carriers
August 6, 2010
Mobile web dominance goes to open source…….sort of
While the tech media lemmings continue to push a plethora of praise the the decidedly totalitarian Fruit Phone, consumers are voting with their dollars elsewhere. Open source makes for tremendous efficiency in the implementation an build process enabling a variety of choices versus a monoculture. This has created so much momentum behind Andriod, that it’s mobile OS dominance has become something akin to Microsoft’s practical monopoly on the desktop.
Google’s Android platform has gone from activating 100,000 units a day in May, to 200,000 daily units as of today, according to Google CEO Eric Schmidt.
Schmidt was speaking to journalists (pictured above) at the Techonomy conference in Lake Tahoe, CA, and the technology blog TechCrunch managed to get some video of the chat (see below).
The activation growth shows impressive progress for Google’s mobile OS in the span of just a few months. Schmidt pointed to recent quarterly shipment numbers that showed Android phones outselling the iPhone in the last quarter as proof and said that he confirmed the number with Google’s own internal figures. (Mobile Beat)
While Android is open source, there are some big caveats that come with its dominance. It will be the top target for exploits. We still haven’t developed an effective way of policing them on the desktop, and many mobile users tend to be even less tech savvy than desktop users. Then there’s the fact that while the platform is open, implementation is crippled by carriers.That limits users choices on how they use their handsets and allows carriers to continue to nickel and dime them for simple services that could be replaced by simple apps. Lastly, the Andriod project, while open is overseen by Google. Many of us will argue that this “do no evil” company is anything but. Searchzilla continues to unapologetically cook its search results to favor a political agenda along with pay for placement. Worse yet, Google’s CEO has repeatedly stated that we have no right to privacy online. It’s virtually certain that some of this attitude will be baked into Andriod if it’s not already present.
There is a silver lining. Open source projects tend to spawn forks and branches when the overseers overstep. Andriod and its inevitable variants are likely to dominate mobile for some time to come. This will put Apple back in the boutique business for mobile. In other words, if smart phones were shirts, we won’t all be forced to wear turtlenecks. It will also most likely make Google’s Chrome OS irrelevant.
Conclusion: look for the cloud in your pocket, soon,and cheap. It also means you’ll have many more choices than you have now.
Filed under 3g, 4g, Google, Open Source, carriers, competition by admin
July 10, 2010
Why NetFlix and HuluPlus Will Win…
In business there are several ways you can win. You can be head and shoulders above everyone else. Your competition can be total screw ups. You can gain a defacto monopoly by political legerdemain. Or some mix of all of them. Case in point –
In just over two weeks, Emmy-winning AMC drama Mad Men is slated to begin its fourth season on the basic cable channel. But with negotiations between its parent company and AT&T U-Verse over carriage fees, the cable and internet provider might force subscribers to relocate their premiere parties to the apartment of someone with Comcast.
It’s not just AMC that faces being dropped by U-Verse. Female-oriented channel WE tv and the Independent Film Channel could also face the firing squad if AT&T can’t reach an agreement with parent company Rainbow Media before July 25.
This is similar to the situation faced by Cablevision last March when its pricing squabble with ABC resulted in customers missing a bit of the live Oscars telecast.
It is crazy that a channel customer should be losing any access to the entertainment over some internal provider-carrier squabble. That is fighting over who washes the dishes kind of silliness. And the customer be damned thank you very much.
The better model is the carrier is paid by the subscription of the consumer not by the channel provider. No squabbles occur. In fact under that scheme the two parties work in concert to maximize subscription rates. The whole effort become customer focused rather than channel focused as it is now on cable.
And that is why the likes of Netflix and Hulu will be winners in the space.
Filed under Cable Operators, Cablevision, carriers, ecommerce by Dr. Dog
June 30, 2010
The Economics of Net Neutrality, Gag
Ok lets get something straight. We here at ThirdPipe are FOR a Net Neutrality requirement for carriers. But the current ‘Net Neutrality’ option winding its way thru the halls of the FCC is NOT Net Neutrality. Its nothing but a power grab by the Beltway Bandits to squelch dissent.
Oh but it gets worse. The economics of its do not bode well either —
The study, authored by Charles Davidson and Bret Swanson, forecasts that the nation would hemorrhage 500,000 jobs in a best-case scenario were broadband reclassified as a Title II telecommunications service. That just so happens to be an objective currently under pursuit by members of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) with support from backers of “net neutrality” policy.
The forecasted job losses are likely to make for unpleasant headlines for the FCC at a time when jobs and the economy remain paramount in the minds of most voters and legislators.
“Especially at time when the national economy is attempting to recover from a major and enduring downturn and private sector job creation remains a concern, the destabilizing impacts of the FCC’s proposals place the nation’s economy at even greater risk,” the study reads.
Telecommunications companies have for months now warned that a formal adoption of the FCC’s reclassification proposal could hamper innovation and infrastructure investment, and observers say this study could provide them with fresh ammunition in the fight against reclassification and net neutrality.
“If this Title II regulation looks imminent, we have to re-evaluate whether we put shovels int he ground,” AT&T chief executive Randall Stephenson said earlier this month in an interview with the Wall Street Journal.
From 2003 to 2009, broadband service providers invested, on average, an annual $30 billion for deployment, which created or sustained some 431,000 jobs. Were that level of investment to dip by a conservative 10 percent in the wake of reclassification, 502,000 jobs would disappear and the nation’s GDP would shrink $62 billion. At 30 percent, the study projects the U.S. GDP would drop by $80 billion, for a loss of 602,000 jobs.
Following suit of their Republican colleagues, a growing chorus of senior Democrats have in recent weeks expressed opposition to the FCC’s regulatory rewrite, asking they instead pursue a legislative solution. Cross-chamber whip counts reveal at least 285 legislators disapprove of the measure.
Flush 500k jobs? Sure could. Do the major Telcos have that many jobs? No. But what is not known by many in the beltway crowd is that a large percentage of the Outside Plant work is today done by contract firms. They would be the first to be laid off on the street if the current proposals are adopted. But even at the Telcos there would be follow on layoffs in the management ranks. Why keep an outside plant manager or a facility supervisor if nobody is laying any FIOS cable? They too would be on the street.
The Net Neutrality move is as bad as the DISCLOCE Act in many ways. But to lose a half a million jobs to boot? Somebody get a broom. The FCC needs sweeping out.
The white paper is located here.
June 29, 2010
Hulu Plus is Here, Sorta
Is $9.99 the New Normal?
Sorta, as in right now its register, then get an invite. Its not a bad strategy either. Run a test case with a small body of users to get the kinks out. A method I would heartily support.
But the question I have is it it worth $10? For the money you get –
- Access to more shows from the major networks.
- Access to the past seasons archives.
- It will be viewable on more devices (iPod, iPhone, Samsung devices, Sony PS3, Xbox, your PC)
- All of it available in HD.
- Oh, and you still have to watch all the ads. The price of entry does not spare one from this.
Now ole Fuddy-Duddy here says maybe its worth $10. Fact if they would ditch the ads I would give a serious thumbs up. I would also suggest they consider bringing in other partners like USA Network as well. Finally I could really care less that HuluPlus runs on an Xbox or PS3. I don’t game.
But with a little jiggering of the content. Dropping of the ads. Then getting some of the channel partners like HBO on board in an ala carte fashion this could fly. There is only one problem. HD already exists over the air and that ole trusty Tivo is still there with the FF button. So questions boils down to does access to the archive of shows worth the $10.
My last Ah-Ha. Does HuluPlus set the new price model for broadband content? Personally I think it does. Not because I think the content is competitive as what $40/mo cable provides. No, its a market perception thing. Once the public gets it in their mind that $10 is the value proposition the cable Cos won’t be able to shake it. Serious downward pressure waits in the wings.
Now, do the networks have the guts to pull content off the cable providers?
Filed under carriers, ecommerce, marketplaces by Dr. Dog
June 22, 2010
Google Preparing to be MaBell?
Update: Sorry Its Not Going to Happen!
Update II: It Happened!
There a few notes floating around the ‘Net that Google is testing bits and pieces of Google Voice internally. Even rumors that a possible upgrade to GMail may include a Google Voice client popup –
The new feature will allow users to make voice calls over the Internet and it’s likely that it won’t be limited to Gmail. In April, TechCrunch reported that Google “built a Google Voice desktop application to make and receive calls” and that the application is tested internally. Google used technology from Gizmo5, a VoIP service acquired by Google last year.
For now, Google Voice’s integration with Gmail is not publicly available.
A Google Voice VoIP service with land line tie in? The consequences are rather formidable –
- Google probably becomes the instant largest VoIP phone company on the planet. Assuming that they tie this to every GMail account, that is in the cards by default. GMail outclasses Skype by at least an order of 2X.
- The paid for VoIP service collapses? Or the price points become inordinately cheap. Why pay for it if I can get if for free?
- Skype’s propietary signaling format bites them back. What has kept most folks with Skype is market size. If a larger player shows up with open protocols, it makes Skype’s technical decision problematic. That become a huge problem for them as they are now a start up again.
- The Skype-Verizon deal is toast.
- It makes the job of the folks trying to control the Internet that much harder. Hard to enforce net rules is they are precluded 1st Amend. speech provisions, which is what the FCC was supposed to guard in the first place.
As a technology this is not earth shaking, its just VoIP. But if Google follows their usual — free basic, paid premium scenarios — it is a massive realignment of the VoIP space as a business. It would also portend a serious challenge to the big three wireless carriers. A smart upstart could offer a unlimited data plan coupled with Android/GMail/Voice/SMS and blow their competitors voice/data plan pairings out of the water. (Hear me out there T-Mobile??)
This is a dark swan for telecom.
Update:
You must appreciate the remorse I have when I read this –
When Google acquired Gizmo5, a Skype competitor, in November Google Voice users rejoiced – presumably they’d be getting a much needed soft phone on the desktop for users to make and receive calls through Google Voice.
We confirmed that the application had been rewritten and was being tested internally at Google in April. Some Google employees continue to use the app, we’ve confirmed.
But don’t expect it to launch publicly any time soon, we’ve heard from multiple sources. Why? an internal religious debate about desktop software.
Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin don’t want Google to be in the business of creating software outside of the browser, say our sources. And that’s consistent with Google’s product launches over the last several years.
Of course it ignores the efforts that Google is putting into developing their own Chrome browser, Chrome operating system and Android operating system, as well as a variety of mobile apps – all are software that installs on computers or mobile devices.
But there may be a hard line when it comes to pure desktop apps like Google Voice. So the team has been sent back to the drawing board to try to make a workable soft phone that will work entirely within the browser using HTML 5.
So the upshot is, it ain’t gonna happen this year or next. Damn! Apparently part of a religious war internally. Personally I think this is a bad move on Google’s part. There is only so much you can do with Search. But with telephony, when you can do it big, there are all sorts of avenues where not only is search manifest in telephony use but it provides yet another source of revenue apart from search. Smart companies diversify income streams.
I need a scotch…..
Update II :
Ok, so my scorecard was only half right! The upshot is, Google Voice is out of the Labs and into the wild! Wow. Integrated with Google Mail? Nope. I want that, but the fact that I can freely sign up for Google Voice without the invite is a good start.
Will be a busy weekend. Have a few clients that want this integrated into their websites. Loving it. The current release of GV won’t however put Google in the MaBell business however. It depends on an existing phone line to operate. But merely as a call director it has many uses for lots of people.
April 8, 2010
Balderdash!
Has Art Brodsky lost his grip? His posting over at Public Knowledge has to be one of the lamest lines of defense ever offered as a basis for over turning the Rule of Law. Kindness of Strangers be damned!
Mr Brodsky starts with using the Ides of March reversal technique –
Of course, the story isn’t all that simple, is it? Because the hidden story of Comcast’s glorious victory is that if Comcast were smart, it wouldn’t in the first place have brought the case, which challenged the FCC’s authority over the company’s high-speed Internet service. Some in the telecommunications industry, perhaps even huge companies with three letters in its name, urged (begged?) Comcast not to take the FCC’s ruling to court, because of the possibility that Comcast could actually win and, potentially, win big —which is what happened.
The reason that the Telcos like the arrangement Art is that it extended their LATA boundary relationships into the non regulated digital environment without so much as a legal skirmish. And what’s this dismissive alluding but not naming? Its AT&T, VZ, Sprint. Don’t be so damn coy.
But where is the standing on damages to the industry that Mr. Brodsky intones? He offers two — Depend on the Kindness of Strangers, and Waiting for Godot. In the former case he charges that depending on the big firms for telecommunications advancement has led us on a downward spiral in terms of global competitiveness. There is some truth to that but not the whole truth. For who is the hand maiden leading the spiraling down the drain but the FCC itself. Then in the latter case we have this –
We can’t depend on unelected bureaucrats to deal with topics as essential as broadband, because the result could be “excessive and burdensome regulation” on those humble, hard-working telephone and cable companies who unfairly change the rules without any reason at all.
And to you I say, NO we cannot trust bureaucrats with damn near anything including telecommunications. If for no other reason that the concept of the Lack of Sufficient Knowledge on a continuing basis.
But thru all of Mr. Brodsky’s missive is this gem –
… Practically speaking (even if there is a very slim legal opening), broadband is free from regulation – a nirvana that the telecoms industry might once upon a time have gratefully accepted as its due, but now looks upon it with some trepidation because now the door has swung wide open to a full-scale discussion of bringing Internet broadband access services back under reasonable regulation.
Two counts here. Brodsky’s ox has been gored by this ruling yet now the door has been swung open for reasonable regulation? By what variant of a pharmaceutical does he come to this conclusion? Its an election year fella. The chances of a Democratic Congress taking this up is slim to none. Plus if the tea leaves are right the Republican Congress next year won’t have the cycle time to touch it either. The second is under proper procedure, the FCC being a creature of Congress should make the necessary request for an expansion of its authority by the proper means, not some gerrymandered legal trick with a wink and a nod. But Mr. Brodsky the FCC DOES NOT possess the authority to overstate its intended alloted powers. Or do I assume you are willing to abrogate the rule of law to achieve your statist aims under the color of consumer protection. How Stalinist.
More on Balderdash!
Filed under BPL, Big Media, CPE, Cable Operators, Comcast, Content, Cox, EVDO, Editorial, FCC, Legislation / Regulation, Lucent, Net Neutrality, Nokia, Verizon, Wimax, carriers, competition by Dr. Dog
January 14, 2010
OK So Far…
… but the jury is still out. A new group with a new website and mission is about to hit the wireless arena. The name of the group - Focus Driven. Their website is Focusdriven.org. Their mission, to raise awareness of the distracted driver –
Each year, thousands of families suffer the loss of loved ones needlessly at the hands of drivers distracted by their cell phones. Whether texting, using hands-free or handheld phones, these drivers not only put their lives on the line, but they risk killing others on the road.
FocusDriven provides victims of cell phone distracted drivers, and their friends and families, with an outlet for sharing their stories. We also provide those interested in this issue with opportunities to get involved.
FocusDriven can help you petition your state legislation; educate your friends, families and coworkers about the hazards of distracted driving; or share your story with state representatives to help support legislation for safer roadways.
FocusDriven supporters and advocates know, and many have experienced, the very real consequences of drivers distracted by their cell phones. We ask you to make the pledge to not drive distracted, share what you learn on our site with those you know and get involved to help make our nation’s roads safer.
Are the aims admirable? Yes. But it can be like anything else — unless moderation and common sense is applied then the spiral downward is a swift and sure one. Two examples to my point. MADD — mothers against drunk driving. Early on they had a very positive affect on drunk driving. But slowly the mission itself changed from one looking for results (which was the basis for their early success.), to one of success at all costs. Even when the results can be marginal at best and the overall community results unfavorable.
The second I can provide is bradycampaign.org. They too started out with a laudable goal to reduce gun violence. (The violence is the issue, not the gun, its just the instrument. But that’s a different story.) They have slowly morphed not into a gun violence advocate but a gun banning advocate. The lever of that transformation being the funding by various anti gun sub-groups. What I would envision is that Focusdriven.org would become over funded by a Telco PAC and then slowly twisted to a meek shell of its former mission. Don’t let that happen to you.
I wish them God speed. This is an issue that needs a societal response. There are times in life that do not require you to answer the phone. Driving happens to be one of them.
Filed under Editorial, Legislation / Regulation, carriers by Dr. Dog
January 10, 2010
Landscape Shifts, All Dead, FCC Slammed
That is what a 3 judge panel of the first District Court of Appeals just did in the case of Comast vs FCC. The Panel offered the ruling as memorandum, not binding, but telegraphing the Courts observations and if affirmed by the full bench sets the FCC on its ear. –
Federal appeals court gave notice Friday it likely would reject the Federal Communications Commission’s authority to sanction Comcast for throttling peer-to-peer applications.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit suggested as much during oral arguments with the FCC and Comcast. The Philadelphia-based cable concern is appealing the agency’s 2008 decision ordering it to stop hampering the peer-to-peer service BitTorrent as a traffic-management practice.
The order was in response to complaints Comcast was sending fake signals to users of BitTorrent, a bandwidth-heavy protocol often used to pirate copyright content.
“You have yet to identify a specific statute,” Judge Raymond Randolph told an FCC lawyer regarding the legal authority to ding Comcast.
To be sure, Friday’s reaction to the appellate court hearing made it increasingly clear the Obama administration’s FCC has been preparing for a defeat concerning net neutrality (.pdf), one of the largest issues surrounding internet freedom.
The upshot of this memo? —
* Net Neutrality as it has been proposed since Chairman Martin’s tenure may not survive in its current form if it survives at all.
* That the FCC may not even have the authority to regulate in this area as no controlling regulatory clause has been found by the court.
* That the 30% rule fostered by the FCC on the cable industry is willful and capricious. The panel summarily vacated that baseline without standing in current rule making by the FCC itself.
* Has political implications beyond the scope of this blog.
In many ways we are right back to 2004 in regards to carriers regard to traffic management, FCC’s role in this issue and the very nature of Net Neutrality.
Filed under Courts, Net Neutrality, carriers, competition by Dr. Dog
January 5, 2010
We’ve Been Saying it For Eons! Buy the Phone
Yes Dear Reader a little TCO analysis can save you money. We have been saying for years that the shell game of free phone, payback is a b!@#$ thru the contract is a bear. It also hurts your wallet. –
He’s considering buying a data-only plan from T-Mobile and relying primarily on SkypeOut purchases, with a backup of free Gizmo5 calls through Google Voice, although new Gizmo5 sign-ups are currently suspended. That means little to no mobile calling (unless you used the free Guava app). Then again, Ben sees some significant savings by the end of what would be a two-year contract, and considers himself a “near-total” dependent on Google services. Could you imagine making the data-only jump?
Just go over to the lifehacker article and see for yourself. Keep in mind that the author is considering only going with a data only plan, 2yr contact. There are other considerations one can also employ. For instance, does your spouse have a phone with a carrier who does a Friend and Family deal? Why not punch the Google voice into the loop? Then the calls to her are free. And if perchance one has a small VoIP server then a VoIP app on the Nexus might avoid all the Gizmodo fiddling as well.
While we are on the subject. The Nexus Launch. A captured live blog feed is here with pics. Initial take — very iPhonish. But that seems to be where the jive is at the moment. The wise move being made? You can buy the phone separate and go with any vendor you wish. That’s a damn smart move, especially for the consumer.
I just hope the carriers are prepared for the bandwidth assault. This phone screams — Songbird App. But your data store staying on the home server and streamed to the Nexus as an audio terminal. Oh and anybody out there developing a multiparty audio remix app for the Nexus. It would sell.
We have projected for 2 years that it was time for unbundling the phone. We would have expected it to happen before the smartphones took hold. But I guess it takes the extra functionality of the smartphone to force the issue on the carriers. Hope I am right but wrong.
Filed under Google, carriers, competition, new technology by Dr. Dog
January 1, 2010
Well Somebody Would Have Said it Sooner or Later
That is pulling the plug on POTS. You know that little jingly thing your mother and grandmother still use at lifeline rates? Yes its still out there but dwindling by the day. So what happens? –
In response to a Notice of Inquiry released by the FCC to explore how to transition to a purely IP-based communications network, AT&T has declared that it’s time to cut the cord. AT&T told the FCC that the death of landlines is a matter of when , not if, and asked that a firm deadline be set for pulling the plug.
AT&T tells the FCC that supporting traditional POTS landlines is impeding investment in broadband, VoIP, and wireless services.AT&T said in its response to the FCC that “with each passing day, more and more communications services migrate to broadband and IP-based services, leaving the public switched telephone network (”PSTN”) and plain-old telephone service (”POTS”) as relics of a by-gone era.”
It also stated “It makes no sense to require service providers to operate and maintain two distinct networks when technology and consumer preferences have made one of them increasingly obsolete.”
Is AT&T right? Yes. The fact is Central Office based systems have long lead times and nearly as long tax treatment. Most of the majors were using 19/20yr MACRS or ACRS depreciation on the capital investment as that was agreed to by both the industry and the IRS as appropriate, circa 1950’s. Little has changed on that front ever since. But that poses a problem for say Version who just put a new CO remote in 5 years ago. (Rare as that is.) So how would that install be treated? Under the current rules an accelerated recapture would take place for junking the equipment. That’s a major hit when you consider that even today CO investments are in the billions. So the Telcos would push for tax relief if devaluation ever happened.
My gut says not so fast. Even though what AT&T says is true I have the tingly feeling in the back of my head that it won’t work out that way. AT&T would take the revised recapture relief to the bank, not do any more R&D/advanced services/VOIP/network upgrades, then cry poor mouth all the way into the CEO’s pocket. I am not against AT&T, its just how these guys have operated for years. I have been in the belly of this beast to know better.
There of course is another fly in the ointment to a devaluation of CO networks. I call it the other 1200. That is approximately how many phone companies there are in this country. Most are small operators, functioning as COOPs in rural territory that none of the majors even want to touch. At a minimum there would have to be some sort of relief offered to these companies. At a minimum most would require a DSLAM to get their customers on to VOIP. Most likely SBA enhanced funding would have to be offered at 0% interest to these companies. To date I have not heard of any plans to do so.
Devaluing the POTS network has to happen. We need to realize that as soon as possible. We also need to make sure that in the switch serious profit taking does not occur. Compensation where needed, support where required, but in the end it should be a net-net wash.


-->

