Things just got really interesting in the mobile / wireless world. Verizon announced that they will over two categories of service by the end of 2008. One will continue to be its bundled handset service, and the other will be open to any device. This change brings Verizon Wireless in-line with the open networks that are available in Europe and Asia. The move will force T-Mobile, Sprint, and AT&T to consider offering similar services. (T-Mobile is already experimenting with allows users to make WiFi calls.) This announcement also may affect the upcoming 700MHz spectrum auction, as the FCC did not require open networks. I’m hoping that it will spur more innovation in the mobile space. Changes could happen quickly, we’ll have to wait and find out. I’m trying to stay optimistic.

Update: Techcrunch and GigaOM weigh in on the issue. A lot can happen in a year, and GigaOM is correct to be skeptical.

Image source: fcc.gov

I got a little behind writing here the last week, because my spare time writing was taken up by finishing my flow column on Kevin Martin, the chairperson of the FCC.

It’s up, so I thought I’d link to it.

What is the blog etiquette on cross-posting?
Good thing? Bad thing?
I’d be curious to hear your opinions.

Image source: John Hoffmann’s Weblog

I’m back from a short trip to the beach, only to return to a massive thunder storms which lead to an extra long commute due to flooding and the sweet smell of raw sewage in Soho that was percolating in 90 degree summer heat. Ah… it’s good to be home.

With that said, let’s get back to Google. (Did you think I could go five posts without directly mentioning them?)

It’s funny because the spectrum auction has been a big deal in telecommunications circles every since the FCC made television broadcasters switch from analogue to digital, which freed the 700MHz band of spectrum in the first place. But Google makes news, and their public announcement of their concerns about the auction turns a business section article into front page news on the New York Times (albeit below the fold.) All this analysis leads to a lot second guessing. The what ifs and predictions can be fun and are an important part of the game, however separating the signal from the noise is difficult. More over, after a week passes, most people will move along with the rest of the blogosphere to the next bright and shinny news item, like the new iMacs. In the short window of coverage, it is easy to forget that Google has been concerned about access and pipes for a long time.

On that note, let’s return to 2005, when the internet was abuzz with rumors of Google buying up “dark fiber” and their mysterious job postings.

At the time, Robert X Cringely (who made the great documentary Triumph of the Nerds, not to be confused with the movie about a nerd fraternity of a similar title.) commented upon the dark fiber speculation and the even cool super-secret plans to building their own Internet using home grown US$500 million mobile data centers housed in shipping containers.

Two years later, we haven’t seen or heard much more about these plans. It is also interesting to note how Cringley opened his article:

“Google’s strengths are searching, development of Open Source Internet services, and running clusters of tens of thousands of servers. Notice on this list there is nothing about operating systems. There are many rumors about Google doing an operating system to compete with Microsoft. I’m not saying they aren’t doing that (I simply don’t know), but I AM saying it would not be a good idea, because it doesn’t play to any of the company’s traditional strengths.”

Two years later, Google hasn’t created a new internet, nor they have entered the desktop OS market. Although, they have rolled out word processors, spreadsheet, photo album and calendar tools to join their email service which launched on April 1, 2004, which overs a lot of people software application needs, even it isn’t specifically called an OS (but if it walks like a duck…) And Sun created something that looks a lot like what Cringley was talking about.

The internet is full of rumors and wild guesses at future actions. Cringley is smart enough to know that he can’t see into the future. Further, he is humble enough to put a section which lists his predictions and review his track record when he does make a prediction. He is currently batting 0.533, which is say that he is right a little more than half the time.

This abundant media speculation is good when it focuses national attention on important, but often dry, issues as interoperability and access to wireless networks and services. Getting people to wonder why they can’t use their mobile handset on a carrier of their choosing and why they can’t control their on-deck applications are important first steps to insuring fair and reasonable telecommunications policy. However, the telecommunication industry can change surprisingly quickly. Historic perspective helps put these changes in context. Amid these changes, we have to remember where we’ve been before, and even where we thought we were going.

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: 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.