I’m not watching the various dancing reality shows (just not my thing,) although, a lot of people seem to be. However, here are two music videos that feature some breath taking dancing.

Many, if not most, music videos have dancing. Duffy and Gnarls Barkley both just take it another level, in completely different ways. Mercy, by Duffy, has dancers, gliding as if on ice, demonstrating the epitome of smooth. Going On is manic and jittery, like someone moved by the Holy Spirit. I could both of these video multiple times in a row. Oh… wait, I already did.

I guess Spring is really here. I can’t seem to focus on writing up any “big” ideas, but I am definitely finding inspiring things everywhere, which definitely feels like a Spring attitude. Now, that I’ve said this… I will throw out that idea that, since we all know that MTV doesn’t play music videos anymore, we must be thankful for youtube. Online video isn’t just a substitute, but an improvement on watching music vids. On-demand video sharing is a much more effective model for distributing music videos, which in the end have their beginnings as advertisements for the music, like trailers for movies.

I’m back from San Francisco and ready to post. More posts will be coming, but here on my two cents on AT&T’s censoring of anti-Bush lyrics during a webcast of a Pearl Jam performance that they hosted. AT&T shifted blame to a third-party vendor did the censoring, and they are working to put up an uncensored version.

What is most notable is that in carriers and media companies are now converging. When AT&T was a pure-play telecommunications services company, they didn’t need to worry that much about the information being transmitted over their wires. Now that AT&T and other carries want a piece of the “information service” pie, they are finding themselves in uncharted areas. It is not surprising then, for something like the Pearl Jam mishap to occur. This convergence of traditional telecoms and media companies will be bumpy because telecoms don’t have much experience being media companies. Content is a fiercely competitive arena, where audiences and marketers are extremely fickle. Telecoms on the other hand are only used to a handful of competitors, if any at all. As the telecoms push into more content related areas, it will be interesting to track their successes and failures.

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”

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.

image source: flickr

Sprint is partnering up with Google in a national rollout of WiMax. WiMax is a wireless broadband technology that is similar to the popular WiFi networks, except that that it has a range of miles versus hundreds of feet. The power of WiMax lies in the fact that a carrier does not need to install the “last mile” to each home, which is the most expensive part of implementing a new. Sprint would provide the WiMax technology, while Google would provide search, e-mail, IM, a calender and other applications.

This partnership is part of Sprint’s US$3 billion investment over the next two years to build out their WiMax network. The logic being that once the network is place, people will need Google’s applications to encourage the adoption of their standard. The successful widespread adoption of WiMax is still far from being certain, however this news will certainly help.

Sprint investment is the next generation of broadband technology is important because they are looking to expand outside of the mobile voice, by introducing other services on their own data pipes. As Atish Gude, Sprint’s senior vice president for mobile broadband operations notes, “We have tried to articulate over the last number of months . . . that this is not a cellular model.”

This announcement highlights a trend that should be watched with care. We are already seeing VoIP services being combined with cable and Internet access, with so-called “triple play” services by cable companies. WiMax provides a window to the coming “quadruple play” of phone, cable, Internet and mobile. While “quad play” does ease bill paying and account management, it does force people to rely on one data pipe for all their telecommunication and information services. If service is interrupted, all four media go down. On a normal day, being completely disconnected is not such a big deal… go home early, read a book, or spend time with your family. In an emergency, an ill-timed service outage is devastating.

I feel much more confident in a move towards redundant systems. Sprint and Google’s announcement comes right after T-Mobile’s WiFi phone service launch. In the US, T-Mobile is known for having limited coverage among the four major mobile carriers. Their new service “HotSpots@Home” allows people to place calls using their home WiFi broadband service. When GSM coverage drops, the phones can seamless transfer to WiFi without losing the call. This move allows T-Mobile to extend their coverage with building new towers. While the general discussion of this services focus on the mutually exclusive areas of GSM and WiFi coverage, the overlap is just as important. The overlap exists because people can use this service on any broadband service provider. Now, people have access to two different sets of pipes to maintain service. This model of making services over multiple pipes is crucial and underappreciated, but should be encouraged and even demanded.

image source: marcelstvmuseum

I admit that I watch very little television on a traditional set. Most of my viewing is on my laptop, via WebTV or DVD. However, millions of people in the US do watch on traditional sets. On February 17, 2009, analog television signal will be turned off, and over the air television signals will be strictly digital, and analog televisions will go black. The impending switch over to digital makes this study by the American of Public Television Stations on the public awareness of transition more than a little disturbing.

Although it was study was done in last January, it seems to be getting attention from the media and government only now. Groups including the AARP, National Hispanic Media Coalition and the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights presented their case last week.

22 million US households still get this television signals over the air. Of these households, a ghastly 66% or 14.5 million households are not aware of the switch over. Unfortunately, people who do not know tend to be marginalized groups, such as those respondents aged over 65. Of this group, 24% of them received this programming over tha air (versus 19% of younger households.) Further, of those 65+ aged viewers, only 17% of them owned a digital television.

A huge push to education the country needs to be done in the next 18 months. I hope that broadcasters and government agencies comprehend the magnitude of the problem.

Dtv.gov has information coverage the transition, however, the obvious problem is that you need to know to go there. It does have information on program which runs from Jan. 1, 2008, to March 31, 2009, where U.S. households can request up to two coupons, worth $40 each,to buy digital-to-analog converter boxes.

images source: ClaireOnline.com

I liked Sen. Clair McCaskill (D-Mo.) response to John Kneuer of the Commerce Department and Cathy Seidel of the FCC:
“They’re not going to call you. They’re going to call me, and they’re going to be mad. When people start calling in, I’m giving them your numbers.”

Google says that it is considering to bid in the upcoming auction of 700 MHz spectrum, which will be free when television switches over to a digital in 2009.

It could all just be posturing to get the FCC to keep the pipes open, and allow Goggle the ability to sell access in real time, in a way that is similar to their Adsense model.

Once again, Susan Crawford as a good description of what’s at play.