Category: Telecom

[via Anish Sankhalia]Howard Rheingold writes:

A future where mobile media achieve their full economic and cultural potential, requires:

That people are free and able to act as users not consumers: Users can actively shape media, as they did with the PC and the Internet, not just passively consume what is provided by a few, as in the era of broadcast media and communications monopolies. If hardware can’t be hacked and software is locked away from individuals by technology or law, users won’t be free to invent.

An open innovation commons: When networks of devices, technological platforms for communication media, the electromagnetic spectrum, are available for shared experimentation, new technologies and industries can emerge. The way intellectual property is defined by international law, the kind of political regulations that govern spectrum use, the degree of extension of the rights of corporations to control the use of creations of individuals and to exert control over what others can create or distribute, will determine whether a cornucopia or a tragedy of the anti-commons occurs. (The tragedy of the commons is the despoiling of a shared resource because there is no way to exclude individuals from consuming it; a cornucopia of the commons emerges when aggregated individual self-interest of many people adds up to something that multiplies everyone’s resources instead of subtracting from what everybody has access to; and the tragedy of the anticommons renders a shared resource worthless by allowing too many interests to exclude others.)

Self-organizing, ad-hoc networks: Populations of users and devices have the power, freedom, and tools to link together technically and socially according to their own inclinations and mutual agreements. In their zeal to punish thieves, the music and motion picture industries are trying to criminalize all file-sharing, and so far they are winning the legislative and judicial battles. That’s the legal-political side of it. The techno-political battle is whether widely embraced open standards dominate, a proprietary monopoly emerges, or many competing proprietary standards contend.

Dana Blankenhorn writes about Texas Instruments’ recent announcement:

What does it mean for TI to make, and Nokia to sell, a complete cellular phone on a single chip? For one thing, it means phones can be one-chip cheap.

Right, cheap as chips.

One chip cheap is important when you think of how little money most people on this world actually have. Imagine if we could hear the voices of Darfur’s victims, for instance. What if they could actually talk to Larry King, live, and describe in detail the hell their lives have become.

What if everyone, no matter their economic circumstance, were within easy reach of the world’s markets, for whatever they had, and whatever they needed?

We’re about to find out.

But there’s something else involved here. When cellular telephony is reduced to a simple chip, it can become an ingredient in anything else.

For instance. Let’s say you have a golf course. You use a lot of water, but you waste a lot, too. Now, throw some moisture sensors out there and link them via one-chip cellular. The bandwidth needs are modest — the sensor says “water me” or “turn off the water” as needed. Your hardware costs just dropped to the floor, and the system probably pays for itself on just a few months’ water bills.

Anything that needs to be monitored, over a long distance, can now be monitored, and results transmitted, over a cellular link, because remember (in most cities) cellular is ubiquitous.

Imagine what this can do for farmers? They can monitor conditions in their fields in real-time, addressing concerns immediately.

Or consider a chemical manufacturing plant, which can now run safely, and under much finer adjustment, saving untolds amount of energy, using an Always-On application which is literally cheap as chips.

Vast new industrial markets are opened up by this announcement, markets which have yet be tapped.

All you have to do to tap them is think — cellular is a low bandwidth, high distance Always-On interface.

The Economist writes:

Despite claims by several firms that they are offering WiMax technology today, the actual number of WiMax devices on the market is precisely zero. That is because the WiMax Forum, a standards body that oversees the technology and ensures that gear from different vendors works together, has yet to certify any devices with the WiMax label.

The hype is now giving way to much scepticism about the technology’s prospects. I don’t think it’s completely hot air, but it won’t live up to its early promise, says Jagdish Rebello of iSuppli, a market-research firm. WiMax, he says, will chiefly be used by telecoms firms in rural areas, to plug holes in their broadband coverage.

Wifi Networking News points to a WSJ article:

One of the technologies drawing the most attention is WiMAX, which is similar to the popular Wi-Fi standard that millions of people have used to set up wireless networks in their homes but is slated to have a range of several miles. Since WiMAX has yet to be certified, companies are using precursors to the technology.

If the technology takes off, millions of phone and cable customers could cut the wires that tether them to the regulated telecom world. That means being able to surf the Internet and send e-mail at high speeds — maybe eventually make calls over the Internet — with a wireless-enabled computer in any room in a house or any outside space covered by the technology. The advantages of portability should be obvious to anyone who remembers when there were no cellphones.

Besides lopping off some wires, wireless broadband could open the door to more competitors. It is expected to become relatively cheap to deploy over time, which could mean lower prices and more options for consumers and businesses.

Slashdot points to an article by George Ou: “As the commoditization and open sourcing of operating systems and applications continue to disrupt the software companies, telephony vendors have so far enjoyed a relative calm in the closed and proprietary phone systems market with substantial profit margins. That could now all be turned on its head with the proliferation of open source VoIP and PBX software. There are now a handful of these open source telephony platforms such as OpenPBX and Pingtel, but one of the most interesting is Asterisk, which even has its own communication protocol IAX in place of SIP for unified signaling and data transport.”

J@pan Inc writes:

As phones with hard disks begin to enter the market in 2005, it’s only a matter of time before the mobile phone will have the capacity to store the thousands of songs that most portable music players are able to hold now. The question is ‘how much time?’. We think it will be at least a year, probably two or more before a mobile phone comes out with enough storage space to mount a serious challenge as a stand-alone music player.

A more immediate threat to the iPod comes from the full-song master-ringtone service offered by KDDI (with DoCoMo and Vodafone sure to follow). It took KDDI’s service only 48 days to achieve 1 million full-song downloads, despite being available on only four handset models. As with polyphonic MIDI-based ringtones, the key to success for master-ringtones has been the ease with which songs can be downloaded straight to the phone.

Another big factor working in favor of the mobile phone as a music download platform is the rate of subscriber growth. There are presently over 25.6 million 3G subscribers in Japan, and the number has been growing at a rate of nearly 1 million per month since January 2004. Contrast this with the present number of Japanese broadband subscribers (around 15 million) and the future for digital music on the mobile phone begins to look even brighter still. Given the choice of using a PC/player combination versus downloading songs straight to the phone, the average Japanese consumer is more likely to go for the latter, even if it means having fewer songs on the player.

Silicon.com writes:

For several reasons, the mobile phone is set to become the most influential portable electronic device. Technology is one. While the constant improvement of every part of the modern computer seems now to have relatively little impact on the desktop, it is making a huge difference for the phone. You can now fit substantial processing power and a good deal of memory into your pocket, along with decent battery life.

With half-gigabyte memory cards now readily available for well under 50, some pundits have suggested we will soon carry round all our important data. When we find a computer, it will just be a device to manage the data we already have in a phone.

Maybe – but the phone itself will soon be powerful enough to do the job itself with perhaps some optional add-ons. Moreover, carrying the whole of your computer software in your pocket may be technically feasible, but the complexities imposed by the intertwining of hardware is liable to make this solution slow to progress.

Another factor is the desirability of connectivity. Wi-Fi hotspots are proving popular. But if you can remember it at all, the history of the Rabbit phone strongly suggests the ubiquitous network always wins out over the hotspot. 3G will improve bandwidth greatly and is likely to enable the operators to compete strongly against commercial Wi-Fi providers.

Microsoft seems certain to play a substantial role in the stationary systems, although Linux will also be important. Despite recent setbacks, Nokia has an immensely strong position in mobile handsets. Some handset makers are keen to work with Microsoft to create smart phones. Others will be chary, noticing the fate of many of the PC makers, including IBM.

Nokia has so far stuck firmly with software maker Symbian, while implementing links to the Microsoft desktop. Neither party has made much headway with providing tools to manage a large population of powerful computing devices that are constantly on the move. Innovation is needed and looks most likely to come from third parties that grab the opportunity.

If Microsoft wins, it will be the dominant force in a greatly expanded computing and communications environment. Nokia will be marginalised as a handset maker for the consumer who has only weak links with large organisations. If Nokia wins, the whole computing environment will be changed.

The New York Times writes:

As chief technology and chief information officer, Mr. Eslambolchi is the technological strategist behind AT&T’s ambitious turnaround plan to become a data transmission company selling an array of software products like network security systems – with phone calls being just one of many digital services.

For the first time, voice calls generated less than half of the revenue in AT&T’s corporate business group in 2004.

A few years ago, this approach was heresy at AT&T, where connecting calls was the cornerstone of the former monopoly’s business. But with falling prices, growing competition and cheap new Internet phone services from start-up companies, AT&T’s future depends more than ever on vigorous cost-cutting and focusing on its worldwide data network.

The way to stem the slide, Mr. Eslambolchi contends, is to merge the hundreds of computer systems AT&T created over the years. With phone calls and data now transmitted increasingly via high-speed data lines using Internet protocol, the need for multiple systems is also diminishing.

AT&T is also using more software to route more of its phone and Internet traffic. By getting rid of bulky circuit switches, the company is significantly reducing costs connected to operating old-fashioned switching stations.

Mr. Eslambolchi is also pushing engineers in Bell Labs to develop software for computer firewalls and security systems that detect viruses days before they attack a corporate client’s servers.

ZDNet UK News writes:

TI has created a single chip that integrates most of the computing functionality needed by a mobile phone. Putting the digital baseband, SRAM, logic, radio frequency (RF), power management and analogue functions on one piece of silicon will, TI says, make it cheaper and easier for manufacturers to build entry-level phones.

Typically, mobile phones contain one chip devoted to handling the RF, as well as other chips for other functions. A high-end phone might have a separate chip for polyphonic ringtones, for example. But these chips are only one part of the overall cost of manufacturing a phone, with the battery and screen also key factors.

Dean Bubley, founder of analyst firm Disruptive Analysis, believes that it could help to push the cost of making a basic mobile phone as low as $25 within a couple of years, which would mean handsets could actually be given away.

Voxilla looks back at 2004 and offers the following predictions for 2005:

1. At least one major Internet telephony service provider will merge with another.
2. Skype will become a more open network or perish.
3. Asterisk will have some competition.
4. NAT Traversal for SIP will be solved elegantly.
5. A standalone, non-provider locked VoIP adapter will be released and retail for under $50 USD.
6. The four US RBOCs will offer VoIP to their residential DSL customers.
7. Major Internet telephony service providers will announce peering agreements.
8. Cordless IP phones will be introduced in 2005.
9. The press realizes that VoIP is International.
10. The VoIP revolution will be televised.

Russell Beattie writes:

I’ve got what is arguably the most powerful mobile phone in the world in my pocket. It’s a 3G device with a variety of communications and media capabilities, yet it sat there for the past 72 hours with nary a button press. In *my* pocket. Why? Obviously there are other devices and offline activities (sleep, mostly) which are competing for my loving attention. And honestly there’s also really a dearth of apps and content for the phone – I’ve played with most of what’s available already (but that hasn’t stopped me with fiddling with all that stuff before). But I think what the real reason I haven’t used my phone is this idea of context.

Mobile phones still need that killer app which takes out the need for context. They need to get to the point where they are less devices that you use while out and about, and considered more destinations in their own right. In other words, the current crop of apps are mostly created with that “mobile context” in mind. So you could say I haven’t looked at my phone lately because I haven’t been moving much. This is wrong. It’s limiting a platform which can potentially do anything that a small computer with broadband access can do. The person who comes up with the app that compels a person to use their phone without considering the fact that it’s a phone is going to have a killer app on their hand. One could argue the opposite, that mobile phone apps *should* only be used in the mobile context, but I think that’s too narrow minded.