Finding telecoms link in the value chain.

Personally, I think that net neutrality will force operators to innovate a bit — this isn’t about discriminating against heaviest users, it’s about changing the business model from flat rate all-you-can-eat access to one in which heavy usage isn’t a problem that requires random throttling. Operators should offer access that does NOT include video, VOIP, or P2P unless the user pays an extra fee for access to those services (for example).

Qualcomm, the world’s biggest maker of chips for mobile phones, has entered the net neutrality debate in the US with its chief executive calling for heavy data users to be discriminated against as wireless networks reach capacity.
Paul Jacobs’ call at the CTIA wireless industry conference in San Diego came a day after Julius Genachowski, head of the Federal Communications Commission, warned that there was not enough room available on the airwaves for the “explosion” in wireless data traffic.

Mr Jacobs said he had given the FCC chairman his views on “traffic shaping” as one solution to what the FCC describes as a “looming spectrum crisis”.

He described traffic shaping as “the ability to say: ‘let’s be fair, this person’s moved a lot of data, this person’s used a little’, if they’re paying the same amount, then the person who’s used less will get more access”.
John Donovan, AT&T’s chief technology officer, told the conference that smartphones and the applications they ran had caused a 5,000 per cent increase in data usage over three years.

“We will need to manage our way through data-hungry applications or devices on our network that would degrade the experience for others,” he said.

Supporters of net neutrality say there should be no discrimination on a free and open internet.
Internet providers should not block, speed up or slow down web content based on its source, ownership or destination.

Mr Jacobs said this “more radical notion” of net neutrality was born out of the internet bubble and the notion that bits of data were free, when in fact they had now become very expensive for providers.
“Regulators may not know that, the lawmakers may not know that, and so we need to make that clear, and it’s very obvious that we are pushing the limits of the amount of capacity we have.”

Mr Jacobs said it would perhaps be too intrusive to go down the route of saying one internet service was fine on a network and another was not, but operators needed to be able to manage their networks.
In his speech, Mr Genachowski had said that the FCC had not yet decided what measures to take to preserve an open internet. Proceedings would begin this month to establish “rules of the road”.

He conceded that mobile had unique congestion issues and the last thing the FCC wanted was to impose “heavy-handed and prescriptive regulation”.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cf650104-b463-11de-bec8-00144feab49a.html

That is, in times of high demand, a choice must be made as to who gets connectivity and who does not.

I argue that this will require operators to rethink their existing subscriber model, because a subscriber by definition has a right to access t he network. Put another way, the existing subscriber model precludes new business models because it eliminates operator flexibility in terms of allocation of bandwidth.

The solution is to eliminate the subscriber model, and instead bundle connectivity directly to services. People will purchase a voice service, or an email service, with associated connectivity (and SLA) bundled with it. Ad hoc access for general browsing will be provided only if bandwidth is available after servicing access connected to an SLA.

To be fair to subscribers, and to spur innovation and competition, ad hoc access must then be open — people will connect to whatever network is available at the time. This has a number of implications:

1. Any given subscriber can connect to multiple networks simultaneously, e.g. network A for email and network B for general browsing
2. Operators can find niche service areas — for example, some operators might specialize in providing ad hoc access during busy hours
3. Account management for ad hoc access will require federation. All subscribers essentially become roamers, with the HLR information maintained in a clearinghouse.

I’m curious to see reaction to this piece…

Users of iPhone download games, video and other Web data at two to four times the rate of other smartphone users, according to comScore. Yet AT&T charges iPhone subscribers the same fee of $30 a month for data that it levies on other smartphone customers. And aside from restricting certain activities, like file sharing, AT&T doesn’t limit how much data can be downloaded…

Too, the iPhone is just the tiny first drop of a huge deluge that will be caused by access dongles and netbooks. The situation is pretty clear: network resources are finite; demand upon them is (as good as) infinite.

A message to those folks philosophically opposed to any kind of network management: something’s gotta give. If access remains unrestricted, physics will take over and reduce everyone’s throughput and QoS to a trickle. It’ll be a small comfort to know that the occasional packet you receive is officially “neutral.”

The net neutrality issue as currently framed is a red herring anyway. Subscriber’s don’t care if their bandwidth is restricted, as long as they have control to remove the restriction. The water supply in my sink is restricted, but I can remove that restriction at any time (for a fee) by turning a tap. The more I turn the tap, the more I pay.

And that’s really the key — allocate network resources according to those willing to pay for it. Everyone wins.

I did a interview recently with Light Reading that touched on this topic.

http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=172485

Salient details to save yourself the jump:

“One of the most powerful aspects of subscriber profiles is maintaining a subscriber’s real-time context, and using that context in concert with personal preferences to drive policies across networks,” says Chris Hoover, Openet’s director of Product Management. “In this sense, the subscriber profile forms the foundation for next-generation interactive services. These are services customized based on an aggregate understanding of who the subscriber is, what the preferences are, and real-time context in which the subscriber is moving – without regard to network or device.”

Openet’s Hoover points out that, historically, advertising has tended to be targeted on the basis of inferences made from proxy data – basic demographics, for example – rather than positive identifications of definite interest. Such interest identification is near-impossible to do indirectly, as it is difficult to infer that a subscriber is, say, allergic to cats, or avoids alcohol [ed. note: or avoids alcoholic cats...], or is thinking of buying a new car. Behavioral targeting based on the inferential analysis of past behavior helps, but there is always a risk that the inference will be wrong – or even offend.

“But there is actually a new opportunity, which is to bring the subscriber into a bidirectional mode,” Hoover says. “By including the subscriber as part of the network profile – essentially, the subscriber as an active network element – the profile can be much more accurate. This isn’t, however, a profile that is built solely by the subscriber, but rather in concert with the subscriber, and including inferential data.”

“But there is actually a new opportunity, which is to bring the subscriber into a bidirectional mode,” Hoover says. “By including the subscriber as part of the network profile – essentially, the subscriber as an active network element – the profile can be much more accurate. This isn’t, however, a profile that is built solely by the subscriber, but rather in concert with the subscriber, and including inferential data.”

“May I bring you a drink to go with those warm nuts, Mr. Sedaris?” the woman looking after me asked—this as the people in coach were still boarding. The looks they gave me as they passed were the looks I give when the door of a limousine opens. You always expect to see a movie star, or, at the very least, someone better dressed than you, but time and time again it’s just a sloppy nobody. Thus the look, which translates to “Fuck you, Sloppy Nobody, for making me turn my head.”

I feel exactly that way whether I’m in coach (most of the time) or business (the occasional upgrade). Walking to my coach seat I’m always thinking about how much more comfortable these slobs in business are going to be for the next 12 hours or so, damn them. Likewise, I feel a vague sense of guilt if I’m sitting in my business class seat. I’m thinking “this trip is going to suck *so much more* for all of you.” Certainly it doesn’t help that I epitomize the sloppy nobody as I sit there in my fleece listening to an iPod while other business travelers whisper importantly into their Blackberrys.

Anyway, I’m out of town and won’t be able to participate in the Junto, but it made me think. What would I write? What, exactly, do I “believe?” It’s a deceptively difficult question, at least for me. Certainly there are things that I think are true, but I find it difficult to boil these ideas down into one that captures me. Something that I can point to and say, “this is what I’m about.”

The trouble is that the things I believe are either trite (I believe my employer should provide me with all the free Diet Coke I can drink) or are pretentious (who the hell cares what I believe politically or religiously or whatever). Then there’s the temptation to write about things I “believe” that are really about trying to establish myself as a good person.  “I believe in treating people equally and with kindness” is abstractly true, but the true-truth is I’m often a grumpy asshole for no good reason. And don’t get judgmental about that, mother fucker, because you can be an asshole sometimes too.

I imagine this all has to do with the depth of thought one puts into things. That is, the depth of one’s thinking about an issue is proportional to the importance one places on the issue. It’s disconcerting to be faced with one’s shallowness.

Take comfort. There’s always pictures through which you can live vicariously. Like this one, taken from my hotel window this morning. Ah, Ireland in January!

It’s impossible to really understand how incredible this technology is by reading about it. Take a look at the demo for yourself, and visit the Photosynth site.

What really caught my attention, beyond the technology itself, is the social networking implications for Photosynth. It’s enables one to look at an object (say, Notre Dame, as in the TED demo) through the eyes of thousands of people simultaneously; it potentially represents our collective view of the world. Amazing.

It’s been an amazing experience, not least because the trip has occasioned my first experience driving on the “wrong” side of the road. I’ve been nervous about it for some time; I imagined that I’d arrive in Ireland and my jet-lagged mind would turn the wrong way at the first intersection I encountered.

Well, so far so good. I rented my car, got lots of insurance, pushed and shoved my (modest) suitcase into the smallest car I’ve ever seen, much less driven, and started driving around on the left side of the road.

It’s an odd experience for two reasons. First, I’m not used to *thinking* about driving. It’s something for which I usually rely on muscle memory, saving all other cognitive processes for grumpily judging other drivers.

Second, the muscle memory is still very much there. I’m experiencing a kind of dual-mind in which I’m intellectually telling myself “stay left,” but every unconscious process I have is simultaneously pulling me the other direction. This duality really freaked me out when I was driving down a road and someone pulled onto the road from an intersection ahead of me. The other car turned to travel toward me, and my intellectual mind said “they are turning into the right lane,” but my body erupted in alarms “YOU’RE IN THE WRONG LANE! GET OVER!” My little car began swerving slightly to and fro as I fought with myself, but I made it through without driving off the road into the trees.

Only four more days to go, then I have to try and switch back to driving the “right” way. Ugh.