Although I didn’t invent this correlation, I am highly amused with the idea that the number of keys someone carries is a function on his or her power. People who lack power own few or no keys. Extremely powerful people have no keys as well. Those somewhere in the middle, like myself, lug key chains brimming with keys.

How many keys do Michael Bloomberg or Bill Gates have? Can you imagine Queen Elizabeth barreling down on the M3 going to Windsor Castle saying, “Cripes! I left the house keys next to my DS Lite. I guess I’ll have to use the spare, hidden in the flower pot round back of the garden.”

Graphing the Power Key Curve is an interesting exercise. As you can see in Figure 1, the function looks quadratic. (Of course, this is only a rough approximation. The actual curve is unlikely to be symmetric, but I couldn’t intuitively guess at how each side would taper different. Please leave a comment, if you have any ideas.) Looking at the graph, we see that an increase of key ownership reflects an increase in power. However, at a certain point, a continual increase in power reduces the number of keys in one’s possession.

One feature of quadratics is that each value on the y-axis has two values, as show in A and B on the graph. Of course, it’s easy to know how many keys you own, just count them. The tricky and fun part is figuring out which side of the graph do you reside, especially as the number of keys your own change.

Here’s my current key situation. The dip last fall was the least amount of keys I carried in a long time. As I stared freelancing full time and moved into a new housing situation, I was down to a mere three keys, which was a good thing… I think. Regardless, that didn’t last long, as the number of keys for various work spaces crept up. My storage space is showing up as the Misc. key. Looking at this chart might motivate me to get rid of it.

But the real question is… how many keys do you have on you?

Image source: jcrew.com

It’s 90 degrees in New York. All week, I’ve been receiving catalogs showing off sweaters, flannel shirts and wool pants. Just looking at them, makes me sweat.

I get the catalogs because I shop online, which then puts me on mailing lists. Of course, the ironic angle of receiving these paper catalogs is that part of the reason I shop online is that it reduces resources.

I’ve been posting a lot on the massiveness of the attempts to re-direct telecom infrastructure in positive ways. The macro problem is basically how to tackle large scale problems and change conventional ways of thinking, which led to the question, why do I rarely finish tasks early? Is it just human nature?

Along the same lines, I got to thinking how the world was able to for the most part fix the Y2K bug (remember that?) Yet in most other cases, impending disasters, like our dependence on oil, failing infrastructure and unsustainable spending, all go unheeded.

I came up with two reasons, one is that the world had a deadline. Come January 1, 2000, we were all scared that the lights would go off, our bank accounts would evaporate, nuclear power plants would explode, sewage would flood into our drinking water system, and our computers would explode. I knew a lot of people in IT who certainly were not going to party like it was 1999 on that New Year’s Eve. (On the smaller scale, my personal tasks tend to get completed when I have set deadlines.)

Are we just lazy and short sighted without deadlines and structure? Maybe, maybe not.
The second reason is that the direct costs of fixing the bug to most people were minimal. It was a one-off project, and no government or company was going to be known as the one that blew it. Coding systems to switch from two digit years to four digit years was complex, but it was containable. Further, it didn’t require much sacrifice on the individual level.

Where as in the case of moving off our dependence on oil, the transition is going to demand direct lifestyle changes and loss of freedoms to most people. Of course, starting early will make the transition easier, but that is unlikely to happen. Further, large scale social problems rarely has concise, real deadlines, which makes Y2K an interesting, albeit special case.

Back to the drawing board.

Images source: upgrade:travelbetter.com

With all this Google and spectrum talk swirling the internet and news media, I keep coming back to Wi-Fi as a good way to contextualizing the importance of having open networks and services, as well as open applications and devices. There are of course, many differences which I’ll identify, but the similarities are important and insightful.

Wi-Fi has exploded in the past few years. As with many overnight success stories, this one was twenty-five years in the making. In 1985, FCC opened several bands of high frequency wireless spectrum for unregulated use. This move allowed people to transmit over these frequencies without a license, as you would for radio or television. The spectrum 900MHz, 2.4GHz and 5.8GHz was (in hindsight) amusingly named “garbage bands.” Because they were used by medical equipment and home appliances including microwave ovens, they were considered to have limited telecommunications value.

In 1997, the turning point of Wi-Fi was the adoption of IEEE 802.11 standard by the Institute Electrical and Electronics Engineers, which was nearly ten years in the making. With a standard in place, developers could make devices and applications that were interoperable with each other. Developers chose the 80211b flavor in the first wave of products, because it was least expensive, albeit slow. Faster flavors of the standard, such as 802.11g and 802.11n, are now being developed and brought to market. The early application of 802.11b shows that the agreement on of a standard is just as important as what is agreed upon. As commercial products began rolling out, “Wi-Fi” was settled upon as a term for this new technology, because “IEEE 802.11b compliant” wasn’t as sexy.

Two points to take away from the spread of Wi-Fi concern standards and the open spectrum. First, the adoption of the IEEE 802.11 standard allowed for interoperability. Because products could easily to talk to each other, the chances for wide-spread use increased. Second, providing open spectrum expanded development, because
anyone from the size of Cisco and to the individual members of the Toronto Wireless Users Groups to develop and experiment with Wi-Fi. As well, it vastly expanded its usage by people. (Imagine if everyone who wanted to set up a Wi-Fi network needed to apply and pay for a broadcasting license.)

Wi-Fi will soon face competition from other wireless alternatives, like the results of the 700 MHz auction or WiMax, which is faster and has roughly 100 times wider range. These telecommunications technologies require towers and infrastructure, which have price tags that run in the billions of dollars to implement in the US. Big upfront costs means that big entities are involved like telecoms, industry disruptors like Google or Apple, or governments. Even if the FCC mandated open networks and services (which it did not,) standards and truly fair pricing would remain challenges to seeing levels of innovation and adoption on par with Wi-Fi.

Some good, accessible readings on the topic:
A Brief History of Wi-Fi, Economist, June 10th, 2004. (subscription required)

“How Wi-Fi Works”

The site was in stealth for a long time, and friends kept on finding it… so… I guess it’s live. Putting it in technorati seems to be the next, if not final step.

Technorati Profile

Just a quick post on the upcoming 700MHz spectrum. Yesterday, FCC released guidelines on the auction. Google was pressing for 4 points on its policy blog:
* Open applications: consumers should be able to download and utilize any software applications, content, or services they desire;
* Open devices: consumers should be able to utilize a handheld communications device with whatever wireless network they prefer;
* Open services: third parties (resellers) should be able to acquire wireless services from a 700 MHz licensee on a wholesale basis, based on reasonably nondiscriminatory commercial terms; and
* Open networks: third parties (like internet service providers) should be able to interconnect at a technically feasible point in a 700 MHz licensee’s wireless network.

FCC is gone along with the first two, which is important because outside developers can innovative as we have seen on the Internet, but less so on mobile phones. However, it appears that the winners of the spectrum will not be forced to keep their services and networks open.

I still getting my head wrapped around that FCC actually said. Google hasn’t say yet if they are going to bid in the auction. But they are more likely now that given the FCC’s guidelines. Along similar lines, even if the FCC implemented open networks and open services in the auction guidelines, openness is ultimately all about execution. Defining and overseeing “nondiscriminatory” pricing is crucial. As seen, in the attempts to open wirelines, the task is tricky and can be gamed. Inflated prices make it economically impossible for third parties to profitably lease pipes and services, similar to the experience of third-party broadband ISPs.