Hello Everyone. I wanted to let you know that I am now podcasting again. My show www.wimaxglobalnews.com is live once again. I uploaded a new show last night. This week's topics include a summary of some of the top stories from 2006—at least in my opinion.
I discussed the Sprint decision to use WiMax for its 2.5 GHz spectrum, the AT&T/BellSouth merger, the AWS Spectrum auction, a few thoughts on the business case for Municipal Broadband, industry consolidation and more. I am very pleased to be back podcasting and hope to do so much more regularly this year. I see challenges in that as I am currently the busiest I have ever been which, while good, is a real challenge.
Bloged in IPTV, Regulatory, Wimax by Tim Sanders Friday April 14, 2006 at about 1:46 am
Granted it is just a subcommittee but this week saw a bill allowing AT&T and Verizon to file for and receive (within 30 days) a national cable franchise, make steady progress to the full Energy and Commerce Committe and possibly, eventually the House floor. The Telcos would prefer that their IP service not be deemed to be a cable franchise. But they appear willing to give ground on that somewhat to get the bill done. This will be a big deal increasingly. Good for consumers I think. Time's they are a changing. Tim Sanders tim@thefinalmile.netwww.thefinalmile.netwww.wimaxglobalnews.com
This report about Canopy's new Cable compatible wireless systems caught my eye. I thought it was quite interesting. I have not seen anyone else come out with gear optimized to help cablecos extend their networks. With the Telcos coming after their video business with IPTV and the cablecos in turn offering VoIP and Broadband this makes a lot of sense. I can see some real potential sales gains here. Apparently the modems make use of the data over cable service interface specification (DOCSIS) 2.0 standard to handle the translation to the cable system. Neat idea, whose time has come. Tim Sanders tim@thefinalmile.netwww.thefinalmile.netwww.wimaxglobalnews.com
One of my good friends, Ken DiPietro blogs quite lucidly on Municipal wireless, public policy and many other things. Ken's Blog covers many topics, but I was especially struck by one blog on Regulation as being very important and a potentially massive looming problem. The Telcos want to control the quality of IP traffic. Basically they propose their circuits to be a toll road. Nevermind that we the public are already paying for service. The Telcos have decided they want to offer prioritization and the FCC seems amenable to allow this. Why is this bad? Well on the surface it isn't necessarily. Many VoIP companies would probably do well to have their IP traffic prioritized on a network for example. Of course, what about smaller companies who could not afford this "prioritization", would they in turn be discriminated against or relegated to something less than they have now? One has to think yes. So structurally, would this mean that every network IP traffic would cross to reach a consumer would get its own little cut? I shudder to think how many hops I go through just to reach Google. How many times must Google pay for me to get free services from them? Ultimately, if this happens I pay or I do without or someone wealthier gets a better experience. What if we are talking online education or distance learning. Will poorer children or school systems be able to afford the educational content that wealthier patrons of the net will get? What about rural kids? I don't know. But it is a slippery slope. Now, how this came about is straightforward enough. The Telcos have enjoyed a monopoly, albeit a regulated one for a long time. One could say that the regulation makes things inherently fair. Trust me, the Telcos learned to play the political game of regulation long ago. They get their way, just witness a Louisiana law forbidding the city of New Orleans from operating a broadband network. Remember the days when cable TV was illegal in bigger cities? The broadcast stations had a great lobby then. Now, for a long time Telcos have been content to deliver the content as they always have. It was no big deal, they had the pipes. The problem now is that innovation has exploded what was one of the truly stable business models in the US (along with electric power). Voice over IP by the cablecos and cellular service is rapidly stripping the incumbent Telcos of their cash cow, which is local service. I think they have few choices with the switch type networks most are operating. What are they going to do to ensure they maintain revenues? And trust me, we do need them to survive. They do operate most of the nation's backbone. So what is a happy medium ground? I don't know that I have the answer but I don't think giving them a regulatory win of such profound nature is the answer. I suspect what the Telcos must do is learn to compete as commercial companies do in the marketplace. The recent uptick in fiber deployments by AT&T and others is very encouraging because it means they are adjusting to offer new products like IPTV. I think this is the path of success. A positive one too. Tim Sanders tim@thefinalmile.netwww.thefinalmile.netwww.wimaxglobalnews.com
I saw an article on Yahoo discussing a research report from Parks Associates that indicates that general Internet access interest is waning. To be fair to broadband the piece addresses Internet use in general. However, while the two should probably not be inferentially linked the reasons given would seem to me to apply to broadband as well. The Parks study indicates that some respondents feel they have enough access at work. Others are simply uninterested in the Internet. While a few more (8 percent) said they did not understand the Internet. Only 4 percent cited cost. Most interesting to me is that 39 percent just said other. Now that is a pretty broad category. So what could that mean? It could be that as the story says everything goes in cycles that are tied to the economy, social custom and other factors. Certainly as you get closer to the majority being on broadband the "growth" would slow. This is sheer speculation on my part so take this with the grain of salt it deserves. But could it be that being online just doesn't seem compelling to people because they don't see a substantive value in the way it changes their lives? How many of those who say no in this survey download ring tunes or music on their cell phone? Some do I bet. I think others may not have broadband capability where they live and don't see dial as a real service anymore (though this is a reach). I would actually expect that the services that could be vended through our pipes might be the fulcrum that provides a tipping point. Also, perhaps education is still an imperative for those who don't have Internet connections Things like a cheaper VoIP service from a service provider may be the one thing that changes their mind. People buy because they need things (if they understand they do) or because it makes them feel good. Virtually all buying decisions are emotional decisions even huge corporate purchases (can you say executive job security is what you sell—that is an emotional tipping point). I guess the long rambly point I am trying to make is that we need packages, services and education for our product that compel customers to take action. Understanding what that is is crucial. Asking them the right way is important too. Maybe we don't understand the right question here? Tim Sanders tim@thefinalmile.netwww.thefinalmile.netwww.wimaxglobalnews.com
This article in the San Jose Mercury News described a misunderstanding between the city of Livermore, CA and AT&T around permits it applied for to do upgrades. It seems the upgrades included cabinetry to support AT&Ts Project Lightspeed upgrade project to support IPTV. The city had not understood that at all. And for that matter was not at all sure it wanted any such. AT&T plans to spend upwards of $4.5 Billion to upgrade its systems to support IPTV. Other towns have been more welcoming. Most are considering offering a second cable franchise. Likely I think that will be more likely the trend than not. Lots more opportunities for the cities. The cablecos are screaming about this of course declaring it must be regulated. I say to them, fair is fair, your VoIP services are heavily cannibalizing Telco voice service everywhere. (I just added a line myself). IPTV is different from simple downstream or even digital cable in that customers can choose programming on a more pro-active basis (although nothing like what is potentially possible as yet). So what does this mean for broadband wireless? I recall a recent discussion with Tim Downs of Shorecliff and the Broadband Wireless World show where we both agreed it was not quite ready for IPTV. But could it be for some more limited versions of download video content? Heck yes. Tim Sanders tim@thefinalmile.netwww.thefinalmile.netwww.wimaxglobalnews.com
