

Some Historical Perspective

You know, empires rarely fall, they usually just evolve, over time, into something new, sometimes lesser, sometimes better, richer, fuller.

China’s history of empire dates back millennia. Rome for centuries straddled multiple continents. Britain once famously ruled the waves. The Soviet Union not so long ago dominated an empire from Eastern Europe to the Bering Straits.

Today, China is evolving into a market-based global economic powerhouse, the UK remains a bastion of freedom and democracy. Rome lies at the heart of Italy, itself a member of the broader, united and peaceful European Union. The former Soviet States are a mere two decades into re-establishing themselves, but with positive momentum – and some concern - while Eastern Europe already thrives in free market democracy.

And, here, in the U.S., we are at a crossroads, a dramatic inflection point, a defining moment in time.

Ours is a unique history. We are a young nation, with a relatively short history, at least when viewed from a global perspective. While brief, our history has been at times arduous, at others terribly painful, on some occasions shameful, but most often brave, and full of promise. Ours has indeed been a history defined by a powerful belief in and commitment to what we have perceived to be our manifest destiny.

Over the last century, we have fought two World Wars and have engaged in multiple smaller, but vital, conflicts. We have endured the tension and occasional terror of almost 50 years of Cold War. We have suffered through a Great Depression, and multiple, if less dramatic, but still painful, and recent, recessions. We have survived horrific terrorist attacks on our Homeland.

Yet, through it all, we have prospered, creating entire new and marvelous industries – from aircraft to the Internet. Indeed, in many ways, as a direct result of our initiative, our leadership, our protection, our shining example of free market democracy, the world has matured around us. With obvious exceptions, democracy and free markets are flourishing. Our tide has lifted all boats.

Yet now, again, we are at a crossroads, a dramatic inflection point, a defining moment in time.

When our original thirteen colonies came together, it was no easy feat. There was great distrust among the colonies, distrust that survived the eventual Union, distrust that later fueled a brutal Civil War, distrust that still exists today, to some extent. But, through common cause, we found Union, and through common cause, we have maintained Union.

Our common cause is as strong as ever. But our status on the world stage has changed dramatically over the last two decades as a result of globalization, the spread of democracy, and the development of more and more vibrant economies overseas.

A Brave New World

The geopolitical stage is fundamentally different than it was 25 years ago. While we remain a prominent leader in the world, we are but one leader among others. And, likewise, the global economic ecosystem has fundamentally changed, and not for the short term. It is not just the manufacturing of basic mass-market goods that has spread offshore, but innovation and intellectual capital as well.

And in the midst of all of this, through and beyond our most recent recession, our financial system has suffered severe disruption, our housing market has yet to recover, adequate health care remains out of reach for millions of Americans, our unemployment rate is frighteningly high and, finally, again, terribly painful to watch, our college graduates are struggling to land their first jobs.

And, very worrisome, our culture and society are seemingly evolving from what was an historical tendency to “rally around” common causes to a new-born fear-uncertainly-and-doubt inspired inclination to “rally against” pretty much anything. Sadly, and perhaps ironically, the output of the digital revolution that fueled our growth at the turn of the last Millennium - immediate and ubiquitous digital communications - is now fueling far more radical and irrational emotion than productive and rational discourse. How else, for instance, would a seeming madman in Florida, with a congregation of mere dozens, gain not just White House but worldwide attention to his intent to burn a copy of the Koran?

Let me say it yet again: We are at a crossroads, a dramatic inflection point, a defining moment in time. The world has moved on. It is time to change our worldview.

This will be no easy task.

Putting aside defense-related issues for the moment, in terms of our global economic relations, it is time for us to recall the experience of uniting thirteen colonies - our nation - around common cause. It is time to build or re-build common cause and all-important trust on a global stage - with our competitors and partners alike. Our common global tide will lift all boats. This is our manifest destiny, as redefined by globalization.

Those in the Congress and elsewhere that believe that reviving industrial age, government-inspired market-distorting barriers to trade will benefit American companies, workers and our economy in general are wrong. Such measures, in a tightly interwoven global economy with supply chains spanning borders and oceans and integrated products demanding inputs from markets around the world, will inevitably hurt us more than they help us.

For instance, U.S. companies are prevented from participating in energy sector business in Iran. The intent is laudable – we do not want to see a radical regime further its potential to develop nuclear weapons. By cordoning off our own companies, we leave the doors open for companies based elsewhere to take the business, undermining our intent. So, Congress has crafted legislation to sanction foreign-based companies that engage in Iran’s energy sector – blocking their potential business opportunities in the U.S. if they do business in Iran. As a result, major European energy companies have announced their intent to stay out or get out of Iran. But that still leaves the rest of the planet, including no shortage of Chinese-based energy companies. So, the Congress fires up the rhetoric and the Administration puts the diplomatic screws to China, further exacerbating tensions with that country that range from a growing trade imbalance, China’s currency policy, Chinese intellectual property protection, Internet freedom, cyber-security, Taiwan, Tibet, and so on and so forth. Was this our intent? No. Our intent was to prevent Iran from developing Nuclear weapons. Might we not be better off going back to square one and allow U.S. energy companies to engage in Iran? We’d certainly have better insight into what’s happening, and, well, we’d be supporting American jobs and economic benefit as well.

Similar arguments could be applied to applying countervailing duties on Chinese products to force China to allow its currency to float more freely. Who pays? U.S retailers, consumers, and other companies that rely on Chinese inputs, etc. And should China retaliate in some fashion, throw U.S. exporters into the mix as well.

Please don’t misunderstand me: I am no apologist for Chinese human or intellectual property rights or other violations, nor for corruption or nuclear irresponsibility in Russia, nor for regimes of terror or suppression in countries like Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, or elsewhere. I’m just highlighting that industrial age tools and, for that matter, Cold War sabre-rattling, are no longer sensible in a globalized economy. We need new tools for a new age. We need to accept a new role in a new age. We need to acknowledge that we have a lot of our own historical baggage, and that we should work with global partners to help them unload theirs, perhaps faster than we did ours.

It is, again, time to adjust our worldview. We may be one of the world’s largest economies, we may well be the world’s largest consumer market, but we are only 4% of the global population. When one looks at the world stage today – from outside the U.S. – one perceives the U.S. as a leader, but not “the” leader. We are one among many.

Let us work as a trusted and equal partner to create models for further cooperation and mutual endeavor. Let us redefine globalization. Let us create opportunity and trust. Let us find common cause. Rather than putting up walls and barriers, let us recognize the realities of globalization and, for instance, create an environment, powered by tax or other incentives, and a workforce that combined are so attractive that we compel offshore multinationals to further invest in America, to create new American jobs, to support new livelihoods. It doesn’t matter where the corporate headquarters is anymore - our combined tides will lift all boats.

Our Challenges at Home

We must prioritize our challenges so that we address those that will best serve our future.

After September 11, the U.S. learned a new phrase, one that had been popular in other English speaking countries for many years: Homeland Security. The popular perception of Homeland Security is the folks working airport security and border patrols. But, of course, it goes well beyond that.

When I think of Homeland Security, however, I think about what sort of job opportunities my kids may have when they enter the workforce. I think about how we might drive true economic renewal. I think about the sacrifices that will be necessary to lay the groundwork for a true and lasting recovery.

The U.S. was once a manufacturing giant, but much of our manufacturing industry has moved offshore, where labor and infrastructure are less expensive. The U.S. was once the leading exporter of many agricultural products, but other countries are now shipping wheat and beef and the like, eclipsing our own exports. The U.S. was the birthplace of the modern “service economy,” but many of those jobs – call centers, etc. – have also moved offshore, for cost and competitiveness reasons. The U.S. delivered the world the Internet, and the world has innovated around it, with research and development also having become a global process.

Are we devoting the appropriate energy and resources to and are we educating and training our children for the job opportunities they can aspire to? Are we managing their expectations appropriately – do we want to risk another alienated generation like the one that grew up during the Internet boom, graduated from college, and waited for six figure jobs to magically materialize while their parents sought the same opportunity? Are we guiding students to leverage their strengths in terms of their ultimate occupation. Have we forgotten the concepts of apprentice, journeyman and master and trades in our headlong rush to extend the high school experience another four years vainly hoping that a degree alone will guarantee wealth and status? Have we forgotten that personal fulfillment and happiness can be achieved without wealth and status?

Our true economic recovery will begin with education. If only we might invest in training and equipping our teachers in the same way we do our soldiers…

We should look to other markets and learn from their success, and restructure our approach to education to mirror those most successful. And let’s do it right. Which means not on the cheap. Now more than ever, we need to invest in our future, in our childrens’ future.

How?

U.S. defense spending accounts for just under one half of the entire world’s defense outlay.

Yes, we must provide for our common defense. Yes, we must be prepared to address true threats to our country, including new and sophisticated cyber threats. And yes, we must be prepared to come to the aid of allies and the severely oppressed. But, in the context of our dire need to recover and renew our economy and the livelihoods of Americans, we must also reconsider our priorities.

Since September 11, 2001, Congress had appropriated more than one trillion dollars for military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere around the world.

Even some small fraction of those funds could have rehabilitated or built and equipped all new American schools, fielded an army of high-quality and appropriately compensated teachers, and subsidized hundreds of thousands of America’s brightest to attend university without the burden of overwhelming debt upon graduation.

Another small fraction of those funds might have contributed to the build-out of truly ubiquitous broadband – extending the Internet to virtually every American – an infrastructure build-out that would rival that of the national highway system decades ago, and with an impact equally profound in terms of education, training and future innovation.

And, slightly off topic, yet another small portion of those funds could have provided adequate health care for virtually all of America’s uninsured, until such day that we actually deliver on our responsibility to craft a universal health care system that does indeed protect all Americans.

A Fundamental Mindshift

Accepting that our status in the world has changed is a challenge for Americans. Manifest destiny was not just a 19th century policy, it has been an unsung American cultural driver since that time, and through today. It guides how we feel about ourselves as a people, as a nation – a sense of our history, our people, our nation as somehow exceptional.

We are no less exceptional today than we were yesterday or one hundred years ago, or than we will be 100 years from now. America remains a shining beacon and example of hope and aspiration for peoples across the world. But our status has changed, as other countries - complementary and competing global and economic powerhouses - have closed ranks with and around us.

A new day calls for new ways. We are at a crossroads, a dramatic inflection point, a defining moment in time.

Let us meet the challenge. Let us work as a trusted and equal partner on the global stage to create models for further cooperation and mutual endeavor. Let us redefine globalization. Let us create opportunity and trust. Let us find common cause. Let us not miss the opportunity to embrace change and in so doing, recover and renew as a global leader among leaders, with a strong, healthy and resilient homeland...

Stay tuned...

2010-09-13T19:51:00.001-04:00

...'nuff said. For now.

Bill

Online Digital Piracy: Threat and Opportunity

2010-08-15T13:42:00.004-04:00

There’s a stand-up comic who’s routine pokes fun at the sometimes-clever Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) trailers that run in advance of movies warning against content privacy (and, for what it’s worth, there are countless YouTube videos doing the same in various manners). The stand-up’s routine focuses on a trailer that suggests: “you wouldn’t steal a car, why would you steal a movie?” The stand-up jokes: “Well, if I could select whatever car I wanted off the street, point at it, and after 30 minutes or so it would be mine, and the original owner would also still have a copy, why wouldn’t I?

And everyone laughs, notwithstanding that such a scenario would doom the global auto industry, and, frankly, given the quality, integrity and security of the digital content the stand-up is referencing, if the same were applied to “copies of cars,” our highways and byways would become just a tad more dangerous. After all, who hasn’t heard a “found” tune skip a beat, or stop abruptly, or received a special bonus bit of malware along with the tune that otherwise compromised your computer – imagine the skipped beat or the virus resulted in, oh, I don’t know – no brakes, loose lug nuts?

And yet, since the advent of young Mr. Fanning’s original Napster over a decade ago, there has remained a persistent mindset among a certain segment of the digerati that continues to drive online theft of digital content, based on the blithe perception that no-one gets hurt, everyone benefits, and, well, all those studios and labels are and have been ripping us off for decades in any event – so let’s stick it to the ill-if-ever-defined “man.”

The music industry was caught unawares – unforgivably in my opinion – by the peer-to-peer revolution led by Napster, Kazaa, Limewire, Frostwire, etc., etc., and since then, carried on largely in the more efficient, faster, and arguably slightly less malware-friendly multi-peer to peer BitTorrent universe (including also The Pirate Bay, ISOHunt, Demonoid, etc.). Notwithstanding some fruitful, more often less, and sometimes absurd lawsuits filed by the music industry, and lots of noise and limited (very) success with Digital Rights Management solutions, it was Apple and iTunes that stepped into the breach to save – and suckle from – what was a hobbled, floundering music industry. Streaming services like Rhapsody have further bolstered legit consumption of music.

The video and movie industry were largely spared in these early days, largely due to bandwidth limitations, with piracy limited to snippets and/or ueber-poor quality full-length copies of video shared over P2P networks, YouTube or otherwise. Quite simply, the file sizes were just too large to move over pre-broadband networks. Video piracy was largely defined by Asian and other-market cottage industries built (and still thriving) around bootlegging and street-selling.

But, in today’s world of increasingly ubiquitous high-speed broadband – cable, fiber, WiFi and up-and-coming 4G wireless networks (LTE and WiMax) - the threat is real and the BitTorrent libraries are jam-packed with full-length, including recently released, films and full seasons of network programming.

And yet, unlike the seemingly hapless music industry, and borrowing from now well-entrenched consumer comfort with iTunes-like experiences, a host of services have emerged that make legal, online, on-demand video consumption a viable commercial proposition – Netflix and Amazon are great examples. And, moreover, anticipating the phenomenon of Internet video streaming to the big screen, Boxee, Hulu, Kylo (Hillcrest Labs) and others have built relationships with video and film content owners and created unique browsing solutions for delivering licensed content to stand-alone PCs or, increasingly, PCs integrated into home theaters and big screens.

Is torrenting a thing of the past? No, not at all. And the cost to the industry of such activity is staggering: While somewhat dated, a 2005 survey conducted by the MPAA, relying on a consumer survey conducted in several countries, found that U.S. motion picture studios lost $6.1 billion to piracy (notably not limited to online piracy) in 2005.

But, there is a generational change underway. Today’s torrenters are yesterday’s P2P pirates – 20-somethings that grew up file-sharing and for whom the concept of buying a CD or paying for a tune from iTunes borders on alien – this is the lost generation, the behavior of which will be challenging to change, until and/or unless they simply grow out of it. The good news, however, is there is a ‘tween and teen generation that has grown up with the reasonable price points, spontaneity, and utter simplicity of iTunes, Rhapsody, Amazon, etc. This generation is more accustomed to playing for content, and, moreover, since they have been weaned on simple, easy-to-use UI’s and online experiences – they are less likely to dive into what remains the somewhat arcane and still-dangerous world of BitTorrent.

The challenge now for the studios and networks is to nurture this generation, and to introduce services of their own to compete with the aggregators and resellers (Netflix, Amazon, etc.) lest they suffer the same fate that the music industry and artists continue to struggle with – low-to-no margins on traditional product (music tracks) shared across multiple stakeholders, and the resulting challenge to create all new experiential products to drive new revenues, new successes.

In short, online digital piracy, at this very unique moment in time, is as much opportunity as threat. The latter must be addressed, and organizations like the MPAA are well-equipped to continue the good fight. The former, however, is the greater imperative, and will require quick, creative, innovative and perhaps risky new investment and initiative from the motion picture, film and television industries.

‘Should be fun to watch (as it were)…

Illusions of Grandeur...

2010-07-20T12:19:00.004-04:00

Interesting week for Nokia and Nokia-Siemens, resulting in not-insignificant jumps in share price for the mother company.

But why?

Two major developments: Nokia-Siemens announced its intent to buy out Motorola's non-iDEN based infrastructure business and, reportedly, a search is underway for a new CEO that could, some say, result in Olli-Pekka Kallasvuo's ouster as early as next month.

Hey, these are both big deals, but, well, they're questionably meaningful in any real commercial sense and the share-price jump is almost certainly a short-term phenomenon unless a "really big deal" (e.g. a complete and utter strategy overhaul) happens, and soon...

Considering the Nokia-Siemens acquisition of the Motorola infrastructure assets, what does this really mean? Yes, on the upside, investing over $1.2 billion could be considered a good move, given that Nokia-Siemens reported a 7% annual revenue decline in Q1 2010 while the Motorola division posted a decent $112 million operating profit, a figure which Nokia-Siemens could arguably grow should it succeed in digesting the Motorola assets and rationalizing and/or eliminating redundant spending and R&D, etc. And yes, the acquisition might boost Nokia-Siemens opportunities in its weakest market – North America – if it succeeds in leveraging the long-term and healthy relationships Motorola enjoys with Verizon, AT&T and Sprint. But, let's recall that both Nokia-Siemens and Motorola were essentially shut out of recent Verizon and AT&T 4G/LTE infrastructure projects (which were awarded to the unofficial infrastructure vender duopoly of Ericsson and Alcatel-Lucent) - so it's unclear what this perhaps "too little, too late" acquisition might mean in the cases of those major operators, at least in the short- to medium-term (unless Ericsson and/or Alcatel-Lucent majorly screw up in terms of their contracted deliverables, which has happened before...).

We should also recall that Motorola's strong presence in the U.S. market is a legacy one. A not-insignificant percentage of Motorola's past infrastructure revenues and related profits were the result of selling 3G equipment based on CDMA2000 to Verizon, Sprint, and others. Given that CDMA2000 is itself a legacy standard, having been trumped by LTE, where (again) Motorola's infrastructure business has failed to break through in the U.S. (not unlike Nokia-Siemens), it's unclear where the real value is to Nokia-Siemens, excepting perhaps a breakthrough opportunity in WiMAX with Sprint/Clearwire.

I'd have argued (indeed, I have argued for a year-and-a-half now, in this blog and elsewhere), that Nokia would have done better to invest that rather remarkable chunk of change in a wholesale conversion to Android-enabled devices, derailing Motorola's terminals division, rocking RIM's nebulous recovery and standing up to HTC which in less than two years has seized significant market share and, remarkably, achieved almost household brand status.

Which leads me to that second big development: The swirling rumors over the last 24 hours or so about a purported Nokia search to find a replacement for Olli-Pekka as CEO.

Not too long ago, I posted a "don't blame Olli-Pekka for the mess in the U.S." rant (see May 2, 2010 post). My thoughts have not changed. However, when a company is consistently challenged to deliver, year after year, regardless of where the fault ultimately lies, the buck's gotta stop somewhere, and, mixing metaphors, it appears this chicken's come home to roost. Assuming that the rumors are true, including the imminent timing of the change, I think the big question should not be "who will it be?," but, rather, "what will he/she do differently?" Some important strategic decisions begging resolution:

- Wither Symbian?
- Why not Android? It's late, perhaps critically so, but it's not too late...
- If Android, MeeGo as well? Why?
- What about an unholy alliance with equally-struggling Microsoft (see June 23, 2010 post)?
- Wither Ovi? It's not on a par with the Apple and Google solutions. White label for operators? Go unholy and relaunch (see bullet immediately above)?
- What about the all-important U.S. market? Overhaul a management team that has failed to deliver for almost four years? Outsource all product to exacting operator spec (beat LG and Samsung at their own game)?
- What about morale - employee and investor? Recovery will not come overnight.
- How about an iconic product? Not some N8-like thing, but something truly iconic, like the 6160 married to AT&T's one-rate plan back at the turn of the Millenium when Nokia commanded near 40% share in the U.S. alone?

Not easy challenges, not easy decisions. But the world has moved on as Nokia has serially re-org'ed for the last three-four years. It is indeed a time for wholesale and brave renewal. I wish the greatest luck to Nokia and whomever emerges as its leader - it's gonna be one hell of a bumpy ride.

Later...

My start-up flop...

2010-07-14T23:39:00.004-04:00

A few weeks ago I marked the one year anniversary of the beginning of what turned out to be a short-lived career as President and CEO of an early stage mobile application/interactive marketing start-up. As I embark this week on the next stage of my career, completely unrelated (indeed, a return to my D.C. roots of yore - but that's another story), I'm unable to resist the urge to chronicle the sad debacle that was my start-up experience.

When leaving Nokia in February 2009, a far more bitter than sweet experience, I had a reasonable cushion upon which to mount my job search. Don't get me wrong, I was terrified from the first day of unemployment, but I was also in a position to consider a wide range of options, and I was in some sense driven to recapture the excitement and passion from that time I spent leading Nokia's maverick North American Multimedia business.

I had feelers out to every headhunter I knew, and was meeting new ones on a regular basis. I networked with former Nokia and other industry insiders at other companies in the mobile space. I flirted with one or another courting start-up, and, then, was approached with a unique and intriguing President and CEO opportunity by a headhunter I'd befriended via a mobile-related blog he managed.

What followed was a series of interviews with a range of advisers to and Members of the Board of the fledgling start-up, founded by three software platform developers who'd been together for a pair of decades and were making their first foray into the mobile space. Their solution was not rocket science, and I'll get to it in a minute, but it did indeed have the potential to be disruptive, and successful.

The start-up's Chairperson, who represented the VC that led the miniscule $750k A Round of funding (almost a third of which was already gone by the time I joined), was the prime decision-maker, and had surrounded herself with an eclectic group of well-pedigreed but oddly - seemingly - ill-fit (in terms of the start-up's offering) advisers. Hers was the decision to hire me, only after which did I get a chance to meet the Founders.

The Founders and I quickly bonded - good guys, if, however, in my perhaps not-fully-informed perception, set at pre-commercial Internet clock speeds when it came to development. When I came on board in late June, I was told we'd have a commercial solution in mid-July. Uh, not...

But what was it?

Well, when the iPhone SDK was released, the guys, who, again, had no mobile background, saw it as their next platform, and developed a clever mechanism to essentially circumvent the iterative iPhone application development process.

The way it was working when they birthed their brainchild, let's say in the context of a content owner, was that the content owner would hire an app developer, tell them what they wanted their app to do and feature, wait for the developer to return something that, with luck, actually met their specifications, then submit the app for Apple's review and, ultimately, publishing. If the content owner wanted to update the app, well, they'd go back to the developer, get the changes tweaked, pay for it, re-submit to Apple, re-publish, wait for iPhone users to update their apps, etc. Not a terribly dynamic process.

What they guys figured out was that the configuration file at the core of any app - the "property list" - could actually be updated without re-publishing if the originally published app's property list contained code for all of the potential functionality that might ultimately be desired in the app, even if the initial app only featured, in terms of the user experience, some subset of that functionality.

The solution, grossly simplified, was for the app, each time launched by an end user, to quickly touch the start-up's servers and, if the server-based config file had changed, so too would the app's property list, enabling what appeared to be a magically morphing app in terms of look, feel, feature set, experience, etc. Quite cool.

So, with a rudimentary, clumsy and awkward UI version of the solution, I set out to convince content owners that they should license our platform, bring their app development process in-house, and launch apps that they could continually morph, whether based on user behavior, new product launches, what-have-you...

I had a couple of working leads, pre-dating my coming on board, one a specialty marketing shop with a couple of trendy brand clients (lined up by one of the quirky advisers), the other a major educational content publisher. The former ultimately signed a contract, but never made use of the platform, instead leveraging one of the Founders to design and redesign an app that never launched. The other, sadly, bogged down in its own inertia, and, frankly, our failure to deliver a compelling design experience.

I turned my attention to richer content opportunities, engaging, for instance, a major music publishing group representing multiple labels, a couple of indie labels, and two major professional sports leagues.

What we soon learned from our very rich and intriguing conversations with these potential customers was that, in fact, they were frustrated by the entire mobile app experience. They couldn't make money off apps. Yet, they kept contracting developers to deliver them because apps had become a hygiene requirement in the mobile space.

All the while, I was fielding almost daily requests from the Board Chairperson and one or another of her advisers to consider random, alternative business model deviations and/or to consult with some newfound "expert."

Sigh... You see, the start-up was the Chairperson's first lead investment and, as I'd been warned by the Founders in my first week on the job, her constant interference reflected her fundamental lack of confidence and basic understanding of our business and the industry in which we were doing business. My failure - my key failure - was not putting my foot down early, demanding that she allow us to do our jobs rather than respond to her each and every whim.

In September, came an epiphanal conversation with the folks from that major music publishing group I mentioned.

What if, I suggested, we turned the model on its head, published one core app for free on Apple's App Store, with the richest potential configuration possible, and then launched a drop-dead simple consumer-focused site where individuals could design, publish and virally share their own configuration files? The content owners could open up their content management servers - just the basic, static stock content - and allow individuals to, for instance, create config files celebrating their passion for, e.g. Lady GaGa, or the Washington Capitals, or whatever. The config files, easily plugged into the single core app, would spread virally across social networks, libraries would emerge, hosted by content owners, or otherwise. Content owners would have a whole new distribution channel to up-sell premium content to people who had self-identified themselves as passionate about their content. And we'd get a piece of the action in terms of up-sell revenue, and everyone would benefit from advertisement- and analytics-based revenues and consumer behavioral understanding.

The major music publisher loved the idea. As did the couple of indies I was talking to, as did the two pro sports leagues, as did the Founders. I prepared an entirely new business plan around the new model, projecting viral growth of the core application and uber-viral growth of consumer-generated app configurations, but, importantly, no revenues until 2011, earliest.

With funds dwindling, even after having been augmented by an A+ Round of a couple hundred grand in November, I pitched the Board a new plan in the context of launching a B Round to fund us through 2010 until we could reap 2011 revenues. The Chairperson rejected the idea, as did her adviser. And then, the one Founder on the Board caved in, leaving me stranded, and, worse, facing demands from the Chairperson for a business plan that would drive 2010 revenues, perhaps around, sigh, custom app development... Such a pedestrian business was not what I signed up for...

...And, in short, it was not a terribly cordial parting of the ways. I believed in my plan and believed it would earn us a B Round. Indeed, I believed in it so much that I offered to work for sweat equity until we landed that B Round. But the Chairperson was adamant, and, unknown to me at the time, had already decided I was to be ousted, having recruited yet another "expert" to step into my shoes, notably bringing with him not insignificant funding.

We had some heated conversations, the Chairperson and I, but to no avail, other than her somewhat petty refusal to allow one of the willing Founders to write a recommendation for me on Linked-In.

And that, in short, and for the record, is my start-up story. A fabulous learning experience if nothing else.

Notably, and as an epitaph of sorts, since my departure in December, seven months later, the re-focused start-up has published, to the best of my knowledge unless otherwise white-labeled, exactly one app powered by their unique platform. One. And that one app was for the home-managed business of one of the Founders' spouses. And it's available for free from the app store. Sad. And, meanwhile, Google has recently launched their own custom individual consumer application configuration utility for Android apps. Go figure...

But, hey, all of that's behind me now...

Later...

IAccessibility: Policy Imperative, Industry Challenge

2010-06-30T17:19:00.005-04:00

As Congress debates an overhaul of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, a separate debate related to one of the lesser-known provisions of the 1996 Act is also underway, with the potential to critically impact on future information and communications technology innovation. What complicates this instance of digital post-convergence/pre-chaos/current collision, is the highly emotionally-charged nature and topic of the debate: Ensuring communications and Internet accessibility to individuals or varying ability or disability.

Section 255 of the 1996 Act, implementation of which was debated for many years, requires telecommunications products and services to be accessible to people with disabilities, to the extent that such accessibility is "readily achievable." The definition of readily achievable has always meant different things to different people, but the FCC, disability advocates and industry players generally agreed it to mean “easily accomplishable, without much difficulty or expense.” Of course “much difficulty” and “much expense” were situational definitions at best.

In any event, per Section 255, if manufacturers cannot make their products accessible, then they are required to design products to be compatible with adaptive equipment used by people with disabilities, again, “where readily achievable.” To the extent that adaptive equipment technology in certain instances did not keep pace with mainstream information and communications technology, manufacturers of the latter were often compelled to include what might be considered “retro” technology in otherwise cutting-edge solutions to ensure interoperability. Such compromises, in my opinion, were worthy of the goal of extending accessibility as readily achievable as possible.

In terms of the application of Section 255, it was defined to cover wired and wireless telecommunication devices, pagers, and fax machines, other products that have a telecommunication service capability, such as computers with modems and equipment that carriers use to provide services, such as a phone company’s switching equipment. Of note, the possible functions of a product are key in determining coverage. If a product can provide telecommunication services, then that portion is covered - for example, televisions generally are not covered by section 255, except where a set-top-box enables e-mail communication or Internet access, and then only that device is covered.

During the debate around the implementation of Section 255, there were moments bordering on the absurd. However well-intended (truly) the provisions were, the myriad of disability advocates demanding accessibility features threatened to overwhelm innovation – particularly in the mobile space - as debate floundered in the miasma of trying to address the broadest spectrum of abilities and disabilities in terms of accessibility. In the end, however, reason prevailed, and under the ever-nebulous “readily achievable” rubric, manufacturers did indeed innovate select creative solutions to address accessibility challenges – if not in every device, then across a portfolio of devices - while not derailing the promise of mobile broadband multimedia, and all under the auspices of light FCC regulatory oversight incorporating a reasonable and reasonably managed complaint process.

As a brief aside, related to the reference above to addressing the broadest spectrum of abilities and disabilities in terms of accessibility, consider how the Americans With Disabilities Act defines a person with a disability. While the ADA does not provide a list of disabilities, it does define a legal test to decide if a person has a condition that is severe enough to be an ADA disability. As such, the ADA defines a current disability as “a medical condition or disorder (called an impairment) that substantially limits a person in doing basic activities (called major life activities). “ Examples of major life activities include walking, seeing, hearing, breathing, caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, sitting, standing, lifting, learning, and thinking. The point of the reference in the paragraph above was to emphasize that designing every product to be accessible to such a broad spectrum of potential abilities and disabilities would be beyond readily achievable, it would be, in fact, utterly impossible.

Earlier this month, Representative Edward Markey (D-MA) re-introduced “The Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act,“ (also known, in Congressional parlance, as H.R. 3101) , which, with references to Section 255 and other related accessibility-focused regulation and legislation, would extend Section 255-like requirements to cover every provider of Internet access service and every manufacturer of Internet access equipment, unless it would be an undue burden, to make user interfaces accessible to individuals with disabilities (as defined by the Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended). “Undue burden” has stepped into the “readily achievable” space, and is defined as “significant difficulty or expense” – a seemingly significantly higher threshold. To the extent that threshold could not be achieved, like Section 255, H.R. 3101 would require that the equipment or service be compatible with existing commonly used peripheral devices or specialized customer equipment, unless, again, that requirement would be an undue burden.

The Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act would cover a broad swath of the Internet industry, introducing rules and regulations where they may not have been applicable, or not perceived, or not enforced in the past. Of note, H.R. 3101 has a special focus on video, which offers an illustrative example of the challenges the bill, if enacted, will introduce across the digital spectrum. In terms of video, for instance, the bill would require that any apparatus that receives or plays back video programming and has a picture screen of any size be capable of decoding closed captioning, transmitting and delivering video description, and conveying emergency information. Notably, “video programming “ is specifically defined as “including programming distributed over the Internet or by other means”. Specific accessibility requirements would include mandating that any apparatus to receive or play back video, including using the Internet, allow control by individuals with disabilities and that on-screen menus, guides and/or navigational devices be accompanied by integrated or peripheral audio output and/or other accessibility solution to enable control by blind or visually impaired individuals unable to read the visual display. These requirements impact on everyone from YouTube to TV manufacturers to PC venders and beyond, including as well the accessories – mice, keyboards, remote controls – such services and/or hardware rely on.

The intent of H.R. 3101 is laudable, and yet, as the debate matures, there will doubtless be numerous exchanges bordering on the absurd as advocates representing individuals and groups across the ADA spectrum drive their individual interests while industry positions itself to both protect bottom lines and explain what is and is not technologically, commercially, and meaningfully achievable all-the-while operating within the basic laws of physical reality. There will be moments of clarity and compelling reason. There will be moments in which reason, logic and honesty are utterly ignored. The role of lawmakers and regulators throughout the process should be as an honest broker shepherding a debate that results in reasonably achievable, commercially- and humanly-meaningful compromise that drives rather than stymies innovation, market-based competition, and, of course, meaningful accessibility.

Meanwhile, there are a variety of solutions already market-tested and deployed. For instance, Microsoft’s Active Accessibility (MSAA) and UI Automation initiatives are aimed at providing better access for individuals who have physical or cognitive difficulties, impairments, or disabilities. And, there are literally dozens and dozens of screen readers available for vision impaired Internet users, and equally numerous video relay and video captioning services for hearing impaired users. These are positive, if not fully comprehensive, steps in the right direction.

Going forward, Internet accessibility – as driven by both regulatory and public demand, both spurred by the increasing integration of Internet activity into our daily lives – may well prove to be a cottage industry as lucrative as “green technology” has become. Watch this space in terms of start-ups and VC activity…

Latest on Network Neutrality...

2010-06-25T11:24:00.001-04:00

'Round and round and round we go, where we'll stop, nobody knows...

The Senate Commerce Committee yesterday (6/24/10) questioned three FCC commissioners about FCC Chairman Genachowski's oft- and passionately stated intent to assert more control over the way broadband providers manage Internet traffic by extending existing telephony authority to regulate Internet access as well. Genachowski was not present at the hearing. Not surprisingly, Committee Democrats voiced support for the FCC's actions as essential to driving ubiquitous broadband, while Republican counterparts challenged the plans, expressing concern that such regulation would stifle innovation.

The FCC proposals, which would include an overhaul of the $8 billion Universal Service Fund - which currently subsidizes phone service for low-income folk and rural areas - to instead allow for funding new Internet access in rural areas. The bigger question though, is, of course, whether the FCC has or can contrive to extend any authority over Internet traffic or services in general. Indeed, as previously blogged, Genachowski's proposals fly in the face of the April Federal Court ruling that concluded that the FCC overreached when it sanctioned Comcast for deliberately slowing some of its subscribers Internet traffic.

I applaud Genachowski's initiative in the context of it shining a brighter and brighter light on both the need for accelerated broadband deployment and the imperative to curb access provider abuse of market power. As said before, the debate itself is serving as regulatory oversight of a sort. I worry though, just a bit,that it may also serve to delay the very deployments that are critical to our broadband future...

Stay tuned.

Online Privacy: Challenges and Opportunities

2010-06-24T12:21:00.004-04:00

Almost a decade ago, there were fierce policy debates in regulatory backrooms about how digital privacy might be managed as the commercial Internet blossomed towards the multimedia broadband wonder that it is today. The heart of the dialogue was whether or not people should “opt in” to or “opt out” of use of their personal information for advertisement, experience customization, personalization, etc.

While there were already countless laws on the books and regulations promulgated to protect consumer privacy, financial transactions, health records, etc, and so forth (although almost all drafted in the pre- or early-commercial Internet age and arguably ill-fit or un-tested in the digital world), the opt in-opt out debate – focused on driving commercial value from the Internet – was a watershed.

In markets where, for instance, direct mail and telemarketing were commonplace, the initial kneejerk was in the opt out direction – if someone didn’t like the use of their data they would have the option of stopping the process (if, of course, they even noticed). In other markets, where such practices were frowned upon (or even illegal), opt in was the preferred mechanism.

Long story short, opt in emerged as the status quo, and specifically in the context of people opting in based on the concept of “informed consent.” In other words, people had the right to a full description of how their data might be used in advance of agreeing to its use. Notably, the general public was largely unaware that this debate was taking place, nor that a common policy had been defined and agreed.

Over the last 10 years, reaching a crescendo as social networks have exploded allowing people to share more personal information, there has been growing consumer concern related to identity theft, cyber/real-world stalking (via e.g. Google Streetview or mobile location-social network mashes like Foursquare, Loopt and Gowalla), and other privacy intrusions or mis-uses of personal data. The fundamental question facing people today is: Even if I opted in, was my consent really informed?

The most recent and perhaps most resonant hullabaloo has been around Facebook’s iterative editing (and lengthening) of its privacy policy and settings, culminating in the introduction of Facebook’s “Instant Personalization Program.” Overnight, the IPP resulted in Facebook members suddenly broadcasting their activities on a wide variety of otherwise unrelated websites, like Pandora, Yelp, and Microsoft docs.

Notwithstanding Facebook's Zuckerber Washington Post “apology” (which was not his first and anything but, and included the strangely cultish mantra “If people share more, the world will become more open and connected…a better world”), opting out of IPP is doable, yet only truly effective if all of your FB friends do as well (if any of your friends visit the other websites without opting out, they get your info anyway).

Meanwhile, in the less mainstream/not-yet discovered/feared realm, sites like Spokeo offer downright spooky profiles based on publicly available digital data. Spokeo, which bills itself as “not your grandma’s phonebook, asks for nothing more than a name and city and state.

The results: Name, phone number, street address (without the specific number), household members (an incomplete list in my case), age, ethnicity, marital status, occupation, hobbies (not sure where this wild list came from), estimated home value, gender, zodiac sign (they got it wrong for me, but only by a month), level of education, home ownership, length of residence, basic socio-economic data on your neighborhood, and, of course, a Google Earth shot of the immediate neighborhood, with your house and neighboring grayed out.

And that’s the free offering. For $2.95 a month you can get a one year membership that will fill in the blanks and add photos, videos, etc. pulled from social networks, blogs, etc., as well as (I’m really not sure what this might entail) religious and political and other affiliations.

For whatever it may be worth, Spokeo is only one of many such sites offering similar “services.”

So, with all of the above said and known, and despite the efforts of groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Online Privacy Alliance, The Center for Democracy and Technology and the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) to better educate consumers on how to protect themselves online, the general population remains somewhat schizophrenic in it’s behavior and concerns. To wit, in a recently conducted (private) poll of a statistically relevant population (100’s, relatively affluent, ranging in age 15 to 45), the following results emerged:

• Almost 2/3’s of respondents are online daily for non-work/school experience, split more or less evenly between 1-2 hours and 3-5 hours daily.
• Few perceive benefit from personalized ads (based on service provider understanding of their online activity), half simply don’t care, almost 1/3 are slightly unnerved and 10%+ consider it an intrusion.
• Over half of the surveyed population make online purchases regularly or often, 2/3 recognize a remote possibility of identity theft, 25% are completely unconcerned, only a small percentage are deterred from online financial transactions for privacy concerns.
• 3/4 most trust their credit card companies to manage such transactions, with Paypal a second preference (essentially an extension of their credit cards), more than half neither trust nor distrust Apple and Google, while half list Facebook as least trusted.
• Over half of respondents use their mobile device to go online at least 1-5 hours a week, with another 1/3 going online 1-5 hours daily.
• ~60% rarely use location-based services (mapping, social location, etc.) on their mobile device, but almost 20% report using same more than 10 times a week or “practically always” (evenly split).
• Just over 10% perceive a benefit from customized services linked to their mobile device location but almost 50% would find it somewhat unnerving (29%) or an intrusion on their privacy (21%).
• No clear trusted party for managing such services emerged, indeed, 51% listed “no-one” as most trusted partner. To the extent trusted parties might be ranked, wireless operators/service providers edged out Google, with almost 50% listing Facebook as least trusted.

From a policy perspective, the good news is that EPIC, CDT, EFF and the Online Privacy Alliance seem to be united in promoting market-based as opposed to heavy-handed regulatory-based solutions to ensuring privacy protection without bringing digital commerce and social activity to a grinding halt. That said, they are also actively engaging in Washington to ensure that egregious behavior does not go unchecked – for instance, EPIC recently led 14 other organizations in filing a joint complaint with Federal Trade Commission (FTC) related to Facebook’s IPP. And, these groups are maintaining their initiatives to educate the general population appropriate individual protection. For instance, EFF is tracking Facebook’s privacy changes closely and providing clear instructions how to adjust personal settings accordingly, to the extent that Facebook makes that possible.

And, in the face of Congress preparing measures to regulate online privacy, and the FTC warning it will endorse such efforts if the industry fails to step up self-regulation, Internet companies like Yahoo and Microsoft and advertising giants like WPP are promoting a new market-based system to police privacy abuses by companies that track consumers' Web-surfing habits for ad targeting (see WSJ report).

Further good news for those of us who are fans of market-based solutions is the fact that (as also reported by the WSJ), venture capitalists – including top tier firms like Kleiner Perkins and Accel Partners - have identified privacy as a new investment opportunity and are pumping millions of dollars into privacy-related start-ups.

• Online privacy start-up ReputationDefender Inc. which provides a service to monitor what is said about an individual online and can help remove private information from certain websites, will soon disclose that it has raised $15 million in new venture funding—even though the company wasn't actively looking for new cash.
• SafetyWeb Inc., which helps parents monitor their kids' online activities recently closed $8 million in funding.
• And the well-branded Truste (a not-for-profit until 2008), which offers seals of approval to websites that meet certain privacy standards, recently raised $12 million.
• SocialShield Inc., funded by Venrock Associates and others, like SafteWeb has launched a web service that parents can use to help them track and analyze their children's online behavior, telling parents when others have posted and tagged photos of their kids online, giving them a chance to have them removed, among other thing.
• And, Abine Inc., funded by Atlas Venture, recently launched a product that can block online tracking and opt out of online ad networks.

As consumer awareness of privacy threats increases, even if behavior is not changing apace to address the threats, the market is responding with appropriate solutions and, hopefully, genuine commitment to self-regulation. But, all it may take to trigger potentially over-zealous lawmakers and regulators to step in will be more snafus from Facebook, a monster-scale case of identity theft, or a gruesome headline or two related to cyber-stalking.

A space worth watching, both in terms of personal security and business opportunity.

Later…

The unholy - or perhaps holiest - alliance...

2010-06-23T09:43:00.004-04:00

Watching Nokia’s slo-mo-but-steadily-accelerating crash and burn over the last couple of years has been painful to say the least. And there seems to be no end in sight, yet, perhaps, appearances aren’t, as they say, everything…

The collapse dates back to the Nokia reorganization in the mid-00’s that took a chaotic hodgepodge of nine devices Business Units and combined them into three new and focused Groups: Enterprise Solutions (aimed at dethroning RIMM), Multimedia (driving the future of mobile computing), and Mobile Phones (delivering bread-and-butter volume feature and entry phones). The unintended result was a strong focus on the high-end in Enterprise Solutions and Multimedia, and a natural gravitation towards the low end in Mobile Phones, which sought to capture and hold emerging market share. The door was left wide open for Samsung and LG to capture the mid-range feature phone space, where they continue to dominate today.

The acceleration of the meltdown came with another reorganization at the end of 2007, this time uniting the three separate devices Groups into one. Enterprise Solutions had essentially failed, Multimedia was poised to succeed, and Mobile Phones was chugging along in the low-end, so Nokia rightfully sought to achieve the efficiencies of a single devices Group, married up to a newborn Services Group, together meant to drive new hardware-software blended experiential Solutions into the market. The unintended result, in part influenced by an ill-timed global economic crisis, was the sacrifice of high-end device momentum - just as Apple was crashing the party and Android was a glint in HTC’s eye - as Nokia laser-focused on share, share, share. And that meant moving volume. And that meant driving low-end, entry-level phones.

There have been two additional reorganizations since, neither doing much harm nor good, neither speeding things up or slowing them down – just moving the pieces and bodies around. But, meanwhile, companies like China’s MediaTek are making Nokia’s much-vaunted global scale and efficiency less relevant in the low-end, enabling multiple Indian and other Asian companies to deliver the same $27 phones with $3 margins that have been Nokia’s mainstay in entry-level devices.

So, struggling to catch up in the high-end (where Apple and Android rule), just another middling player in the mid-range, and getting pressed hard and fast on the low end, and with its “me-too” suite of Ovi-based service offerings not having taken off to add value and differentiation to the Nokia device experience, and with its share price hovering above what would have been an inconceivable 5 Euros just two years ago, what is the one-time mobile giant and leader to do?

When I left Nokia a year-and-a-half ago, I recommended to senior leadership a North American recovery built on a departure from the global cookie-cutter approach. I have since repeatedly promoted that same strategy, both in this blog and in informal exchanges with Nokia: Scrap Symbian and deliver Android-powered devices. Just in North America. Recover here, where brands are made and broken. Then leverage that success globally.

Had Nokia taken that approach a year ago, Motorola would have crumbled, HTC would not now be a household brand, and RIMM would be yet more perilously hanging on than they already are today. But with seemingly Wang-like myopia, Nokia has stayed the Symbian course, pursuing Maemo (now MeeGo) on the side.

Notwithstanding my previous recommendations, frankly, a Nokia shift to Android at this point would be if not too little, certainly too late. It just seems so hard to fathom, a company with a history of risk and innovation watching the world go by… But, again, perhaps appearances aren’t everything.

Recall that there’s another tech giant out there struggling to succeed in the mobile space, a giant with which Nokia has had an on-again-off-again collaborative relationship, and with which, based on some personal historical knowledge, Nokia has maintained a regular senior level dialogue. Microsoft.

It’s a way out of an otherwise seemingly endless downward spiral, and I’d like to believe the plans are already in place and maturing. A Nokia-Microsoft alliance would shake the mobile space to its figurative knees. Indeed, as MS is poised to launch a refreshed mobile OS at year’s end, a suite of Nokia devices powered by that OS – if it’s everything it’s promised to be - could captivate the market. Such a bold move would certainly benefit both companies’ share prices, and, related, the sheer audacity of the move would give Nokia the opportunity to jettison it’s long-term commitment to Symbian as a mobile computing OS, instead allowing that OS to become the feature phone solution it’s destined to be. Wither Meego? I’m not so sure, but in the near-term we’d see the market boil down to three mobile computing OS’s – Apple’s OSx, Google’s Android, and Windows Mobile (or whatever it may be called) championed by Nokia. Yes, this would certainly eat into Nokia’s device margins, but it might also make Ovi much more relevant, and drive revenues through that channel that make up the difference.

Just imagine…

Streaming Internet Video to the Big Screen

2010-06-16T19:24:00.005-04:00

It's been awhile since I posted a tech tip here (if you visit the "mobile related posts" drop-down to the right of your display you'll see that it was once a staple).

In any event, and with zero focus on mobile, as streaming Internet video and content to the TV is becoming more and more commonplace, I thought I might offer some handy guidance....

Until the big CE guys (HDTV, DVR and set-top box venders) mainstream their Internet-enabled offerings, in terms of both selection and price point, (and, by the way, the potential for all of this Internet-enabled CE simply begs in advance for a consistent UI), your alternatives are multiple.

Apple TV takes a combined hardware/content approach, but has experienced limited uptake at best. And, of course, Google has announced its intent as well - Google TV - we'll wait and see what becomes of this... Even Netflix has gotten into the bundling game, teaming up with hardware partners like Roku. And, of course, if you happen to have a Wii, PS3, or XBox360 around the house that isn't otherwise in use for its primary purpose, any of the gaming consoles will support Internet streaming and, well, some limited clunky browsing as well.

Beyond the mainstream, there are any number of lesser-known hardware venders that are pushing Internet streaming-enabled HTPC's (Home Theater PC's - check out Mvix's HD Home, Acer's Aspire Revo, and Dell's Inspiron Zino for examples) and NMT's (Networked Media Tanks - check out Popcorn Hours' range of products, Western Digital's TV Live, and EGreat's somewhat chunky machine for examples) - but these things ain't any cheaper than the Apple solution (ranging from a couple hundred bucks to a thousand), nor, yet, any more mainstream.

While the hardware side of the equation has yet to mature, what most people are doing is simply hooking their PC's or laptops to their big screens and either streaming direct specific content providers (from YouTube to the networks - ABC, NBC, CBS - we've all grown up with, and beyond) or from Amazon or Netflix, or via Hulu, Boxee, or Hillcrest Lab's Kylo. The first two are basically content aggregators, Kylo is actually designed (Mozilla-based) as a true multi-functional optimized-for-TV web browser - worth checking out. Why? Because Kylo isn't just about streaming video - although it excels at that - it actually converts your big screen into a full, easy-to-view and easy-to-navigate Internet browser.

After you've hooked your PC to the TV (a simple process for weekend geeks but perhaps a challenge for the average Facebooker), the extended user experience - from the couch, as it were - is still a challenge. A wireless mouse and keyboard make it easier, and Hillcrest's Loop Pointer - a Wii-like remote - is a true marvel. Again, the latter is worth checking out (and, strangely enough, the Hillcrest technology incorporated in the Loop in part powers the Wiimote as well).

And there are other solutions as well. For those of you who are iPhone or iTouch owners, ASRock's AIWI is another clever solution. Strangely, there is no Mac version of the software, but if you download the free client to your PC and install the free app on your iPhone/iTouch, you get a WiFi- or Bluetooth-powered remote of sorts for your PC. In short, the iPhone/iTouch app allows you to use the touchscreen as a virtual mouse (and, in terms of the online gaming solutions ASRock is powering, the app also harnesses the iPhone/iTouch accelerometer for a pretty cool experience, albeit still quite limited in terms of game selection).

'Nuff said for now... Later.

Let the wireless broadband tiering begin...

2010-06-02T10:08:00.002-04:00

Mobile operators are taking first steps to introduced tiered billing for wireless broadband access, laying the groundwork and creating the model for fixed broadband to follow - the market-based (as opposed to regulatory-based) solution to network management (not "neutrality") that I've been discussing in recent posts on the topic.

For more detail, check out Verizon's approach; AT&T Mobility's approach.

Landscaping - One Year Later

2010-05-24T14:46:00.002-04:00

About a year ago, I was invited by INmobile.org to moderate a dialogue within the INmobile community focused on the mobility space, wondering "who eats who?," and including a parallel conversation pondering the nebulous space between fixed and mobile, what I deemed "nomadic," specifically in the context of netbooks. I was recently asked to update my viewpoint and, since INMobile is closed to non-members, my update (slightly tweaked) is copied below (and, notably, blends in multiple musings from other recent blog posts).

What a difference a year makes...

Let's re-set the stage. Imagine a consumer electronics continuum - a simple line stretching from "mobile" at one end, through "nomadic" in the middle, ending at "fixed" at the far end. In the mobile bubble, you find cellphones, single-purpose devices like music players, digital cameras, gaming units, etc. - all meant for on-the-go, mostly-everywhere use, some connected to a network, others connectible, some requiring an intermediary (e.g. a PC) to connect. In the nomadic bubble, up until about a year ago, you'd find laptops, e-Readers, GPS devices, portable video players and the like. Portable, yes, but designed for a more nomadic experience - sort of "fixed on the go," most capable of a network - wired or wireless - connectivity. In the fixed bubble, you'll find TVs - big ones these days - desktop computers, gaming consoles, DVRs, even component stereo systems for true audiophiles (maybe even a turntable).

Now, overlay across that continuum both a component layer (chip-sets, cables, routers, and the like) and a software layer (OS's designed, until recently, to support individual classes of devices in individual bubbles, bolstering the unique nature of each individual bubble). Now further imagine a brilliantly-colored rainbow stretching behind the continuum, representing the richness and vast depth of multimedia content - music, video, Internet, etc. And, yet further, imagine a vast grid behind your continuum and rainbow, representing the various flavors of connectivity, from copper to coax to fiber to 4G - the world of access. And, finally, imagine the whole mix floating in a sometimes-stormy, sometimes-calm cloud-like mass - the Internet.

This is the world we live in. Or lived in. A year ago. Today, convergence is taking place in some areas, collision in others, chaos in yet others.

Most interesting to watch over the last year has been the bulging and overlapping of the mobile and nomadic bubbles. Apple's iPhone burst free of the mobile bubble two years ago in a bold foray towards nomadic with the world's first true mobile computer. Google's Android is capitalizing and mainstreaming this momentum, with HTC, and to a lesser extent Motorola (which has bet the farm on Android), and a host of others deploying or planning to deploy that mobile computer OS in true numbers. Meanwhile, in the wake of Apple's iPhone introduction, we witnessed the nomadic bubble push its edge towards the mobile bubble, with last summer's much-hyped netbook revolution. A short-lived revolution to be sure - the advent of the iPad and the multitude of clones to follow have very likely set the stage for a woot.com exit for the netbook players.

Some CE venders span the continuum from a hardware perspective, e.g. Samsung and LG, which deliver phones, smartphones, laptops and TVs. HP's acquisition of Palm strengthens their potential in this context, but that's a story yet to be written, and I wouldn't assume (nor, however, entirely rule out) a happy ending. Yet others - Apple and Google - have grander aspirations. Apple has had phenomenal success in tapping the content rainbow to bolster its hardware and software solutions, has also built an entirely new industry around mobile applications, and has even made a not-yet-successful foray into bridging further into the fixed realm with Apple TV. Google, leveraging it's Internet roots, has delivered a world-class mobile OS married to its online solutions, is also fiddling with breaking through to the home big screen with Google TV, and, yet one step further, is now deploying high-speed broadband in select markets to get into the access game (and I' hazard a guess that a Google wireless MVNO is a not-too-distant prospect). One-time global wireless leader Nokia is also attempting to break out of the mobile bubble with its Ovi-based content and application solutions, but is trailing, and not terribly closely, and has some critical decisions to make about its aging Symbian OS. And then there's Microsoft, the ultimate wild card...

I guess what I'm getting to here is, well, the end of the wireless industry as we once knew it. While that may sound overly-provocative, please understand that I'm not saying that wireless broadband isn't key to our digital future, rather, that wireless-enabled devices are merely additional nodes on the Internet. Mobile phones, smart phones, mobile computers, laptops, netbooks, tablets, e-readers, digital cameras, e-meters, etc., etc., are all just nodes on the net. The industry is broadband, connected devices, and multimedia content and services - wireless is just one flavor of access. The cloud is absorbing the bubbles.

So what does all of this mean for the key players in what was a "wireless" industry? Some potential implications:

- From the mainstream, volume-oriented CE manufacturing side, HTC, Samsung and LG are best positioned to continue to succeed. Motorola, which does not manufacture its own devices nor develop its on OS, has effectively become a sales and marketing organization.

- From the mobile device OS perspective, Google's Android has the best shot at near-term dominance and a clear chance at becoming a truly global de facto standard (and not just in mobile devices). The other contenders, the Nokia-Intel MeeGo and the LiMo Foundation's open mobile Linux, will need to accelerate at dramatic rates if they are to stay in the game (Nokia needs to stop re-organizing and re-discover its history of innovation and execution). As long as the Apple ecosystem remains closed to other venders, scalability to Android levels is unlikely, all-the-more so if multitasking and Flash are not enabled in its devices (both forgivable in my opinion in terms of the iPhone, but not at all forgivable on the iPad).

- That said, Apple will continue to maintain its innovative edge, and should be expected to disrupt the market again, setting new trends, new directions and a new pace for others to follow. Indeed, while Apple will no doubt continue to successfully evolve its business model leveraging its strong position vis a vis content delivery, where I'd really like to see their next innovation would be in yet further simplifying the user experience (and here's where I borrow from my most recent post). Take QWERTY for instance. While those of my generation and the one or two that have followed might still have an affinity for this user interface, it's dated, and, frankly, not terribly efficient. What will we be using in 10 years? Touch is all the rage today, and will remain a key element of the UI experience. Voice activation will also become more and more common, but has it's downsides in terms of use in public places (privacy, ambient noise, etc.). Gesturing certainly has promise, as does facial recognition and/or expression reading, as well as virtualization. I would not be surprised if over the next decade Apple's innovation makes QWERTY and old-school telephony keypad UI's the exception, not the rule.

- Network operators - fixed and wireless - will continue their battles of the bundles, but from a consumer solutions perspective, there's is increasingly a utility business, like it or not. We will see more and more mergers as this field winnows down to two or three at best. (Side note: The real value growth for operators is in the enterprise space - providing SMEs and MNCs alike high-value, end-to-end communications and hosted and/or cloud-based enterprise services).

- The major content players will continue to struggle, just as operators will, to evolve their business models so that players like Apple and Google cannot continue to suck the value out of them.

It's a brave new world...

Short & Sweet: Same Concern I've been Sharing...

2010-05-14T15:40:00.003-04:00

...in this blog for quite some time now: Nokia's Biggest Problem? Symbian (from D:All Things Digital)

Restrooms and mainframes...

2010-05-10T11:10:00.005-04:00

In a recent chat with one of the architects of the early Internet (who remains quite active as a leader in its evolution), we touched on the inherent chaos embedded in the process of technological evolution.

I introduced the concept by remarking on the curiosity of today's public restroom experience. You can pretty much count on an automatic flush. Whether or not to wave your hands under a tap or manually turn knobs to wash your hands is less certain. Soap almost always requires a pump or two, but I've experienced the wave in that case as well. As for paper towels, it's 50/50 whether they'll dispense themselves at your waved command or whether you'll need to pull and tear. Air driers, however, seem almost universally automatic these days. In any event, in most cases, what you end up with is a mixed experience, waving at some things and turning or pulling at others, sometimes appearing a bit foolish in the process. Bottom line: Evolution takes place at different paces, even in a public restroom.

Beyond generating an initial chuckle, my observation prompted my friend to pose a question he says he regularly asks: Imagine yourself going back in time 50 years and how you would experience the world around you, and how your experiences would be perceived by others. He suggested, among other things, that we'd all end up with broken noses. People would ask, "why did you walk straight into that door?" "Because where I come from, doors open automatically." People would wonder (perhaps not aloud) "why didn't he flush?" "Because where I come from, toilets flush automatically." And so on, and so forth... Then my friend suggested: Imagine yourself 50 years in the future, returning to our age. What things would you expect to experience that we've not today yet fathomed? Cool exercise. Indeed, a potentially endless exercise. You could drown in the imagining...

...So, I'm not gonna go there. Yet. Instead, let's focus on the more near-term, as we ended up doing in my recent chat, and, first, in the context of a topic I regularly blather about.

For starters, know it or not, the wireless industry is dead.

Okay, so that was perhaps overly provocative, and it's certainly not to say that's that wireless broadband isn't key to our digital future, rather, that wireless-enabled devices are merely additional nodes on the Internet. Mobile phones, smart phones, mobile computers, laptops, netbooks, tablets, e-readers, digital cameras, e-meters (wirelessly-enabled water, electricity, gas, or whatever meter that used to be or may still be read by a union-protected human being), etc., etc., are all just nodes on the net. The industry is broadband access - wireless is just one flavor.

Now let's think about user interface, looking a bit forward, not fifty years (I'm just not ready), but a few, a decade maybe... Take the qwerty layout for instance. While those of my generation and the one or two that have followed might still have an affinity for this user interface, it's dated, and, frankly, not terribly efficient beyond the fact that we've developed a comfort and familiarity for the experience over the years. What will we be using in 10 years? Touch is all the rage today, and will remain a key element of the UI experience. Voice activation will also become more and more common, but it has it's downsides in terms of use in public places (privacy, ambient noise, etc.). Gesturing will certainly play a role in some limited use cases (remote control, for instance, not of TVs, but of, well, practically anything), as will facial recognition and/or expression reading, as well as virtualization (projected and interactive displays). But will we still be fiddling with devices with old-school telephony keypads or qwerty data input layouts? Some, yes. But I'll hazard a guess that if not in 10 years, then certainly in 20, it may well be the exception, not the rule.

But let's go back to that public restroom scenario. And in a different context, yet another I tend to rant about - regulation- vs. marketplace-driven solutions to ensure competition, commercial success and consumer benefit.

There is certainly a need for baseline sanitary regulations and relevant plumbing and interoperability standards in the public restroom environment. But would it be sensible for a regulator to define the form factor and experience provided by every sink, toilet, spigot, hand drier, etc., or to dictate universal availability of the same? Of course not. And, while regular readers of this blog may now be thinking I'm going to dive into yet another network neutrality/network management discussion, I'll resist that temptation (but you can easily see how easily the parallel could apply), and drill down instead into that interoperability question, and in the context of a different regulatory debate.

IBM has been or is actively being investigated by both U.S. and European authorities. The question at hand: Are IBM's mainframe business and its actions related to that business anti-competitive - are challengers precluded from entering the marketplace? Is this an instance where antitrust or competition authorities should intervene to ensure a fair and open marketplace? Pretty arcane stuff, huh? Curious stuff too. Given that in an ever-evolving marketplace where cloud-based and distributed computing and faster, more efficient, more capable servers are providing new businesses with cost-effective mainframe alternatives and aging mainframe-established businesses with smoother and smoother migration paths to those same alternatives, is it any wonder that IBM's mainframe market share is in the single digits in the overall server marketplace. Indeed, many argue that the mainframe is a dinosaur, well-past retirement age (this, by the way, is not true). So does IBM's mainframe business represent a monopoly?

No. Just as in previous posts I've argued that network operators have the fiduciary right to reap the benefits of the billions they've invested in their networks (not, however, to the extent of precluding competition or consumer choice of devices, services and content), so too does IBM have the right and responsibility to monetize its investments and to continue to compete for market share. And yes, there is an interoperability question that merits attention - IBM's mainframes (anyone's mainframes) are a marriage of hardware and software and to the extent that the software side of the equation is closed there are indeed challenges to companies competing to introduce or desiring to implement migration paths to the alternatives referenced above. But this is not a case of plumbing in a public restroom or basic sanitary mandates governed (if not enforced - have you ever been to the toilet at Penn Station in NYC?) by the appropriate regulatory authorities. The workarounds exist and are being deployed, indeed, IBM itself is competing in the alternative space.

There will come a day, when the pubic restroom experience will be a touch-less one, everything automatic and/or gesture-driven. The technology exists, it just a matter of the evolution taking place, as the marketplace dictates. There may well also come a day when mainframes are a thing of the past (or not) - the technology exists, it's just a matter of the evolution taking place, as the marketplace dictates. It's inevitable. Government intervention simply stymies the process, disadvantages one player, and, quite likely, advantages others. Indeed, to this latter point, it is interesting to note the overlap of membership in The Mainframe Migration Alliance, openmainframe.org, and the Computer and Communications Industry Association, the former two which are promoting alternatives, the latter which is leading the charge against IBM in Europe. You see, sometimes governments and regulatory authorities are bent to action with the best of intent, yet at the commercial will of clever competitors seeking to disrupt the momentum of one or another leaders in their competitive space.

And now, in that context, think again about the network neutrality/network management debate, and the players on both sides... Stay tuned.

Let the Broadband Games Begin (Continually)...

2010-05-07T09:32:00.005-04:00

Almost one month from the day that a Federal Appeals Court ruled that the FCC exceeded its authority when it sanctioned Comcast in 2008 for deliberately slowing Internet traffic for some users (see my April 6 post), FCC Chairman Genachowski announced in a speech yesterday his intent to propose that the FCC issue a public notice to seek comment on a new legal framework to govern broadband Internet access providers.

Here we go again again...

Genachowski characterized his goal as an effort to "restore the broadly supported status quo consensus that existed" concerning regulation of broadband Internet access providers prior to the Comcast v. FCC decision (Comcast). He further said his approach as consistent with the "bipartisan consensus" that the FCC should adopt a restrained approach to regulating broadband communications, but emphasized that "consumers need basic protection against anticompetitive or otherwise unreasonable conduct by companies providing the broadband access service (e.g., DSL, cable modem, or fiber) to which consumers subscribe for access to the Internet."

Following the speech, applause echoed from Silicon Valley and, of course, gasps of horror and screams of outrage emerged from carriers. Yawn.

Nothing has changed. This debate has been raging for years and will continue to simmer and/or burn endlessly and, frankly, I have to agree to some extent with the carriers who have called it a waste of energy that could otherwise be directed to the acceleration of broadband deployment that the FCC/Administration hopes to drive, including via measures such as announced by Genachowski yesterday.

On the other hand, the FCC announcement and related actions is serving an important purpose - in the absence of clear regulatory authority (depending which side you're on) and in the context of launching yet another round of the debate, the FCC is providing the very "regulatory" spotlight that is demanded to ensure that consumers are not abused. The debate itself has become the process of regulatory oversight...

Don't Blame Olli-Pekka for U.S. Mess

2010-05-02T10:02:00.003-04:00

An April 30 engadget report on a Reuters piece is making it's way like wildfire across the 'net, titled "Nokia CEO Olli-Pekka Kallasvuo being replaced to soothe frustrated investors?"

The report stresses that there are no hard sources behind the swirling rumors, and I'll leave it to others to debate whether Symbian^3 delays merit a CEO's ouster, but let's be clear on one point - I know the buck's gotta stop somewhere, and ultimately that's the CEO, but don't blame Olli-Pekka for the Nokia mess in the U.S.

Per the engadget report, "OPK pledged to build up Nokia's US presence when he took over, and he's obviously failed to deliver on that promise -- US marketshare has fallen from 20 percent to 7 percent, prompting one analyst quoted in the Reuters piece to wonder if 'Nokia really has the desire to fix the problem.'"

Yeah, Nokia is suffering badly in the U.S. Two successive regional leaders and leadership teams have failed or are in the process of failing to develop and execute a unique strategy for what is a unique marketplace. Rather, in both cases, drawing from legacy Nokia Networks experience, leadership focused less on unique U.S. technology and consumer trends, and more on leveraging one-time relationships and stature (Nokia and personal) with carriers, married to measly drive-slot marketing sops, to drive tweaked variants of global product.

Um, that doesn't seem to be working, at least so far (after all, we keep hearing that the strategy's gonna pay off soon).

So, yeah, I know, that buck-stopping concept is a real one, and blaming regional leadership ultimately means blaming global leadership, which endorsed the regional strategy. But in this case, notwithstanding Olli-Pekka's brief tenure in the U.S. in the '90's which gives him some insight into the uniqueness of the market, Nokia U.S. leadership was specifically and unusually vested with a mandate to rebuild, repair, restore and/or renew Nokia in the U.S., and in whatever fashion necessary dictated by that very market uniqueness that Olli-Pekka recognized demanded on-the-ground expertise. In other words, the Nokia U.S. organization was free from global cookie-cutting - technology, product, business model or otherwise - if it chose to be. With that level of autonomy should come commensurate accountability.

If there's house-cleaning to be done, do it where it needs to be done. Don't axe the remote landlord because the building manager can't keep the place in order. Get a new building manager. Indeed, you might want to think about remodeling in the process (see the conclusion of my March 2 post which touches on this concept).

Nokia N8 - Hopefully not DOA in USA

2010-04-27T11:25:00.002-04:00

Remember the Sony Walkman? Around 30 years ago, leveraging the revolutionary Walkman, Sony established de facto ownership of portable music, and held that position for the better part of a decade. But, hardware commoditization, new media, new competing memory and digitalization formats, etc. eventually made Sony just another player in portable music (from a hardware perspective), and, today, an historical footnote hidden in the vast shadow cast by Apple. It's not that Sony didn't keep up with technology. Rather, Sony drank it's own Kool-Aid. Sony thought it could set and drive global standards. Sony missed market trends. Sony got arrogant.

And with that as context...

Nokia today announced that the vanguard Nokia N8 will be shipped in the third quarter of 2010. Less clunky and chunky than recent high-end Nokia devices - indeed, quite sleek (if a little boxy) in it's one-piece aluminum shell, and quintuple-banded covering both U.S. GSM carriers (unlike the unfortunate N900) - this little mobile computer is a true wonder.

But will it sell in the global market-making U.S.?

From a hardware perspective, the N8 is a marvel. We're talking a twelve megapixel camera, Xenon flash, HD quality video, on-board video-editing software (an example of geeks designing for geeks - I have a hard-time imagining the average consumer using this feature all that often, if at all), HDMI-out capability (very nice), 16gb on-board memory expandable via micro-SD, multi-touch capability, etc.

On the experience side, the N8 offers the full range of hygiene functionality expected of any higher-end mobile, from navigation to streaming/on demand internet video, integrated social networking (and quite elegantly on the homescreen), email, and, thank God, multitasking (better hurry up on that one Apple...). And, of course, the N8 is optimized for all of Nokia's Ovi services. And, related to that, Nokia is also launching a new software development platform to make it easier to build apps and deploy across Symbian and the Nokia-Intel Meego version of mobile Linux. The N8 is indeed a Symbian-based device, and the first to feature the new, enhanced Symbian^3 software (Symbian^3 doesn't quite roll off the tongue like Android does it?).

So there's the rub. Ovi? Symbian? Yes, there is no doubt that the N8, if it lives up to it's specs, will experience success in markets where Nokia has dominated in the past, where consumers and developers are accustomed to the Symbian experience and have actually heard of and perhaps consumed Ovi services, and otherwise hve a long-standing branded affinity for all things Nokia. But, in the U.S., with a reported unsubsidized price point around $500, I don't see this device getting a whit of traction outside the uber-geek segment without a major carrier agreement, subsidization, and significant (big-time) marketing support, and that includes pumping up Ovi as well. Let's hope Nokia can break through that carrier barrier which has eluded them for the last few years when it comes to higher-end devices.

Going back to my March 2, 2010 post, the N8 appears to reinforce what seems to be Nokia's global strategy of delivering global products to global markets, regardless of the fact that the U.S. market, specifically the carriers, have simply not warmed to such generic products, despite some awkward stabs at customization.

If the N8 had been built on Android, I'd be willing to bet it would have had ready carrier takers and promoters in the U.S. Indeed, as argued in that March 2 post, if Nokia were to have focused it's U.S. efforts towards developing products specifically for the all-important world-shaping market that is the United States, in addition to an Android-based N8-like product, it would have delivered a small suite of additional Android based devices to halo around it. The carriers would have welcomed this. Developers would have been thrilled. Motorola, which has bet the farm on Android, would have quaked. RIMM, which fears Nokia ever scaling up high-end devices in the U.S., would have trembled. Even the mighty Apple would have perceived the threat.

But no. Nokia has invested a great deal in mixing one very deep well of Kool-Aid and seems hell-bent on serving it up (meanwhile U.S. carriers and consumers moved on to Red Bull years ago). Don't get me wrong, I wish Nokia luck, and I believe the N8 will succeed in select Nokia-dominated markets (e.g. Europe and some Asian and Near and Middle Eastern markets), but not likely as well as Nokia iconic product once did, because while Nokia has been busy in recent years driving volume product to maintain market share, a whole new field of value product competitors (led by Apple) have gained a beachhead in Nokia's backyard, one they won't likely surrender easily.

As for the U.S., well, pray for a powerful carrier partner with major marketing muscle (AT&T) and the N8 could mark a revival of sorts for Nokia in the U.S. (maybe even enabling the mainstream discovery of Ovi). Without a carrier (or a major, multi-million dollar Nokia marketing and open-channel subsidization campaign - which would be way cool), however, the elegant and superbly-featured N8 may very likely be, indeed, DOA in the USA.

Later...

Network Neutrality: I Repeat, the Market Knows...

2010-04-19T09:27:00.003-04:00

A piece ran in the NYT yesterday - "Getting What You Pay For on the Mobile Internet" - that underscored the points I made and offered specific European operator examples of the market-based broadband (mobile) tiering model that I pondered in my post on March 11.

Bottom line: The market can contrive the appropriate and fair mechanisms, so long as competition prevails, which should perhaps be a greater concern for regulatory authorities than whether or not entire new governance structures need to be defined for an Internet age that will have evolved twice-over again by the time any "new" regulatory regime becomes reality...

Network Neutrality Developments...

2010-04-06T16:46:00.002-04:00

Mere weeks after the FCC announced its plans to enhance and extend Americans’ broadband access to the Internet, the question of the FCC’s authority to police broadband Internet providers has become yet muddier. A Federal Appeals Court ruled on April 6, 2010 that the FCC exceeded its authority when it sanctioned Comcast in 2008 for deliberately slowing Internet traffic for some users.

The FCC’s plan, unveiled on March 15, 2010, is intended, in short, to realize the Administration’s National Broadband Agenda: 100 million U.S. homes with 100 million megabytes per second connections; U.S. leadership in mobile innovation; consumer choice of broadband provider; one gigabyte per second community-wide access for schools, hospitals and government buildings; ubiquitous first responder wireless broadband - and all with "green" tech in mind... As the Court’s ruling highlights, the FCC’s authority to regulate “information services” in addition to “telecommunications services” is unclear at best.

This debate is not a new one (I mean, really, just see the list of posts I've made on the topic as featured in my March 11 review), indeed, it has raged for the better part of a decade under the Network Neutrality banner, and in the context of the last sweeping overhaul of the FCC’s regulatory authority – The Telecommunications Act of 1996. That Act was years in the making, well beyond a decade in implementation, and, moreover, conceived in the days predating the commercial Internet. The Act’s application to today’s broadband reality is an ill-fit at best, as has been oft noted by critics over the last decade, and, more recently, in the wake of the FCC’s recent initiative.

The Court's ruling will likely bolster recent broadband provider initiatives (as led by Verizon) for Congressional review and overhaul of the communications regulatory environment – a very lengthy process. Indeed, Proposing Congressional renew of the nation’s communications policy framework should not be done lightly. While such suggestions are well-intended, another decade spent formulating policy, legislation and adjusting regulatory authority will likely result in a product which is as ill-fit for 2020 as the Act of 1996 is today.

The Court’s decision will also likely renew Congressional debate and Administration championship of repeatedly introduced bills to grant the FCC the “official” extension of its traditional telecommunications authority to cover broadband and information service providers.

And, in the interim, and in the wake of the Administration’s recent victory on health care reform, the Administration may well simply endorse the FCC flexing its muscle and exercising yesterday’s authority to police today’s broadband Internet and information service providers, in anticipation of further debate in the Courts as FCC actions are challenged.

Strategic Message Management 101...

2010-03-23T16:15:00.003-04:00

...As practiced by a seven-year-old.

Dolan and three friends are chatting at recess. One of the friends starts talking about "sex." One of the other friends tells a teacher. All four seven-year-olds are called to the Principal's office. The sex-talker claims it wasn't just him, that Dolan was talking sex too. The other two kids rebut him. The Principal asks Dolan what he may have said. Dolan's response, verbatim: "I said nothing inappropriate." Seven years old. Brilliant. (And, the cleverness of his quip aside, for what it's worth, I believe him).

Net Neutrality Revisited, Reviewed, Resolved(?)...

2010-03-11T19:44:00.016-05:00

Over the five year history of this blog - what? - I have often ranted on the subject of network neutrality.

Let's recap with links to my previous posts on the topic:

- December 3, 2009
- May 25, 2009
- January 29, 2009
- December 12, 2007
- July 12, 2007
- July 31, 2007
- May 1, 2007
- February 21, 2007
- January 12, 2007
- November 27, 2006
- November 16, 2006
- May 11, 2006
- April 24, 2006
- March 26, 2006, and
- December 16, 2005.

Virtually all of my previous posts have been passionate interventions in favor of allowing people to attach a device of choice to a network of choice to consume services and/or content of choice. I remain utterly committed to this opportunity as a fundamental and free and open market-based right.

And, all of those earlier posts were in the context of my working for a mobile device manufacturer in North America and therefore focused on the unique market power enjoyed by U.S. mobile network operators. Fragmented spectrum planning and allocation and multiple incompatible, non-interoperable radio standards (the former if not the latter regulator-inspired) created a market-distorting opportunity for operators to utterly control the consumer channel. Not their fault, per se, but damn did they capitalize on it and, damn, don't they wish they could forever. Won't happen. "Open" will out, and sooner than some might think...

All of that said, what follows, in contrast with previous posts, is a much more sober, sedate review of the more fundamental question of network management (as opposed to "neutrality" - but it's essentially the same concept). A primer on the players, the landscape, the conflict, and (maybe) "the" or "a" probable solution.

And it ain't short... So...

The Landscape:

Network operators (Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, etc.) have invested billions of dollars in their networks and continue to invest billions more in order to upgrade their networks – fixed and wireless – to allow for steadily-increasing bandwidth demand driven by more and more multimedia feature-rich content and services. Many network operators also offer select service and content offerings to their subscribers, offerings that compete against a wide range of alternatives offered by third party providers that do not carry billions in network deployment and operation costs.

Internet search, messaging, content, productivity, social networking or other digital service or solution providers (AKA “Internet players,” e.g. Google, Yahoo!, Facebook, Amazon, etc.) are driving more-and-more bandwidth-demanding “free” or advertisement or other revenue-generating services and solutions over these networks at “no cost,” perceived by some as an advantage over operator competitors that must deliver market-based and priced alternatives while carrying the additional burden of recouping billions invested in broadband networks. That said, certain Internet players have announced their intent to get into the broadband network game, at least to a limited extent (e.g. Google).

Hardware manufacturers – whether routers, thumb-modems, PCs, laptops, net-books, e-books, smart-phones, etc. – are producing and delivering a wider and wider array of devices capable of accessing fixed and wireless networks to consume richer and richer bandwidth-consuming services and content. In some cases, hardware manufacturers are marrying their devices to service or content offerings that ride “for free” over operator networks (e.g. Apple’s iPhone, iTunes and App Store), in others, the network cost is hidden/bundled into the hardware and/or content costs (e.g. Amazon’s Kindle)

Consumers pay for fixed and mobile broadband connectivity services from operators, often at a monthly all-you-can-eat subscription cost, in some cases varying according to bandwidth throughput/speed, in others according to tiered pricing schemes governed by bandwidth consumption. Consumers take advantage of an endless array of free bandwidth-consuming content and services, but also pay for select content outside of but “delivered free” over operator networks.

Regulators, generally-speaking, have universally expressed concern about the question of network management / network neutrality, have encouraged public debate, expressed strong desire for universal and affordable broadband, have in some cases adopted general statements endorsing the concepts of openness and competition, reinforcing the application of existing regulations and authority in doing so, but have not acted to otherwise intervene in the absence of any perceived “market failure.” Further generally speaking, all parties in the debate – operators, Internet players, manufacturers and consumers - are wary of regulatory solutions, and, in any event, at natural odds in terms of their positions on regulatory matters.

The Conflict:

Operators rightly expect the right to recoup their investments in their network deployments, operations, and ongoing upgrades. As broadband access has to some extent commoditized in recent years, with consumer access prices falling, operators have sought to introduce and promote alternative service- or content-oriented solutions in order to maintain their competitive position and growth-oriented businesses. Operators have also increasingly consolidated broadband holdings – e.g. marrying fixed, wireless and Internet services - to deliver increased scale and efficiencies via bundled services. Nevertheless, operators continue to perceive an unlevel playing field with so-called Internet “free riders,” and have become increasingly vocal over the last five years in demanding some level of parity, usually in the context of schemes that would charge heavy bandwidth-consuming Internet players for the usage of operator networks. Such schemes have also contemplated higher quality or greater throughput bandwidth as part of the benefit to such Internet players.

From the Internet player perspective, it’s been highlighted that the bandwidth consumption that operators are concerned about is consumer-driven consumption that operators are already charging for, and, operators can certainly adjust their consumer pricing schemes to ensure that higher-bandwidth using consumers are appropriately charged for their usage, perhaps according to data units (megabytes, gigabytes, etc.), and perhaps in the context of broadband packages that also offer higher-speed throughput to the more bandwidth-hungry consumers. It’s also been argued that, from a service/content competitiveness standpoint, operators enjoy a significant time-to-market advantage in terms of having built branded consumer relationships, a quantifiable return on their network investments. Finally, it’s been noted that just as the operators made significant investments in building networks, so too did Internet players invest significantly in developing and market-proving service and content solutions (everything from web-based search to email and messaging to calendaring to video sharing, etc.) that have become everyday mainstays of the consumer experience, including “me too” competitive alternatives provided by operators.

Manufacturers, with the exception of Apple, with its marriage of bandwidth-consuming hardware-content/services (music and applications), have thus far been largely bystanders in the debate. That said, Google might soon match and perhaps eclipse Apple via its slightly different but generally similar approach, particularly in the mobile broadband space where it has sponsored an operating system (Android) and related application ecosystem and is also selling a branded device direct to consumers. Both Apple and Google would likely adhere to similar arguments such as presented in the operator paragraph above.

Consumers are in perhaps the most precarious position. Should operators choose to adjust pricing schemes, consumers face the threat of potentially higher broadband charges in the future, after years of having watched them drop. In the unlikely event that operators settle some arrangement with Internet players to share network management and upgrade costs, consumers may face fee-based versions of services and content they have come to expect for free for almost a decade. Should bandwidth tiering models be part of any or either solution, some subset – likely a sizable one – of the consumer population may find itself relegated to some sort of latter-day, low speed, quality-challenged Internet ghetto. Any and all of these solutions would almost certainly adversely impact further broadband penetration, digital innovation, online commerce, and the future of true social benefits in terms of education, health and digital democracy in general.

(Aside: This dialogue has focused on “consumers” defined as individual subscribers to broadband services and consumers of services and content. Operators also offer direct broadband services to businesses, an increasing source of high-value revenues, as bundling of fixed, wireless, Internet, hosted and cloud-based services becomes more attractive to enterprises from both cost and efficiency perspectives. The Internet ghetto concern is a real one in this context as well. Should operators focus on serving higher quality, higher bandwidth services to higher paying enterprise customers, the individual consumer experience and related Internet consumer content and services ecosystem could, again, suffer in what could effectively become a “second class” Internet).

As for the regulators, lacking a concrete demonstration of true market failure, they are unlikely to act other than rhetorically, which is not necessarily a bad thing.

Solutions (Not):

Let’s start with what doesn’t make sense – various regulatory approaches:

For well over a decade, there has been debate around and fairly consistent policy, legislative, regulatory, commercial and consumer rejection of any “Internet tax.” Players across the ecosystem – government, businesses, consumers – all share a desire to see the online experience and related innovation continue to grow and evolve. An Internet tax is not the answer and would not guarantee any “subsidy” to operators in any event.

Neither should Internet players be required by regulation to contribute some fixed-rate fee, nor percentage of online revenues, nor some amount based on some formula related to bandwidth usage tied to branded services and/or content, either directly to operators or into some universal kitty from which operators would share proportionately in order to maintain and upgrade their networks. Such an arrangement would be market distorting and would discourage rather than encourage online activity. Indeed, it could well drive Internet players away from serving up the wealth of content we experience today, and/or preclude innovative new content and service offerings in the future.

Similarly, any regulatory approach that would preclude operators from tiering their pricing according to throughput speed and/or bandwidth consumption should not be considered. While some instrument of oversight to prevent an abuse of market power might be necessary (but arguably already exists under existing regulatory authority), precluding market-based pricing would discourage operators from further investment in and innovation around their networks and would ultimately lead to higher costs for all broadband consumers.

In terms of Universal Service in the context of broadband, while regulators should continue to encourage and enforce a pro-competitive marketplace and ubiquitous and affordable broadband, they should continue to allow market-based forces to drive deployment and competition to drive pricing. I am not certain that regulators should entertain “funding” basic universal broadband, as the U.S. FCC has recently signaled it may contemplate.

Finally, so as not to leave out the hardware players, in some markets there are taxes on hardware capable of reproducing content that date back to the early days of photocopying and cassettes that apply today, for instance, to handheld music playing devices, with tax revenues shared with creative societies. While it is unclear that any such tax on devices capable of Internet access has yet been suggested, it would be an awkward and market-distorting solution, driving up device cost, driving down device consumption and online activity in general. And, again, there would be no guarantee that any “subsidy” would ever reach an operator in any event.

Solutions (Maybe):

What emerges from the above brief and certainly not-all-inclusive review is a sense that the solution, whatever it may be, should be market- not regulatory-driven. What also becomes apparent is that there is some likelihood that in the short-term, consumers may well face higher broadband costs.

Assuming that operators will not succeed in creating a mechanism to charge Internet players for consumer consumption of bandwidth related to their services, and notwithstanding the concerns expressed above about the precarious position of the consumer in the mix, the market-based solution most likely to succeed will include operators refining and deploying “metered” (as opposed to flat rate) pricing schemes that tier broadband according to consumer throughput speed and/or bandwidth usage and/or the “nature” of such usage. This would not preclude all-you-can-eat-fast-and-you-can-get broadband – indeed, that would likely be the highest service tier offered. And, of course, appropriate regulatory oversight will be necessary (and such oversight may well require oversight of its own) and such authority arguably already exists.

Given that a good number of consumers would be impacted with higher broadband costs, a more important role for government might be to work with industry – operators and Internet players alike - just as it did in the context of the conversion from analog to digital television. A comprehensive and integrated educational/marketing program could be geared to help consumers understand that their consumption of megabytes and gigabytes is akin to their consumption of kilowatts of electricity, gallons of water, or cubic feet of natural gas.

Implications:

The solution suggested as most viable above should not be mis-interpreted as driving a public perception of network operators as utilities or bit pipes. Rather, it is an opportunity for a leveling of the playing field. Consumers would be able to determine from their detailed bills which element of their monthly charge is a “utility” charge (standard access, for instance – ala basic cable, to use a new analogy) and which elements are “content” charges (sticking with the cable analogy, akin to pay-per-view, but in this case, heavy duty bandwidth/data/content consumption).

In terms of the monthly “content” bill (which could ultimately become a separate bill altogether, indeed, an entirely new aggregator industry might be born and/or opportunities might emerge for banks, credit card companies or other financial intermediaries to take a stake in the game), a new transparency would emerge for consumers, creating market and pricing pressures that would ensure competition – quality and pricing - between Internet players and operators alike, and across service and content offerings.

Indeed, introducing yet another analogy, operators might implement affinity and/or points programs for heavy data-using consumers, ala airline frequent flier miles, extending status, rewards, rebates and a richer branded relationship with such customers. Here is yet another example of operators being able to derive quantifiable return on their network investment and billing control point that distinguishes them from Internet players (there is no reason to imagine, however, that as airlines have partnered with resorts, hotels, car rental agencies, etc. that operators and Internet players might also integrate broadband/content/services package offerings to consumers).

In short, a market-based solution – with light regulatory oversight (an ever-shining spotlight) – will ultimately be the best solution, even if it entails potentially higher consumer pricing in the short term. The market is far more flexible than any artificially managed regime – the above imaginings of creative developments as a result of market-based mechanisms only begins to scratch the surface of what may ultimately evolve.

One Year Later Part II (as posted to FB 3/2/10)

2010-03-02T20:52:00.009-05:00

Meanwhile...

Nokia in the U.S. - What happened?

The debate continues to rage over why and how Nokia lost its way in the North American market, where it once reigned supreme and now can boast at best single digit or low double digit market share, and that built on low end and feature (not necessarily "smart") phones. Needless to say, there's no one single answer, but one thing can be certain, mis-steps and missed opportunities were global, not North American.

Not long ago, over the holiday break, I read a NYT piece titled "Can Nokia Recapture its Glory Days" (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/13/business/13nokia.html?_r=1). A sobering read, particularly for those of us whose blood still runs a tad Nokia Blue. Moreover, a frustrating read, particularly for those of us who know the U.S. market intimately and have not-insignificant insight into Nokia's history here.

When the Times quoted a Nokia executive saying “We made wrong decisions in the American market,” and then the Times explained that "For instance, Nokia was slow to make the change to so-called clamshell phones, sticking with ‘monoblock’ models even as consumers abandoned them," I bristled, just a bit. While such decisions may have impacted first and hardest in the American market, they were not made in some North American vacuum. Indeed, I recall strident warnings from Nokia North America to global product gatekeepers in the early 2000's, advising that form factor and user-interface developments in the U.S. - ranging from flip to fold to thin to QWERTY to touch – would soon set global trends. Largely unheeded, such warnings were perhaps not strident enough...

Nevertheless, I was heartened to read another Nokia executive quoted: “We have not lost our ability to innovate; we have not lost our ability to truly understand the consumer and make intuitive solutions for them." I believe this.

But, as I read on, my frustration returned when Nokia's success-challenged "Comes With Music" and "a smartphone for next year that will update the company’s aging Symbian operating system" were referenced by the Times. While the reference was global, from a U.S. perspective, the former is an extremely long shot at best, and the latter, well, and globally, in an industry increasingly defined by real hand-held computers, Symbian is increasingly qualified as a high-end feature-phone OS, not a mobile computer OS.

And then I read that a crucial development in 2010 will be a bigger push for North American market share with Nokia working more closely with carriers and bringing out more smartphones. “We have not invested enough there...It’s a necessity for us.”

Okay. Sure. True. But, c'mon, it may be time to update the talking points - this one's getting a bit dusty. In fact, it's not really been a matter of not enough investment, rather, perhaps, mis-directed investment. The Times article rightly stated "according to both Nokia executives and industry experts, the company didn’t want to produce phones specifically tailored for American consumer tastes, and it resisted demands from the major carriers to come up with phones based around their brands and individual specifications." But, when I say "rightly," I mean 'rightly' as in, like, five years ago. Since then, outside of the brief period of Multimedia heresy and success in 2007, Nokia North America has been doing its utmost - granted, somewhat constrained by an organizational structure that favors scale-obsessed global product cookie-cutters - to build anything a U.S. carrier might want, tailored in any way they might desire, yet has simply not achieved sustainable success.

Should Nokia continue blithely down this same path in the U.S. - against competitors like LG and Samsung who have mastered the carrier kowtow, relative newcomers like Apple who've upended the carrier dominance model with device and services solutions, and the likes of Google which aims to do the same with both its Android OS and HTC-built Nexus married to its wealth of online solutions - it will very likely mean continued failure in the U.S.

Now, at this point, I should highlght that I don't claim to have any insight into Nokia's current global or U.S strategies, and I do wish them all the best in terms of the substance and execution of whatever that strategy may be. But with that said, if I may be so bold, if it were me, for whatever it may be worth, and with a very pure focus on Nokia in the U.S. only:

-- I'd stop following past, global, defensive or someone elses' rules and blueprints. It is time for risk and reinvention.
-- I'd outsource mainstream product for North American operators - find a manufacturing partner in Asia, maintain oversight of design and quality, but otherwise deliver Nokia-branded product 100%+ to U.S. operator demand, preference and spec.
-- I'd build such outsourced product on Android. Make a land grab where there is land to be grabbed.
-- I'd white label any Ovi services that any North American carrier might want. They're already losing control to third-party content, services and app stores - why not give them a solution instead of another headache? (And, frankly, Ovi by Nokia is effectively DOA in the U.S. anyway, at least in any near-term way).
-- Meanwhile, I'd dedicate Nokia's significant San Diego-based resources to design and produce an optimized-for-North America handset, specifically not borrowing from some global roadmap.
-- If Maemo (or now MeeGo, as married to Intel's Moblin) is truly stable - and we'll see what the N900 experience ultimately proves - I'd build that single, optimized-for-North America product on that OS.
-- And I'd sell that product direct to consumers, partnering with big box and other retail, as well as online. (Note: While this strategy might seem akin to Google's, it was in fact a strategic recommendation I made to Nokia executive management when I left a year ago). Oh, and if a carrier also happens to want the device, super, let 'em have it - but don't dither about heeding their customization demands - that's what the outsourced product is about.
-- I'd break the Nokia mold and invest in some noticeable branded marketing and advertisement in the U.S., specifically around that open market North American-optimized device and its related experiences.
-- Working with channel partners, I'd deploy innovative new retail models - device installment plans, for instance - to ameliorate the lack of subsidy.
-- And, I'd sell the device at, near or even below cost - a conscious land grab (yet another) in the mobile computer space.

I've no doubt that there are many who could poke solid holes in any element of such a strategy. Please do. Have at it. But be careful about arguing that it's just a matter of time for the current Nokia U.S. strategy to succeed. That's another tired talking point - it's been a few years now. Not only has it not succeeded, it's simply outdated in terms of the market’s evolution. I'd be equally wary of proclamations that the strategy has evolved -"just you wait and see" - that talking point's a bit tired now too. It's time for proof, taste, pudding.

In short, I believe, in order to succeed in the U.S. - and ultimately globally - it's time for Nokia to refresh, renew, re-engineer, replace, revive, and (re)discover. I wish them great luck and god-speed.

One Year Later (as posted to FB 2/26/10)

2010-03-02T20:36:00.008-05:00

This month, I mark the one-year anniversary of my departure from Nokia. Over my twelve-year tenure with the company, focused in the Americas and primarily the U.S., I graduated from leading U.S. government and industry affairs to driving Americas-wide strategy; from managing North American corporate communications to spearheading the North American Multimedia Business Group and Americas-wide Go-to-Market. And, over my twelve years with the company, I watched Nokia's star rise spectacularly in the U.S. going into the turn of the Millennium, and have since witnessed a steady decline, notwithstanding brief spurts of inspirational success, such as experienced by the NSeries products in 2007.

Things have changed. Indeed, the mobile and Internet convergence environments continue to evolve at a more and more rapid pace. To that point, leading up to and in the wake of last week's Mobile World Congress in Barcelona, there has been a great deal of hooplah about who will drive the mobile future. Has the U.S. left Europe in its innovative dust? Have Apple and Google upended operator control points? Has the oft-foretold and now-consummated marriage of mobility and the Internet forever changed the landscape?

Hmmm. I guess we'll have to wait and see. In the interim, no matter however it turns out, and for whatever it may be worth, I'd like to highlight that:

Nokia Multimedia had it right, and First, but...

...what in retrospect (mine) may have been a perhaps premature Nokia re-organization at the end of 2007 may well have undermined Nokia's high-end mobile computer momentum, displacing the company at a terribly critical inflection point in the marketplace.

Read this: Buh-Bye Wireless Guys. Daniel Lyons' recent piece in Newsweek may be a bit off here and there, but it more or less hits the mark. In short, he suggests that "the computer guys in Silicon Valley" cottoned on to the unique monopoly dominance being exercised by U.S. wireless carriers and wondered "why aren't we doing that?"

He's right. Apple and Google are flipping the apple(google)cart, and, notwithstanding recent Barcelona announcements of carrier alliances to establish interoperable application platforms, stores, whatever, to better compete with Apple, Google, etc. (link), the game has been changed. Utterly.

Lyons credits (in my liberal interpretation) the Silicon Valley types for having figured out that wireless broadband is no different than any other broadband and, as such, consumers will want, deserve and demand to attach a device of choice to a network of choice to consume content and services of choice. And, well, unlocked, liberated, mobile devices that are open to non-carrier applications, content and services are a key solution. I mean, c'mon, after all, who really wants to be locked in to a carrier and carrier services and content for two years just to get a subsidized phone? Would you buy your PC from Comcast or Fios and get locked into some latter-day Internet walled-garden offering? Of course not.

But - and this is my first key point - Nokia was there first. Nokia perceived and understood the evolving market environment and was executing around it excellently (and ahead of the market) going into 2007. Indeed, Nokia's Multimedia Business Group was dedicated to capitalizing on this emerging reality with its ground-breaking NSeries devices and related (pre-Ovi) services at the time. To wit: the Nokia N95, introduced in 2007, was a truly global phenomenon - yes, even in North America. A bit clunky perhaps, particularly lined up against the elegance of the iPhone, yet far more feature-rich than any device at the time.

But then came the re-org, which was well-intended, to be sure. Nokia had three devices business groups - Mobile Phones (mainstream volume), Enterprise (struggling to break into Blackberry's realm) and Multimedia (ascendant value) - and rightfully sought to re-unite the disparate businesses to leverage and rationalize globally scalable solutions. Intent aside, in the wake of the re-org, the vanguard and value-oriented NSeries devices somewhat derailed as Nokia responded to near-term financial market pressures and ever-exercised carrier muscle, particularly in the U.S., focusing instead on volume-oriented mid-range feature and entry phones, particularly in emerging markets. Meanwhile, Nokia's fledgling, new-born services group, striving to drive newly-launched-but-quasi-'me-too' Ovi services, floundered as Nokia's commitment to iconic high-end multimedia devices seemingly flagged.

The result, well, in an increasingly competitive market, complicated by disruptive plays by muscling interlopers like Apple and Google, having one's volume cake and eating one's value torte proved and has proven to be a bit more challenging than Nokia may have imagined. Ditto, I fear, may be the case in terms of expectations that all of those emerging market Nokia consumers will build lasting branded and upgradable relationships with Nokia devices and services at the expense of a growing field of competitors, much less operators desperately trying to maintain their something-more-than-bitpipe relevance.

Reality check: I wouldn't want to suggest that the Nokia 2007 re-org was solely responsible for Nokia's global predicament today. Indeed, there were a number of crucial mis-steps in the early- to mid-2000's that equally contributed to the current challenges, and particularly led to the Nokia miasma in the U.S. - I'll address this in a separate thread.

In any event, now, in the midst of all of this, Nokia is struggling to regain it's thought- and market leadership. But, this struggle is in the context of a global marketplace which certainly perceives, and may actually be feeling momentum to have shifted, and significantly... Witness "The Observer's" piece out of Barcelona last week, straight from the world's most prestigious global wireless trade show - How the Smartphone Made Europe Look Stupid - in which it is rather harshly suggested that the European mobile giants that pioneered the mobile industry are now stumbling behind U.S. and Asian rivals, mere "flyover states" in the greater global wireless nation.

There is some truth to this. And, for what it's worth, I believe that the general direction that Apple and Google are now driving is the right one - strategically focused to capitalize on proven market success - notwithstanding certain "control" issues. But, I'm also highlighting that Nokia was there, right, and first.

Whatever the case, this isn't just new players in the game, or the game-field having changed - this is an entirely new game. And as for "control issues?" Yeah, sure, success, for awhile - whether operator or Apple or Google. Indeed, the semi-closed ecosystem approach is exactly the way to prove the market for true mobile multimedia. But, ultimately, this is about consumers (also known as human beings) - like it or not, at some point, choice, preference, lifestyle, liberty, individualism (Hail Jaron Lanier) will out in the end, regardless of who's driving or otherwise credited for having driven the change. For now though, it would appear that Apple and Google are best positioned to be the guardians of the cloud when that day comes.

New Year Gooplah – What Might it Mean?

2010-01-13T15:52:00.002-05:00

So, a couple of weeks having past since the not-terribly-surprising announcement of Google’s HTC-built Nexus One, let’s take a moment to reflect on some potential impacts…

The easiest-to-perceive near-term winner is Android. With Motorola firmly committed, a host of other venders delivering Android-based solutions, Verizon unveiling a family of Android devices, the up-and-coming mobile OS has some serious momentum.

In terms of other and potentially greater upsides, I'm still a believer that the Linux-based Android will drive opportunity for other Linux-based solutions, such as Nokia’s Maemo (and even Palm’s Linux kernel-based webOS), provided that some semblance of interoperability is established for the various mobile Linux flavors. Indeed, if the commonality across flavors becomes a conscious initiative of the various parties involved – growing a very and globally scalable ecosystem for application developers and service providers - the threat to Apple’s closed iPhone OS and related service and application offerings becomes a real one, at least a couple years down the line…

A perhaps less-perceived upside is Google’s bet on proving the market for unsubsidized mobile devices. I’ve harped on this topic in the past: Americans will pay 100’s of dollars for digital cameras, music players, video players and mobile gaming devices, but they expect their mobile phones to cost $49-$99. While this intuitively seems absurd, it’s perfectly understandable, given decades of carrier subsidization of devices in exchange for long-term consumer service plan enslavement.

Three years ago, Nokia’s Multimedia Business Group took a crack at driving the “unlocked” and/or “open” market opportunity in the U.S., with some quick success haloed around the N95, but couldn’t break the carrier stranglehold on the channel to the consumer, couldn’t evolve ahead-of-the-curve mobile computer demand from geekdom to mainstream, and, frankly, couldn’t have vied with the likes of Apple’s iPhone, even if they’d somehow convinced a carrier to allow them to compete on a subsidized playing field.

Almost three years later, Google's emerged to pick up the unlocked, unsubsidized banner – just as they did the net neutrality banner almost three years ago (talk about convergence…). Google’s Nexus is a litmus test. Should Google break the subsidy expectation mold, trust that a Google MVNO (rumored to have been under heavy consideration over the last 12 months) will follow, by this time next year, if not sooner. Open to any GSM+ device, optimized for Android, ultra-optimized for Google-sponsored devices and its wealth of services, applications and online offerings.

Google is onto something here. It’s not dissimilar, but much broader and deeper, than what Apple has been at for the last two years in terms of it's marrying all things "i." It’s also akin to what Nokia has aspired to achieve with its Ovi, but again, Google’s ambition may be broader and deeper. Google seems to have cottoned on to the most recent value shift in the telecommunications/Internet environment. Ten-plus years ago, the value was in the network, fixed or mobile. As network access commoditized, value shifted to devices. As the device space became more competitive, value shifted again towards content and content-oriented platforms, then, naturally, next, to services (content –related or otherwise), in some cases (e.g. Apple), marrying combinations. The last year has seen value shifting again, temporarily but with vigor to applications (particularly in but not limited to the mobile space).

Google seems to be betting on the next shift, one that is arguably already underway: Value defined by a seamless, cross platform, fixed, nomadic or mobile, OS agnostic experience. More than ever, as the world has become more complex, as social networks have become as much if not more virtual than physical, people are looking for solutions that will offer consistent, comfortable, familiar, trustworthy and quality experiences. With its wealth of online assets and services, its fixed Internet prowess in general, its muscle into mobile, both in terms of OS and sponsored device(s), Google is well on the way to capturing an end-to-end opportunity that Microsoft once only dreamed of…

…kinda makes the last couple weeks’ worth of competing comparative reviews of N900s, iPhones, Droids and Nexuses seem almost trivial.

Indeed, I think 2010 is shaping up to be game-changing…

Just about 23 years ago...

2009-12-20T18:57:00.002-05:00

Following excerpted from "Flashbacks: Marching Towards Midlife" - a work in progress...

Christmas 1986

“I can’t believe they do this for everyone,” Megan slurred after waking to a miniature Christmas tree on the table beside her hospital bed, a tree adorned in a rather uniquely-personalized manner - with little bottles of Baileys.

But I’m getting ahead of myself (again, and so soon)…

Megan, still a Junior at Georgetown at the time, had a job (of sorts) at Saxa’s, the little hole-in-the-wall student store in the basement of the Healy building. Meanwhile, I was six months into a job at Basis Point, account managering or something or other, not too far from campus in the new Washington Harbour complex on K Street. I can’t recall the time of day, nor who it was that called from Saxa’s, but I do recall how desperate the voice was that told me Megan had been hurt, badly, and that I should get to the hospital.

Funnily enough, while twice the distance from the hospital, my cab and I got there before Megan and the ambulance. A bit frantic that I couldn’t find her, I became a bit more so when they carried her in, arm wrapped, blood pretty much drenching her. Seems she’d been in the Saxa’s stock room stacking, counting or, well, stocking, when she turned and inadvertently stuck her arm into a large industrial venting fan set in the wall (sadly someone had neglected to install a protective grate). Sliced her arm almost right off – straight through the bone. Messy.

After checking her in at the hospital, I had the first of what over the years would be multiple Megan health-related chats with my not-yet-in-laws’. They wondered if they should come down to D.C. I assured them no need (what the hell did I know) – I’d look after her…

…Which, for the next few days, I did - at least in terms of visiting her in the hospital every day. Turns out that fixing up the wrist wasn’t as big a deal as the infection that resulted from the beyond-filthy fan blade that had sliced through her arm. Needless to say, Megan was heavily medicated and a bit out of it for a while, including that Christmas morning when she woke to find and misinterpret the miniature tree I’d brought in, adding my own decorative touches, including the little mini bottles of Baileys, a favourite of Megan’s.

Not long after Christmas Megan was released, and we flew up to Connecticut to spend a belated holiday with her family - the first of many of our remarkably generous Walsh Christmases. One of my gifts was a bottle of Dom, which Megan and I kept for many years, not popping it until New Year's eve 1991, mere days before we returned to Washington after two years in Ecuador. But, again (again), I’m getting ahead of myself...

further to recent - back to net neutrality...

2009-12-03T10:40:00.008-05:00

...picking up where i left off and heading in a new but related direction:

..as all of that is happening (see last post), and it will, the bandwidth demands on the mobile networks are going to be overwhelming. among other things, those of us who drop 3 of 5 calls on at&t mobility in manhattan will soon be joined by our verizon subscriber brethren when the family of 'droids hit the networks...

and it'll be worse in the mobile world than the increasing latency we continue to experience in the fixed environment - notwithstanding accelerated deployment of higher bandwidth fiber, etc. - driven in large part by increasingly data-hungry social and content-based applications and services. kids that used to text are now video-skyping with equal fervor, and the question's begged: when might clogged fixed and mobile networks reach parity in terms of everyday customer frustration.

which, in turn, leads to my long-time favorite hobby-horse - network neutrality. i continue to believe that every consumer should be able to use the device of choice to access the services and content of choice across the network of choice. and i've never been terribly fair to the operators in my past rants on the topic. so, to balance the rhetoric, how are service providers to stay in business as consumer access increasingly commoditizes?

look for other value-added services is one answer, seemingly quite popular.

and that doesn't mean launching yet another music, video, social network, mapping or other such solution - good grief, the choice is already endless. but it does mean the big guys (operator-wise) chasing new enterprise-based telecommunications/IT services opportunities, guaranteeing paying companies competing in an increasingly globalized marketplace quality end-to-end, full service fixed, wireless, secure, hosted and managed IT services across the globe. great costs savings for those companies doing business multinationally in terms of scale and efficiencies, but also in terms of being able to redirect investments away from building out their own facilities and services. needless to say, all of this is already happening.

but back to network neutrality. if the big guys want to chase the enterprise dollars as the consumer side commoditizes, a huge value-add in those service offerings will be in guaranteeing more-than-adequate bandwidth for corporate customers. and, suddenly, tiering - in terms of pricing, access and bandwidth - seems an utter given, despite all of the rhetoric in washington. funny thing is, having raved to the contrary in the past, i get it, from a staying-in-business-perspective if you're a major telecoms/IT service provider. but, i worry yet more than before that the average consumer gets increasingly screwed, in terms of quality of service, breadth and depth of online experience, etc.

bottom line: there's got to be a balance. what we don't want to see, what we can't allow to happen, what would undermine the social, democratic, and innovation benefits of the internet, is the de facto creation of an internet ghetto...

more to come...

apps vs. internet

2009-11-30T14:08:00.002-05:00

having spent the last few months guzzling delicious mobile application koolaid, i'm taking a step back for a reality check...

let's recap:

the days of app developers commanding $150k per app are over. dead. toast. done. indeed, even quality developers are becoming more or less commonplace (and the vast number of amateurs may best be counted by the number of bodily function apps available at the app store).

moreover, where a mere six months ago they were a rarity, the number of app-building toolkit companies - whether chasing realtors and restauranters (swebapps, kanchoo, appbreeder), or targeting verticals like gaming (gamesalad) or music (mobileroadie) - are exploding.

and meanwhile, we're just beginning to see the i-app model replayed in the 'droid space, without perhaps the hooplah, but with some potentially greater scale. or then again, maybe not - after all, biggest threat to android is fragmentation.

blackberry? yeah, let's see. frankly, i'm not holding my breath - incidentally, i'd buy 'em if i were a certain vender that can't seem to shoot straight (or at all) in the u.s. market. palm: sort of off to a whimpering start, but i believe there remains promise in webOS. motorola? gonna be fun to watch as they throw it all behind android. and nokia? well, not in the u.s. at least not any time soon. and not based on symbian solution. there is hope though for maemo.

but anyway, back to the point, apps vs. internet: here we are, finally poised on the cusp of the internet-mobility convergence/collision/co-whatever and we've got a handful of inherently incompatible mobile operating systems extending the fenced patio mobile app model that's emerged of late as the successor to the 1990's walled gardens (much, i am sure, to the pleasure of the mobile operators who still haven't quite figured out how they're gonna survive this sh*tstorm of co-whatever).

remember wap? that was supposed to help us avoid all of this interoperability crap. shame of it was, while well-intended, the wap vision was 10 years early, predating capable devices and networks, as well as usable or otherwise valuable services and content. remember dot.mobi? same idea. same good intent - usher consumers gently, easily, comfortably into the newest extension to our most recent medium - mobility and the internet. well-inspired but ill-executed. well, kinda...

then along comes apple with an actual well-thought out plan, married to sexy hardware, and a user experience and development environment that are simple (the latter only if you happen to be a developer kinda person). and the rest has been history - everyone running around trying to replicate the experience, even blackberry, which seems rightly worried that the cow it's been milking for nearly a decade might be going dry...

and yet, somewhere along the way, slowly, quietly, the original wap and dot.mobi visions might yet be realized. they do, to some extent, overcome interoperability issues. yes, the risk is a lower common denominator service and/or content experience - but sh*t, it works across networks, across devices, across mobile operating systems. and, oh yeah, you can actually deliver dynamic content and services in a fluid manner unlike stand alone apps that rely on updating html, xml or rss feeds to update content. hey, wait, does't that sound familiar? yeah, same thing actually...

ok, so, it won't be that simple. but i think that the app developers and the microsite developers are coming to loggerheads, particularly in the marketing space, and particularly as devices become more common in terms of large screens, touch screens, etc.

and ya know what, there's something more democratic about the web-based approach. indeed, notwithstanding the sudden plethora of app-making tool companies with business plans built around bleeding you lightly while hawking the data your app collects, i'm beginning to wonder if we might instead see increasing consumer interest in designing microsites to celebrate and communicate their individual passions, lives, businesses.

imagine libraries of mobile microsites, catalogued by friends, passions or interests, each designed specifically for consumption on-the-go, always current - the digital snacking that we've all become so accustomed to as we wait in line, sit on a train, or just fiddle about - with a social twist. and, there are lots of simple web-based tools out there for mobile site creation, and, well, a lot of them free - check out mobisitegalore for instance. indeed, take it a step further and point your iphone 3G (i did kinda optimize for that device, but should work on pretty much any smartphone that's not been operator-crippled) at www.who.param.mobi and see what a half-hour's tinkering can produce around a band i happen to really enjoy).

all things considered, there's room for multiple approaches, for awhile anyway. or hell, maybe we'll all just facebook and tweet ourselves to death...

later...

Sixteen years, two months ago...

2009-09-18T10:23:00.003-04:00

Following Excerpted from "Flashbacks: Marching Towards Midlife" - a work in progress...

July 1993

I was sitting in my hotel room catching up on whatever work needed doing when I got a call from my father-in-law. “Don’t be alarmed, don’t be upset, Peyton’s been run over by a car.”

Holy shit.

Turns out Megan had been shopping with the kids – Morgan (5), Brennan (3) and Peyton (10 months) -- and after an interminable wait behind an elderly and seemingly-medicated shopper at the checkout, she headed across the parking lot with Peyton in her arms and the other kids in tow. She noticed a car steering toward them and, through the windshield she saw, yes, that same elderly shopper. Sadly, the driver, for whatever reason, didn’t seem to notice Megan or the kids and plowed right into them. The car glanced off Morgan and bumped Megan, who, as she was going down to the pavement, lost hold of Peyton. Two thousand-plus pounds of automobile then ran over the baby right before Megan’s eyes (quite literally – she was prone on the pavement inches from the car).

The driver then meandered her car off through the parking lot before being chased down by, well, shit, quite-naturally-horrified onlookers. Megan and Peyton – tire marks across the latter's shirt and forehead – were quickly whisked away in an ambulance to nearby Potomac Elementary school where a helicopter landed to meet them. The older kids were left with a spinster pair who offered to bring them to their Grandma’s house, about a mile away. The helicopter took Peyton to Children’s, leaving a distraught Megan to rush to her parent’s place where, bursting in, she told them Peyton had been run over and might be dead. Mayhem ensued. And, in short order, all were knocked for a yet wilder loop when they realized that Morgan and Brennan hadn’t shown up yet. As it turns out ,they were quickly recovered back at the Safeway with the kind-hearted pair who, it turns out, for whatever reason, hadn’t yet budged.

Meanwhile, while all of this was happening, I was off playing trade negotiator in Switzerland, making the world safe for some or another sort of commerce or something or other.

By the time I got stateside – less than a day later and ever-so-ever-so-slightly keyed up – Peyton had been looked at, prodded, scoped and poked by the good folks at Children’s and dubbed “miracle baby” by the local media. Amazingly, other than a swollen and scratched forehead, bruised lungs and chest, and a slightly scraped and purplish foot, she was fine. Stunning. Truly. Thankfully.

As for the pharmaceutically enhanced near-octogenarian driver, she was dealt a meaningless fine for “failing to avoid colliding with a pedestrian” (or some such blather) and assessed a few points on her license (can I hear a resounding “what?”). Sixteen years since passed, I can only assume - and hope, and pray - that she’s no longer on the road.

filling the gap...

2009-08-21T16:30:00.003-04:00

...so, given that i've taken to spending more time on facebook than blogger, i've neglected to update the blog of late. some recent highlights:

- june: pretty much gave up tweeting. yawn.
- july: got a job. full of risk and promise.
- august: had yet another great week in bethany.
- september: watch this space...

checking in, commenting on landscape

2009-05-25T13:35:00.005-04:00

Let's start by skipping the obligatory "it's been awhile..." (or not).

After almost three months as a member of the ever-growing class of the not-fully-professionally-occupied, my search for tomorrow's career continues. It's been a unique, liberating, oft-introspective, and definitively personal awareness-building experience. One or another opportunities have approached fruition only to then die on the vine, while others have been non-starters for me for one or another reason, and yet others remain in play. My targets, and those who have targeted me, have ranged from major global brands (tech and otherwise), to start-ups, to agencies and associations, to non-profits - representing an eclectic array of industries from beverage to fuel cell to reproductive rights, but with the lion's share of course being mobility/information technology-related.

In the meantime, I've been doing some freelance consulting.

Let's review the landscape...

On the mobile front...well, it's crowded, cluttered, confused, overlapping, integrated, inter- or not operable, etc. Look familiar? It should. It mirrors in many respects the essence of the Internet experience - in North America at least (which is where I'll focus for now).

Over the last decade, slowly but surely we've adopted mobiles - those once voice-oriented gadgets - into our daily lives. They are indispensable. Period. Today, even the most basic user has graduated from voice to texting, and, if not yet, will soon be snapping and sharing pictures and video, browsing the web, playing games, listening to music, navigating, face-booking, twittering, shopping, etc. Sound familiar? It should, it's a mirror replay of the PC's evolution from pre-Internet productivity tool to full-fledged commercial Internet multimedia gateway.

Can I get a resounding "well, duh?" I mean really, this is hardly new news - the mobile industry's been hyping the promise for years and, today, finally, with far less fanfare, the reality is happening all around us. Key to it all is ubiquitous (relatively) broadband at affordable (relatively) cost and richer functionality (not just relatively) devices. Everything else - the services, applications, content, etc. - follow as naturally in mobile as they did in the fixed Internet environment. Indeed, the line between fixed and mobile is irrevocably blurred.

Devices

And yet the mobility realm remains distinct in some respects. From a mobile device form-factor perspective, outside of the odd quirky fashion niche (e.g. swivel), we seem to have settled into flips and simple candy bars for the mass market low-end; mono-block qwertys, low-end touches or bulky qwerty sliders in the mid-range messenging class (once known as smartphones); and, lastly, sleek, upscale touch, qwerty or qwerty-touch hybrid handheld computers at the high end.

And then, of course, there's the mini-notebook and netbook phenomenon (Acer, Asus, HP, etc.) which so far seems to be mirroring the traditional mobile industry go-to-market model in terms of marrying subsidized, somewhat-limited utility micro-laptops to hefty and long-term AT&T and Verizon data plans (by the way, why not reverse the model? - subsidize prepaid data service via the unsubsidized cost of the netbook married to some unique value-added service/content?). But let's remember, these netbooks are still engineered and designed for "nomadic" activity as opposed to comfortably fixed or truly mobile. Don't get me wrong, there's a unique and exciting market for netbooks, but they'll eat more and faster into the laptop space than the mobile device space.

And before I depart devices, I'd be remiss to neglect Amazon's clever little disruptive Kindle which I believe is setting some interesting business model trends that the netbook folk ought to consider adopting - bit-piping the carriers and upending the years-long debate over who gets what in the mobile payments ecosystem by simply ignoring the debate altogether and maintaining their perfectly functional fixed status quo.

Vendors

Some sort of shakeout or consolidation in the vendor space is inevitable. Apple's done a marvelous job in carving out a lucrative high-end niche - an impressive 5% of Q408 device share in North America generating somewhere north of 60% data traffic. With one device. One carrier. That’s not even counting the millions of iTouches out there. Pretty damned impressive indeed - just goes to show you what elegant design, intuitive UI and simple application/service/content discovery will do for you.

HTC is poised to play in this space as well, but needs to resolve its OS approach - Android? Windows Mobile? What's it gonna be guys?

RIM still dominates the business qwerty space, at least in perception, but faces challengers and challenges in terms of mainstreaming its consumer offering.

LG and Samsung have done a fine job of catering to carrier whim and fancy and building and holding a strong bastion in the mid-range, and flirting both up and down range from there.

Nokia's foothold in the low end and feature phone space is solid(ish), if a bit(?) weaker than during its heyday, but they'll need to beware LG and Samsung drilling down into low end volumes as they face increasing pressure from Apple and others looking to further mainstream and more broadly scale their higher-end offerings into the mid- (and even entry) range. Getting a volume-oriented S60/smartphone device into the U.S. carrier channel is going to be crucial to Nokia's success in North America, both in terms of regaining device and value market share and in realizing their service aspirations - given Nokia's global scale and scope this should be achievable, and yet so far remains elusive.

And, by the way, I'll not be surprised by any resurgence by Motorola or Sony-Ericsson (much more likely the former, particularly if they execute well on Android and services, but the latter also continues to have promise in and around music and imaging feature devices).

And I'd be remiss to not reference Palm's sleek new device/intuitive OS reinvention - After all, remember that the first digital status device many of us carried out of the last recession was a Palm Pilot - there's a great nostalgia play to be made by Palm, and an application developer community poised for rebound.

And then there's the host of other players niblling at the edges as well as the newcomers we're only beginning to hear about... Like I said, a shake out is inevitable.

Operating Systems

Related to the form factor discussion, I'll offer a quick word on the OS environment where things definitely remain, um, a bit messy. The range of proprietary OS's at the low end is overly (generous word) broad, but, hey, no big worries here - such commoditized devices will always exist to serve a certain population and to provide a certain limited-functionality service set (primarily operator-driven – which does ensure some level of cross platform consistency given very firm operator control of the user experience with such devices).

At the mid-range and high end, you start to see a more stable if still overly-fractured landscape: iphone's OSx, Google's Android, Microsoft's Windows Mobile, RIM's BBOS, Nokia's Symbian (and Maemo), Palm's webOS, and, of course, the as-yet-realized promise of Open Linux for mobile. There are pros and cons to each solution. The combination of iPhone's intuitive interface, impressive developer and application pool, and simple discoverability of value-added experiences is as yet perhaps unparalleled (but the lack of a physical qwerty keyboard remains a turnoff for heavy-duty messengers).

Meanwhile, Symbian's global reach is without peer in terms of embedded devices supported by a wealth of experienced developers, but the UI is still a bit clumsy (however, much improved) for newcomers and, in any event, Symbian is a relative non-player in the North American market and, moreover, application/service/content discoverability remains a bit sketchy.

Android has promise and a graceful elegance in terms of UI, but continues to lack a strong device base, as well as a robust developer community. The Jury’s still out on Palm’s webOS. RIM’s BBOS is naturally limited in its proprietary implementation and, as for Windows Mobile, well, it does continue to improve, but for whatever and sundry reasons has simply not been able to crack the mainstream.

Whatever the case, the whole ecosystem is certainly less-than-optimal for developers and brands looking to deliver cross platform application solutions and content (but notably not a bad picture for operators looking to control their cross-portfolio service offerings and consumer relationships).

Operators

The natural segue here would be to the application/content/services space, but I can't let that parenthetical operator aside immediately above just hang there.

Anyone who knows me or has read past posts on this site or others probably has a pretty solid understanding of my sentiments about open access and choice - bottom line: consumers should have the right to their device of choice to attach to the network of choice to consume the content and service they most value and desire (i.e. choose). You know, kinda like the fixed Internet works. Or, simpler analogy, like the electricity grid. Imagine the electric company dictating which lamps you can use to light your home, and which wattage bulbs, etc.

Okay, okay, so that's grossly simplified and certainly doesn't take into consideration the decades-old quasi-competitive regulatory structure, out-of-synch spectrum planning, deployment of multiple incompatible technologies, etc. that have produced the current North American wireless business dynamic, much less the all important public obligation that mobile operators have to ensure the integrity of their networks, non-interference, some level of interoperability, and billing and account management consistency and control. Nevertheless, the consumer has and to some extent remains a bit short-change on the choice front.

But - good news - that's changing. It's kinda like gravity - it is what it is and you can't beat it for any extended period of time. As consumers increasingly migrate their fixed Internet behavior to the mobile space they will naturally expect to carry with them the freedom of choice they have come to value and expect. And as mobile devices become more and more computer-like and broadband wireless more and more ubiquitous, in a variety of flavors and from a variety of competitive providers, the collision between mobility and the Internet will trump any past expectations of convergence of the same. Choice will out. Period. There was a time for walled gardens in the fixed Internet's evolution, and for more-narrowly fenced patios in the mobile space - but those days have passed.

Thankfully, while the operator space is relatively mature business models and plans are already evolving to embrace this change, particularly as the likes of Walmart and Best Buy flex their muscles, not to mention the impact the exertions of content/media stakeholders are also having on operators. That said, AT&T and Verizon continue to dwarf their competitors, and, ever insatiable, continue to nibble away at the T-Mobile and Sprint subscriber bases, with all four majors continuing to dominate the channel to and permanent consumer touch. But, again, the winds of change are blowing and fully-recognized. And by the way, there's still some room in the market for a major newcomer operator - via acquisition or otherwise - to shake things up further via e.g. innovative service offering, alternative device or service subsidization, and/or alternative rate plans. And, finally, let's not forget that the umpteen billion dollars identified in the Obama stimulus plan includes in excess of $7 billion identified for telecom buildout - good news for infrastructure gear-makers, device venders and operators - existing or new - alike. There is growth yet to come...

Applications, Services and Content

Finally (phew), a few words on the experiences people are realizing with all of these nifty devices connected to these big fat piped networks. Not unlike the fixed Internet experience, it will be applications, services and content that drive the next wave of mobility. Java and brew have served and will continue to serve well enough in terms of cross-platform mass market, low end games, simple apps, etc. But as we enter the true mobile computing age, Apple and iPhone have set the bar pretty high in terms of SDK, app store, simplicity of discoverability, updatability, payment, etc., not too mention richness and depth of applications. Android offers similar promise, but remains time-to-market and device and developer volume challenged. Symbian, on a global basis, should perhaps have or have had the greatest opportunity, but, per points made earlier, has yet to finesse discoverability, application quality consistency, iconic hardware, etc. Changes may be in the wind in these respects, however…

Bottom line: Consumers really don’t care about operating systems, UI’s and the like. They just want a cool device that let’s them do cool things, application-based or otherwise. Easily. Cooperative initiatives between vendors, operators, application developers, content players, social networks and beyond are beginning to bear fruit. It’s no longer about music and video and Youtube and FB and MySpace – those solutions are all relatively nature in the fixed and mobile environments, some implementations more sophisticated than other in the latter respect. Going forward, it’s going to be about how to marry content, with experience, with location, with life… Some extent of universality and consistency of experience is going to be necessary and as such the continuing hardware and software fragmentation remains a challenge. But platform solutions will emerge that both make those distinctions transparent to end consumers and allow a wider and deeper range of brands to extend themselves, their brands and their value into the digital mobile space. Imagine, for instance, a cost-effective, intuitive application platform/template-based solution that would offer major brands the opportunity to develop, control and deliver timely, dynamic and refreshable cross platform mobile applications to target audiences at a fraction of the cost and with more editorial and more brand consistency than reliance on third party developers. Food for thought…

Granting that, in North America particularly, we need to acknowledge that digital affinity relationships have had the better part of a decade to mature and develop. They will not be easily upended. For instance, the MySpace-Facebook migration of two years ago – a true singularity – is not likely to recur. Twitter may have gained a certain popularity as an alternative “social” activity, and novel solutions like clipmarks may carve out a similar (and more value-added niche, but the two big boys rule the roost, at least for the immediate future. The application and service developers that succeed going forward will be those that leverage unique mobile characteristics like location, synch them up with fixed or nomadic Internet applications, services and content and marry the the whole lot into existing social networks (latter day bitpipes?) to deliver an altogether unique experience. Imagine, for instance, a platform- and access-independent, mixed reality, simple-to-use, snackable, brain-teasing, socially-charged, competitive, diverting, entertainment-based experience with the promise of financial reward and enhanced social status. If that sounds like a mouthful, it is - it's also verbatim from the first slide of the business plan...

Conclusion?

…Nah, just a beginning. Whole lotta minddump above – hopefully of some entertainment or educational value to the odd reader (or even the normal one). And I didn’t even get into all of the challenges we’re gonna be facing in terms of privacy, security, personal information protection, identity theft, etc. These are key strategic issues that will need to be managed in the context of all of the above. But manageable they are – ignored at your peril.

Later…

well... what next?...

2009-03-28T20:01:00.001-04:00

...coming soon.

google latitude - taking social location seriously

2009-02-04T20:14:00.002-05:00

about a year ago, i posted on a variety of potential social location solutions, with a highlight on gypsii's potential (link to that post). since, and much more recently, i've commented on clever solutions such as that developed by buddycloud (link to that post). google today upped the ante with latitude, not so much in terms of an innovative solution (although based on limited use so far it's way cool), but, rather, a solution that is scalable based on google's mainstream, everyday consumer penetration. put aside the privacy issues (they've done what they can), google's launched a simple, intuitive, where-am-i-where-are-you solution for the masses already married to the googlesphere. better, worse, more limited or not than other solutions - it's all about leveraging existing affinities, and google's way out in front in that respect. the smaller-scaled folk - Gypsii, BuddyCloud, Loopt, Whrrl, etc. should watch their backs. and, as for the the mainstream (in some markets at least) giants, well, you all better pick up the pace before there's no-one left to bring on board...

change...

2009-01-28T22:10:00.002-05:00

well, it's been awhile (a theme)...

...when i started this blog three years ago i tended to focus on where i was (away from home) and how i was feeling (away from home) more than anything else. over time though, a couple of additional trends emerged: 1) random tips on how to get the most out of your mobile and 2) general blathering about openness and network neutrality (check out the mobile-related links at right to browse posts on either topic). all along, while i regularly expressed an obvious bent for nokia and nokia solutions, i tried to avoid preaching nokia, and i never once mentioned that i was a nokia employee (i presumed, however, that most readers knew).

well, after almost twelve years, my nokia relationship is coming to an end. it's been a great run - from setting up a government affairs office, to overseeing the standards team, to leading strategy, then corporate communications, then the north american multimedia business, and finally, to running americas-wide go-to-market operations. all good. great even. but, now, sadly, as a result of nokia's most recent reorganization, i find the america's level organization i was most-recently leading phased-out, and myself standing in a tuneless room with one-too-few chairs. gotta admit, the whole thing's a bit hard to fathom, but hey, what a great opportunity for renewal. and, i suppose it does give me the opportunity to be a bit more candid in this forum. and with that in mind...

there's a lot going on in nokia's world these days, beyond the obvious hemorrhaging of talent (sorry, can't help myself). the convergence/collision of mobility and the internet - now mired in a global financial meltdown - may present the company with the mother of all inflection points. indeed, the economic crisis actually gives nokia a welcome opportunity to enhance its fledgling services offerings while competitors are challenged to capitalize on their leads and/or innovative new solutions. while, granted, nokia may be increasingly-challenged to deliver compelling devices in an ever-more crowded field, its almost-overwhelming (still, but not forever) base of embedded devices and unparalleled device market share position it uniquely to reap substantial services revenues (and add value to commoditized devices and drive future ad-based revenues, and so on, and so forth). not a bad place to be...

(as an aside, however, it's questionable how much of the above might apply to nokia's business in north america - but that's a different story. maybe someday).

so, anyway, the question is: will nokia use the opportunity to take the right risks and make the right investments to secure a leadership position, or will nokia hunker down to weather the ongoing economic storm, perhaps allowing innovative risktakers to gain?

...food for thought. however it goes, it should be fun to watch.

i'll be back.

the pace of change... openness?

2009-01-09T11:29:00.003-05:00

just over a year ago, in a multimedia-induced fever, i posted somewhat (and overly) caustically on the wireless industry's newly-discovered affinity for "openness" rhetoric (see "open. enough already: some truth"). while the promise remains real, and the sincerity of the rhetoric perhaps more genuine than i may have originally thought, the realization of the promise remains elusive. jack gold's piece in businessweek hammers that point home rather nicely - worth the read: Open, Schmopen: Wireless Networks Are Still Closed.

later... (perhaps sooner)

mobile facebook update (and hints at other things)...

2008-12-17T15:31:00.012-05:00

my, my, my... how time does fly. has it really been since august that i last posted? well, i guess there's been no shortage of change going down in my world - but more on that in the not-too-distant future... for now, on to business:

accessing facebook from a mobile device is hardly novel and certainly not limited to any particular device vender. indeed, you can point any device with a browser to http://m.facebook.com and away you go. beyond that, there are multiple java-based or other clients available that come installed on or are downloadable to your device, some of which may be a bit more graphically-elegant than a browser-based solution. whatever the case, all are functional, in their own ways.

with the above as context, and given my historical penchant for posting on s60 devices (e.g. primarilly nokia symbian-based), i thought i'd offer a quick-and-dirty on a couple of alternatives i've been messing with.

first off, we've got the new facebook widset from nokia. not bad. not bad at all actually. simple and elegant UI - the facebook logo across top with tabs for home, profile, friends and inbox (device screenshot below). as for functionality, you've got pretty much the basics you'd expect in order to maintain presence in your social network - latest friend requests, messages, status updates, etc.; access to your and your friends' basic profile data, mini-feeds, pictures and walls; ability to update your status on-the-go as well as to engage in threaded messaging; and - somewhat novel - the ability to upload snapshots from your mobile's camera directly to your facebook profile (as opposed to cross posting through whichever service you might be using). again, not bad at all...

the process for getting yourself set up is pretty simple. go to http://www.widsets.com, register yourself, choose which widsets you want to have resident on your device (facebook is only one option), download the widsets client to your s60 device, launch it, sign-in to facebook and you're live.

for a slight twist on the facebook theme, check out the buddycloud solution - http://www.buddycloud.com (thanks for the heads up chanse). this has got some promise as an extension of the mobile facebook experience (twitter as well), if they can get critical mass participation - a not insignificant challenge.

as a standalone application, buddycloud bills itself as a "mobile social location platform" that allows you and others in your community/communities to share status, location and proximity (cool) between mobiles and beyond, e.g. with simple plugins for facebook and twitter. there are a couple of cool elements here: one, the geolocationing solution is good-old-fashioned cell-ID triangulation (assisted by gps, wifi and bluetooth according to buddycloud, but nonesuch seem to have evidenced themselves in my trialling). another: once installed on your device, the buddycloud client absorbs your phone contacts into its interface, allowing you to click on a contact and choose to call or "send my place" (or otherwise solicit to the world of buddycloud). the app also allows for a rich range of friend, group or community customization, and, quite cool for the multi-platform social networking/messaging fanatic, it supports chat with any jabber client (e.g. gtalk, etc.). and, as for the facebook plugin (i didn't test the twitter version), simple, basic, graceful - one of many ways to adjust and communicate your status and location to your social network (image of FB plugin and device launch screen below).

launch screen on an s60 device

facebook plug-in as appears on profile page

like the facebook widset, getting up-and-running on buddycloud is a simple process of registration and quick client install, from either your mobile or PC. gotta reiterate something here: as just a facebook (or twitter) extension, buddycloud may not have very long legs (beyond perhaps some alternative application of its platform) - after all, while it's great at pushing info to facebook or twitter, it's basic promise is another new community and, frankly, barring some amazing new twist on the concept, users aren't looking for yet more new communities. but, all of that said, if buddycloud does somehow succeed in building a critical mass of users, then they could indeed have something here (if nothing else, a higher price for that alternative application of its platform).

what's it all mean in the end? short and sweet: more simplification of and potential value-added experience related to the mobile extention to the internet. cool, sure. but neither of these is terribly earthshaking. indeed, i'm still chasing whatever that next big disruptive, game-changing thing might be...

later. big changes underway by the way...

mobile web server (and so much more)...

2008-08-21T10:39:00.005-04:00

needless to say, it's been quite some time since i posted on a mobile gimmick, gadget or what-have-you. but this is really kinda cool.

been playing around with the nokia mobile web server (MWS) application for the last couple of months. while this is by no means a ready-for-mainstream-consumer-primetime solution, the promise is really quite amazing - a real world demonstration of what blending context, mobility and the web is all about.

first things first... pay a visit to http://mymobilesite.net/. the instructions couldn't be simpler - register your nokia s60 device, download the mobile web server app, quick and easy install, a little customization/personalization of your site (easiest from fixed-pc), and, presto, you're hosting a website from your device.

ok, so what's that mean? in short, from any other device with a browser - pc or mobile - you or those you've granted access can remotely tap your contacts, calendar, gallery, etc. (including, should you be so possessed, your text messages, files, etc.)

but it's yet cooler. those you grant access can also check your presence, e.g. your location, whether you're on a call, what profile your phone's in, what sort of data connection you have, your battery life, etc. - see screenshot below.

really amazing...and yeah, maybe just a little bit spooky. yet further, should you choose to so allow, remote users can actually request an image from your phone's camera which is subsequently snapped without you necessarily ever knowing - and the image doesn't even show up in the phone's gallery after the fact.

the utility of this last feature may not be readily obvious (unless you're thinking espionage or law enforcement), but is easily demonstrated by the facebook plug-in so quickly and cleverly crafted for the MWS. as per the screenshot below, the plug-in captures select data from the phone - date, time, status, calendar, battery life - and then offers a quick and easy window for your facebook friends to shoot off a text message, or, way cool, to request a "what am i seeing now" picture. the latter, in this case, notifies your phone that a request has come from whichever facebook friend and gives you the option to a) capture an image and then b) send it. works quite elegantly (but some brief latency depending on your phone's data connection).

again, while this may well still be an app for the geek elite, it's quite an impressive demonstration of certain elements of what's to come in terms of mobile context and (re)introducing your physical presence to your virtual world. 'talk about connecting people...

later.

beach week 2008...

2008-08-21T03:25:00.002-04:00

...amazing. once again. now counting the days 'til winter break...

dolan takes first at all stars...

2008-07-27T16:12:00.003-04:00

...just turned six and swimming back in first leg of age eight-and-under IM relay. way cool.

and he's got three more years to swim this age group. yet cooler. (from the mobile)

the girls...

2008-07-20T22:00:00.002-04:00

...swim team banquet. friggin' gorgeous. nuff said.

um... been awhile?

2008-07-14T20:26:00.003-04:00

well, yeah... either the result of having shifted my presence (much more passive) to facebook, or, perhaps more aptly, my having simply had far less professional and personal bandwidth of late.

...in any event, with the rare exception of the occasional brief (ever so very) comments, this blog has been largely a one-way dialogue. so, a question i may regret: anyone out there that might be missing the musings?

bill (a first-ever signature)

happy 6th birthday dolan!

2008-06-23T16:50:00.002-04:00

...from the mobile (of course)...

dolan at superhero themed swim meet...

2008-06-21T10:27:00.002-04:00

...nice look. from the mobile...

happy graduation brennan...

2008-06-01T15:03:00.002-04:00

...how on earth did we get here so fast? (from the mobile)...

happy birthday kids

2008-05-12T13:21:00.002-04:00

welcome to your teens...

(from the mobile)

steps towards mobile social networking...

2008-02-19T08:21:00.012-05:00

...getting to be a crowded field...

so, sharing images and video from your mobile device is nothing new (albeit a richer experience today than mere months ago, by virtue, among other things, of higher quality image capture capability and faster/fatter broadband wireless connectivity). indeed, it's been two-and-a-half years since i first posted on the shozu / flickr solution, two years since i commented on vizrea and zonetag (which introduced an early if somewhat rudimentary geotagging solution), a year-and-a-half since i reviewed fotojive and blip.tv, and, finally, about a year since i covered comvu, a mobile streaming/webcast tool... nokia's recently released "share on ovi" (a key element of the overall nokia ovi internet services initiative) is yet another take on this theme - an elegant community-oriented implementation of the twango assets nokia acquired last year. and, trust me, there are any number of other alternatives out there to share content to and from your mobile device on a real-time basis.

and then there are the clients, widsets/widgets or web-based solutions designed to maintain your (mobile) presence and/or participate on-the-go in your myspace and facebook communities. mashing various solutions together is getting easier and easier, e.g. with shozu installed on my n95, one click sends whatever image i capture directly to my flickr account where it's immediately cross-posted to my facebook. initial set-up is quite painless, and from there on the actual functionality is transparent to me. same can be accomplished using a variety of alternatives, many referenced in the paragraph above.

and the mashing up continues. the marriage of location-based data with user-generated content is well underway - and this goes beyond simply geotagging images with location-based metadata. it's more about adding social-oriented context to your content. what nokia is doing with share on ovi and its nokia maps are examples (and, sticking to my randomly self-imposed rules, i'm not posting here to do nokia promotions, so 'nuff said on that stuff). but there are other examples as well...

the folks at gypsii have come up with a variation on the theme that merits checking out. simple on-line registration process, simple application download to your device. while definitely not my style, i'll let them speak for themselves in the following excerpt from their website: GyPSii allows users to share their real life experiences in the virtual world using mobile devices and the web. It is a social networking, search & location based suite of integrated mobile and web applications - for users to share, view & upload pictures, video, text and POI (points of interest) with a Geo-location - place and track each other in their select communities. Find people and places, points of interest, map and navigate to them all.

ok... so, that may be a bit hyperbolic (i've yet to test out all of the features), but there is something cool about this, whether capturing an image and cross posting to facebook (simple couple-clicks plug-in) with relevant geo-related metadata and associated map, or just randomly sharing your real-time geoposition. thing is though, beyond the initial "gee whiz" factor, gypsii faces the same challenges confronting any social networking upstart - the value of the solution is directly dependent on the critical mass employing the solution - or, in other words, it's all about building your subscriber/user base. the cross-post to facebook does allow me to share location and content with non-gypsii users, but not necessarily to quickly interact with them. and the search and location and POI functionality are only as good as the user-generated data that's been shared by other gypsii users. the same, incidentally could be said of ulocate's "where" solution, notwithstanding "where"'s paid POI content. "where," and ulocate's recently-acquired "buddy beacon" are actually quite cool (the former being live, the latter only launched on helio so far), and, frankly, should have merited an independent post, but shit, i've been busy...

the point of all of this? there's a lot going on. the momentum is fast. the complexity is daunting. the moving parts are many. the number of players engaged no less so. .. watch this space.

couple more from the morgan files...

2008-02-17T13:59:00.006-05:00

additional classics courtesy of morgan rooting through the old albums. click on the thumbnails to zoom in...

morgan's 1st birthday...

early heavy reading - check out the title of book...

a classic july 4th shot...

classic, truly classic...

2008-02-17T09:31:00.007-05:00

so... morgan's been digging through old photo albums and scanning pictures up to facebook. she came across an old favorite that i had almost forgotten - captured in a public square in guayaquil, ecuador - circa 1990-1991.

there is so much going on here...

- the contrast between an almost-glowing, towheaded morgan and the aging, something-less-than-well-bathed park regular (presumed).

- the further and startling contrast between morgan's all-too-white tennis shoes and the old dude's scarred and crusty bare feet.

- the strange, impromptu cupped-hand periscope through which the latter seems to be examining morgan.

- the iguana feasting on watermelon at morgan's feet, or the other one starting down the tree to get his fill.

- and, of course, perhaps most entertaining, the bizarre pepsi-branded signage admonishing park visitors not to mistreat the iguanas.

click on the image to zoom in. classic indeed...

so, let's recap...

2008-02-05T21:19:00.002-05:00

...i've been quite quiet in recent weeks. so, what's been going on?

- company's been doing the re-org thing which has resulted in no end of transitional activity, new job, building new team, etc. etc. (and, all the while, continuing - at least through years' end - the old job).

- whole industry's going through a rather significant transition as well. value's shifted in short order from access, to devices, to digital/online services and content, but not (just) in the context of the latter standing alone. rather, while, yes, internet-based content and services are significant revenue-builders in their own right, so too do they add incremental value to devices and, yes, access. the race - across multiple dimensions - is on. and in force.

- meanwhile, kids are doin' great. kick ass soccer out of brogan (and of course the quad boys as well). cullen and luke nailed junior olympics qualifying times in swimming. ryan's taught himself guitar - and is seemingly scary talented. morgan's bringing home straight A's from university, and brennan's mere months away from heading off himself, with g'town a possible horizon. peyton couldn't be a sweeter, better, brighter teenager, and dolan, well, the boy's a handful, but in all the right ways.

- and what a season from the hoyas...

- and what a campaign going on between obama and hillary...

- and...

later.

one month later...

2008-01-20T19:39:00.001-05:00

...yeah, it's been that long. to the extent that anyone's noticed, apologies for a month of silence. whole lot going on. fundamental change in job - stay tuned.

online converter/direct-to-mobile content...

2007-12-17T22:00:00.000-05:00

LINK

ok... so it's not rocket science, and the moniker is way cheesy, but kinda cool in terms of elegant simplicity. indeed, it continually amazes me that the major mobile players don't harness these kind of quick and dirty tools to drive consumer awareness/experiences related to what they can actually do with their devices...

enjoy.

open. enough already...

2007-12-12T22:16:00.001-05:00

so... over the last few months, with a crescendo in recent weeks, google, verizon and at&t have proclaimed their "openness" in the mobile realm.

reality check:

let's start with google's open handset alliance and android OS. whatever becomes of this (and there is promise), remember: openness is not about enabling applications and content (and extending a fixed internet-based business) around a single mobile operating system. openness is about agnosticism.

now, let's consider verizon's "any device, any application" promise. great PR (and again, there's promise), but do recall that verizon's wireless network is designed on a proprietary wireless air interface with a unique set of required specs (less open or at least less scalable than the gsm model). same challenge applies to apps.

as for at&t's "we're the most open network" statements, well, again, promising.. proof. taste. pudding. 'nuff said

bottom line: as was referenced in last week's fortune article on the topic: "open is the new black." perhaps a bit more definition would help...

...so, for whatever it may be worth, how 'bout the following basics as prerequisites for openness...

- freedom to choose a device. any phone. any network. your call (as it were).
- freedom to decide what your device might do. nothing disabled.
- freedom to access content. enjoy YOUR music, video, internet, whatever.

perhaps we might all challenge those that proclaim openness to live up to, or explain why they might not, such simple promises.

later.

cell only users "more likely smokers, binge drinkers"

2007-12-12T13:57:00.001-05:00

Survey: 13.6% of American homes have only cellphones - RCR Wireless News

wow. amazing blending of statistics...

fall...

2007-11-11T14:15:00.001-05:00

...once again featuring dolan and a pile of leaves (raking of which courtesy of luke). from the mobile.

happy 19th morgan...

2007-11-04T18:46:00.001-05:00

...holy sh*t, where did the years go? (from the mobile)

happy halloween...

2007-10-31T21:42:00.000-04:00

...from the mobile...

mossberg - "free my phone"...

2007-10-25T10:35:00.002-04:00

...i'm not gonna review walt's recent piece on open access - just read it. here.

zamzar.com - another video tool

2007-10-03T14:32:00.000-04:00

'couple weeks ago i posted a list of various and sundry video-capture-for-mobile-sideload solutions. commenter on that post directed me to zamzar.com as a potential competitive alternative to vconvert.net (which i'd mentioned in my post).

after quick review, some quick observations:

- zamzar converts from flash video url or uploaded video file (various formats accepted, 100mb max limit). the file upload is a nice addition for folks that don't already have conversion software (but at this not-yet-mainstream stage of video capture/convert/upload activity, i'd imagine most anyone who's doing this will already have a desktop solution).

- like vconvert, zamzar features numerous formats to choose from in terms of your converted destination file (and not just video formats...).

- unlike vconvert that converts and prompts immediately for download, zamzar takes your email address and shoots you a note and a link from which to download once the conversion is complete. what i've not tried yet is acccessing that mail and link from the mobile and pulling converted files direct to the device - that could be a nice feature.

- zamzar also has a handy little convert button for your mozilla-based browser toolbar.

in short, another nice tool for the box...

later.

happy 17th brennan...

2007-09-22T20:34:00.000-04:00

...(one day late, i know)

video capture for mobile sideload...

2007-09-19T08:14:00.001-04:00

...had a request from a colleague yesterday asking about a certain video capture solution. thing is, i wasn't sure which one he was talking about so i ended up sending him a catch-all list of various solutions that i use on-and-off, pretty much whatever came immediately to mind. that catalog recaptured below.

- let's start with vconvert.net. this site lets you input any flv (flash) video url (e.g. youtube videos) and choose the format you want converted to and then download to pc for sideload to mobile. quite nice. has some issued with some drm-protected flv.
- another solution, pc-based and a bit more versatile - zdsoft video recorder. when launched, you just draw a square around whatever video (or game, or pretty much any activity) may be playing on your pc screen and it records direct (.avi format) to your pc. good example of use of this solution is to capture for sideload television programs, movies or music videos from sites like tv-links.uk.
- yet another option: sandisk's v-mate which allows you to record video to mobile flash memory cards from a wide range of sources, including hook-up to cable/satellite/terrestrial set-top boxes and dvd players. then just insert your sd card into a compatible portable device and presto: time and place-shifted playback.
- or: there's the smartmovie solution from lonelycatgames - a combined package of a Nokia s60 .avi player for your device and a video format converter for the pc. both are quite easy to use.
- 'course you can also download a free divx player for your device and use a different pc-based video format converter (there are countless) such as AVS video converter which converts back and forth between lots of formats, allows for editing, etc.
- and then there are the various extensions to mozilla-based browsers that also allow you to capture streaming video (like videodownloader for firefox. there are also pc-based programs like moviesextractor scout that will track and save streaming video to your PC in much the same way.

and the list could go on and on... any number of these solutions will require a nominal registration cost, some are free, others are trial, and some can just be found.

enjoy.

happy 15th peyton!

2007-09-18T20:46:00.000-04:00

convert/download online video

2007-08-13T21:38:00.000-04:00

this is really quite cool. i've been using pc-based zdsoft video recorder to grab web-streaming video and flash, but the vconvert beta site makes at least the first of those tasks yet simpler. seems a great way to snag web-based video and save for pc playback and/or mobile sideload (provided, that is, that the video's not copy-protected, a challenge that's irrelevant to the zdsoft tool).

bethany '07...

2007-08-12T10:33:00.000-04:00

...has come and gone. another stellar beach week. now suffering post-beach melancholy...in a big way (guess it's time to start counting the days 'til winter holiday).

great shot of the girls on the 'tubes.

cute viral online campaign...

2007-08-01T08:44:00.000-04:00

...from nokia - http://www.jealouscomputers.com/index_.php?lang=uk_en

open access update...

2007-07-31T17:33:00.001-04:00

while the actual text has yet to be published, the fcc today approved rules for next year's 700 mhz spectrum auction, rules which are intended to ensure more consumer choice in terms of devices, services and content.

yes, this is a step in the right direction. indeed, it's nice to see that the fcc recognizes that american consumers not only demand but actually deserve choice. good stuff. but, as commented in the july 12 post below, this rulemaking for an auction for spectrum that won't be available and/or built-out with networks until perhaps 2010 by no means fully addresses u.s. wireless network neutrality challenges, nor will it necessarilly impact in any meaningful, near-term way the largely closed, operator-dominated nature of the u.s. wireless market. but, well, yeah, it is indeed a step in the right direction.

sadly, the rulemaking is being rather remarkably misunderstood to mean things that it just simply doesn't. for example, contrary to popular media reports, the rules will not in fact "allow customers to use whatever phone and software they want" on the network. while, again, the detailed rules are not yet published, the less popular (but perhaps more fact-based) understanding is that the rules might require - in addition to prohibiting the operator from blocking or slowing competitive wireless and Web content - open and competitive access for devices built to network specifications, but not magic wireless networks that can receive and transmit signals from devices regardless of what radio standard they might employ.

and yet, even some of those purportedly in-the-know seem to fundamentally misunderstand what they're promoting - to wit, per online reports, in the wake of today's fcc announcement on the rules, the president of public knowledge said: "in the new wireless services created as a result of this decision, they (consumers) won’t be forced to abandon cell phones or other devices they have purchased when they change service providers." um... this is simply not the case - rather, it's a maybe/maybe not (more likely the latter) situation, all dependant on the radio network standard deployed by the operator and the radio network standard built into the device used by the consumer changing service providers. this, if you haven't gathered, is not a trivial misunderstanding...

stay tuned - this'll only get more complicated before it gets less so...

luke proves size doesn't matter

2007-07-18T09:53:00.000-04:00

amazing performance from luke at recent swim meet. all heart and (very lean) muscle.

thanks to alex for the photos.

View Photo Slideshow

Make a Free Flash Slideshow

quick & dirty on wireless "open access"

2007-07-12T15:17:00.001-04:00

so, let's see, earlier this week usatoday ran a piece teasing that the fcc is considering new rules for the upcoming 700mhz spectrum auction that would require as much as a third of the spectrum to be dedicated to a "truly open broadband network." the idea would be that consumers would be able to attach the mobile device(s) of their choice to consume the services, applications, content, etc. of their choice. sounds great (god only knows i've raved about this topic more than once over the history of this blog), right?

yeah, well, maybe. or not. would carving out a little chunk of spectrum in a band that has no global counterpart (and as such no network or handset manufacturing scalability) really address the fact that the u.s. mobile market remains perhaps the most carrier-dominated on the planet? um, probably not. indeed, a cynic might wonder of this whole thing is just a political sop, a network neutrality fig leaf to avoid addressing the truly fundamental challenges of competition and consumer choice in american wireless.

more to follow on this developing story...

lazy summer friday...

2007-07-06T14:21:00.001-04:00

...at the pool. less than a month to beach week. counting days.

from the mobile

poor man's mobile carkit

2007-06-24T20:27:00.000-04:00

so... i was using the kid's car to pick up an electric-powered atv for dolan's birthday (another story), and noticed that brennan had one of those $10 car cassette adaptors plugged into the tapedeck (it's a late model car) so he could playback tunes from his mp3 player. waiting at a light, i plugged the adaptor into the headset jack on my n95 to listen to my tunes since, lacking sirius, the radio selection kinda sucked. took me less than one lost prophets track to wonder why the setup wouldn't work as a handfree solution for calls as well. and, well, it worked like a charm - i could hear megan clear as a bell via the car's speakers and she had no problem hearing me with the n95 resting in the cup holder. no doubt there are countless folks out there who've already figured this out, but i still found it to be quite cool. sure, a bluetooth headset or carkit is a more elegant solution, but hey, this works too - and quite well.

happy 5th bday dolan!

2007-06-23T19:13:00.001-04:00

...from the mobile

1st summer '07 swim meet...

2007-06-16T10:41:00.000-04:00

dolan's 1st "A" meet - swimming free, back and believe it or not, fly - as an 8-and-under at the age of 4.

and he took 1st in back. amazing. way, way cool.

and the other kids were no slouches either - a slew of 1sts and 2nds. good stuff.

...from the mobile.

change is in the air...

2007-06-06T20:48:00.000-04:00

...as seen in manhattan, in a number of locations.

go ahead, unlock your life.

brogan spring 07 (so far...) soccer highlights

2007-05-15T22:29:00.000-04:00

Create a Free Slideshow

turning 12 on the 12th...

2007-05-12T11:31:00.000-04:00

happy birthday kids! (from left: ryan, cullen, luke, brogan). life is good.

phling your music (and more)...

2007-05-02T22:50:00.000-04:00

ok. so that's not fair. i'm giving phling better billing than orb when in fact i can't really recommend one over the other. but, really, "phling your music" sounds a lot better than "orb your music" so, well, whatever...

...anyway, what we're talking about are a couple of nice little apps/services that let you stream content from your fixed pc to your mobile (or another fixed pc if you like).

phling is the newcomer. easy online registration and app download (see UI image below) to your nokia series 60 device. streaming works like a charm, even over gprs, with little latency. stream any music from your fixed pc other-the-air direct to your mobile wherever you may be. you can also sample free indy music and, kinda cool, share your tunes with a limited number of friends. nice, simple embedded player in the app. only flaw i've discovered so far is that when you exit the app it doesn't always actually close. no big deal, but an issue to be sure. 'course, maybe it's just my device...

orb, in contrast, has been around for awhile. orb does what phling does and then some, adding remote access pc-based images and video, and even tv programming piped through your pc. orb's a bit slicker than phling in both fixed pc and mobile look and feel (see image below). chock that up to earlier-to-market maturity if nothing else. unlike phling, orb is mobile browser based and launches the nokia embedded realplayer for music and video playback - the result: a tad bit longer latency period in loading up your content. again, no big deal, but an issue...

in any event, both solutions represent pretty cool ways to place and time shift your content without having to take the time to or otherwise tax your memory card. try 'em out. good stuff.

later...

ctia on skype

2007-05-01T21:02:00.002-04:00

yesterday's FCC filing by ctia represents a potentially key inflection point in the ongoing net neutrality debate, specifically in the context of ctia's comments on skype's february petition asking the fcc to require wireless carriers to allow consumers the right to attach non-harmful devices of choice to networks of their choice (see my february post).

restricting myself to the petition's executive summary (entire ctia petition linked here), and with due (seriously) respect to legitimate carrier concerns - e.g. managing efficiency and security of networks, evolving business models to account for the the commoditization of access, etc. - i gotta say some of the arguments might be a bit of a stretch...

first off, let's recognize that skype's petition speaks for a broader range of wireless industry players who, for customer sensitivity or other reasons, are mum on the issue. so, in other words, it may be a bit much to say that the petition is entirely self-serving, e.g. "seeking to apply monopoly regulation to vibrantly competitive wireless markets in an attempt to use regulation to facilitate Skype’s service and specific business model." and, while ctia is absolutely correct in saying "this is not a market which is broken" (and as such should not be victim to frivolous regulatory change), it might be a bit hyperbolic to suggest that "the re-regulation that Skype calls for would seriously impair wireless carriers’ ability to meet the demands of consumers."

the ctia petition executive summary makes repeated and appropriate reference to the competitiveness of the u.s. wireless industry, but might slightly undermine the credibility of ths point suggesting "wireless consumers have their choice of about 700 handsets with differing features, form factors, and operating systems." whle perhaps theoretically true, it is hardly the case in practice - walk into any carrier store...

ctia is right when it says "the u.s. mobile wireless industry’s success has been made possible, in part, by an environment of minimal regulatory intervention," but, in my humble opinion, skype is not "asking the FCC to upend a regulatory model that has worked so well to date." rather skype is asking the regulator to review and apply, as appropriate, decades-old policy (carterfone) that secures the right of telecommunications choice for american consumers.

let's face it, for a variety of reasons, u.s. consumers do not have the choice of mobile devices that consumers in other markets take for granted. and, u.s. consumers do not have the freedom in the untethered internet enviornment that they enjoy in the fixed internet world. is there a market failure that demands regulatory intervention as a fix? perhaps not. but the potential is real. the skype petition has prompted a dialogue that every u.s. consumer should value, a spotlight, a non-regulatory check as it were, on market behavior. let us hope that the debate goes on, to ensure, in ctia's words, that we protect "the true demands and interests of wireless consumers."

aging? nah...

2007-04-26T21:28:00.000-04:00

if you're wondering what brought this on, the answer is "nothing in particular" - i was just tickled by the image.

by the way, i heartily recommend the "stumble upon" extension for firefox/flock - leads to finding random images like this one.

and, while i'm rambling - headin' home tomorrow. can't. friggin'. wait.

later.

tomorrow's ceo...

2007-04-16T15:08:00.000-04:00

...from the mobile.

mobile memory card recorder

2007-04-13T10:01:00.000-04:00

now here's a handy little solution (thanks to carl for the heads up)...

sandisk's v-mate allows you to record video to mobile flash memory cards from a wide range of sources, including cable/satellite/terrestrial set-top boxes and dvd players. then just insert your mc into a compatible portable device and presto: time and place-shifted playback. cool.

sandisk lists a range of video formats for capture and playback and suggests the possibility of up to to 3.5 hours of high quality video per gigbyte. pretty much any memory card format will work with the device, including mini- and microSDs.

needless to say, sandisk straps on the obligatory DRM figleaf - for home and personal use only, and (of course) in compliance with all copyright and applicable intellectual property laws, etc.

all-in-all, not bad for a quick $129...

leaving basketball behind...

2007-04-03T08:45:00.000-04:00

...ok, so a couple of days have passed since georgetown's rather limp-wristed and ultimately losing performance against ohio state. ah well, sh*t happens, as they say, and the hoyas simply didn't come to play. but what a great season. can't wait 'til next year (and with march madness now behind us, i'll try to get back to more substantive posting going forward).

we are...

2007-03-26T10:27:00.001-04:00

hoya saxa!

2007-03-11T13:31:00.000-04:00

umm... don't ask

2007-02-27T14:19:00.000-05:00

...from the mobile.

skype ups wireless net neutrality ante

2007-02-21T19:26:00.001-05:00

very cool.

yesterday, skype filed a petition with the fcc asking that wireless carrier services be subject to the carterfone principle. huh? trust me, this is good stuff.

long story short (as mentioned in previous posts): the carterfone policy, dating back to'68, set the stage for american consumers to attach any device we might choose to the wireline network, so long as it doesn't harm the network. this is why we no longer have hardwired black rotary dials in our homes. competition and choice. pretty simple all-american concepts, no?

notwithstanding that both the original cellular rules in the 80's and the pcs (digital cellular) rules in the early 90's upheld the carterfone principles, the selection of devices available to u.s. consumers has remained pretty meager, due to unique features of the u.s. wireless market, e.g. subsidies, locks, etc.

what skype (and others, but not yet in this manner) is asking is that the fcc declare the wireless realm subject to the carterfone principle giving consumers the same right to attach any non-harmful device of their choosing to the network. um, well, yeah. why not? seems sorta self evident, no? (okay, okay, as expressed in previous posts, there are legitimate counter-concerns as well).

comvu - very cool...

2007-02-17T16:12:00.000-05:00

wow. where to start (i s'pose by thanking james for the heads up on this) ...

go to comvu (link below), register and download the app for your nokia series 60 device. set up on both the device and online is quick and easy.

so what's it do? well, you launch the app on the phone and, using your integrated camera, basically start webcasting video. that's pretty much it. slick. the quality of the webcast video is not gonna do your camera justice, but that's a matter of bandwidth limitations as much as anything. but still way cool and full of promise. following is a link to an archive (comvu archives your webcasts) of a test webcast from my doorstep, concluding with a quick shot of the actual video playing back realtime on my laptop - quick test

(note: comvu is meant to allow direct linking to blogs, but i couldn't seem to get that to work. not sure if it's their issue or somehow related to which version of blogger - old or post-beta - they are linking to).

i'm gonna have to play with this some more. definitely yet another cool way to share experiences. and, imagine the potential in terms of journalism, medicine, security, etc...

and, lest i forget, go hoyas! (nice win today over 'nova)

location-based social networking

2007-02-14T10:10:00.000-05:00

there's a whole slew of emerging players looking to extend the web2.0 social networking (or whatever) experience with location-based apps and services. while there are differences among them, the various services (all free) listed below share common features ranging from locating to mapping to tagging to sharing. having played with each briefly, i'm hard-pressed to define the unique value-add of any one over any other - in other words, i don't have a preference among them.for whatever it may be worth, while each allows for mobile device access/use, they are all still primarily optimized for the PC experience, and, each requires (naturally) some level of ongoing "active" engagement (input) by the user. "passive presence" and more mobile-optimization will almost certainly come with the introduction and mainstreaming of integrated gps handhelds. until then, while cute and fun, these services are somewhat limited in their location-based promise. mobility, after all, is the ultimate extension of the web2.0 experience - indeed, mobility completes it.

exorcist stairs...

2007-01-27T14:43:00.000-05:00

...where better to stop to revel in the hoyas trouncing cincy.

from the mobile (gotta love that nokia n95 5mp image quality), with the kids...

nice start to the weekend.

morgan moves in...

2007-01-21T18:09:00.000-05:00

...or out, depending how you look at it.

spent the day moving morgan into umd, wiring the room, etc. started out looking like a prison cell. ended up looking pretty much the same, but with a bit of color, a hint of warmth.

sigh. melancholy doesn't even begin to describe the mood right now.

from the mobile, from the dorm...

net neutrality debate re-opens...

2007-01-12T18:49:00.001-05:00

not unexpected, senators dorgan (d-sd) and snowe (r-me) introduced a bipartisan net neutrality bill when congress reopened - essentially identical to the one they proposed in the last congress. in short, the bill would establish a national broadband non-discrimination policy, requiring broadband providers to meet a series of obligations, like offering comparable levels of bandwidth to third-party providers that they offer to their own affiliated services. and the fcc would be empowered to set up a complaint procedure for enforcing the requirements.

per senator dorgan, “the success of the internet has been its openness and the ability of anyone anywhere in this country to go on the internet and reach the world...if the big interests who control the pipes become gatekeepers who erect tolls, it will have a significant impact on the internet as we know it.”

nice momentum in the wake of the conditions the fcc imposed on AT&T related to its acquisition of sbc, e.g. a two-year moratorium on offering any service that “privileges, degrades or prioritizes any packet” transmitted over its broadband service.

in short, bravo. but let's not forget wireless...

myphonerocks on iphone

2007-01-11T20:09:00.000-05:00

thanks paul, for the balanced yet provocative post. worth the read. linked here

change, incidentally, is in the air...

hoyas open 18-2...

2007-01-06T12:28:00.001-05:00

...over notre dame in first 5 mins. sweet. (from the mobile)