I’d be really surprised if anyone is able to duplicate it, but lemme know:

Perhaps I have a special Luddite super power that breaks technology?

Here I’m searching for “Balsamiq”. No luck.

So I go look for it manually. It’s right there, on top, with “Balsamiq” as both the sender and subject. I think this explains why I had trouble finding my receipt for the Mark Knopfler concert I’m going to next week (the Ticketmaster entry in the image is for Roger Waters next December. I’ll probably have trouble finding that one, too).

There are lots of nice things about the airport; it’s got a nice transit hotel, a gym, amazing shops, and reasonable food. But there are some things that set it apart. Top five reasons I love Singapore’s Changi Airport:

Reason Five: It’s got some beautiful areas. Here’s the orchid garden, which surrounds a koi pond complete with dabbling brook, nice wooden bridge and huge voracious koi. To give you an idea of how big this “meditation area” is, the woman at the left of the photo is sitting at the edge of the koi pond with her feet dangling above the water:

Reason Four: Free video games and free WiFi(!) throughout the airport. Lots of geeky types congregating in the XBox area, so of course I didn’t stay long.

Reason Three: The bizarro Asian soda you can get at the airport 7–11. Note that the Bird’s Nest Drink by Super brand features “The Best Good Taste,” as opposed to the inferior good taste offered by other, lesser, Bird’s Nest Drink distributors.

Reason Two: Free Movies, playing 24 hours a day in a real theater. “It’s Pat” was playing when I took this picture. Had I stuck around, I could have caught “First Blood” followed by “Porky’s.”

And the number one reason Changi is the best airport in the world:

Here’s the kicker: when I took this picture, there was no one monitoring the whiskey tasting station. Just a bunch a booze and a stack of paper cups. I’m not kidding.

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…

Killer quotes:

[Because of network capacity being sucked up by iPhones] The result is dropped calls, spotty service, delayed text and voice messages and glacial download speeds as AT&T’s cellular network strains to meet the demand. Another result is outraged customers.

Just wait till all operators offer iPhones. And a full netbook line. And more dongles. And enterprise services in the cloud.

AT&T says that the majority of the nearly $18 billion it will spend this year on its networks will be diverted into upgrades and expansions to meet the surging demands on the 3G network. The company intends to erect an additional 2,100 cell towers to fill out patchy coverage, upgrade existing cell sites by adding fiber optic connectivity to deliver data faster and add other technology to provide stronger cell signals.

Wonder what the ROI will be on that 18 billion…

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/03/technology/companies/03att.html

Not to beat this drum too loudly, but cloud computing is among the one or two key truly significant changes that affect the telecom industry, dramatically expanding a business’ reliance on the network and dramatically increasing data volume — particularly data volume through cell sites as roaming employees access documents and other business content heretofore maintained locally.

The other significant change, as I’ve mentioned ad nauseam, is telecom’s move completely away from business models based on services (such as voice), toward models based on connecting developers of content/services and consumers of this content.

More data showing showing growth of cloud computing. Most relevant to telecom is this growth in the context of Netbooks, and the resultant deluge of data volume.

HTML5 is a standard that is still being developed and is likely to remain so for several years. Its focus on running applications within the browser is an important driver of interest in cloud computing, where applications live somewhere off on the Internet and are delivered by the browser.

The focus of future browsers will shift from “going places” to “doing things.” This will be a boon to free operating systems, which will increasingly be able to hide themselves under the browser user interface. While Windows and Mac OSX won’t go away overnight, the pressure on them will be to innovate beyond the browser, perhaps through a common set of extensions for HTML5 applications to use.

The key takeaway is that the operating system is in the cloud, in addition to office applications and everything else. Mobile operators are the most important — and to date largely unsung — players here; it is they that have the most to gain (or lose, if they succeed at screwing it up).

You’ve heard it before: remember Sun’s campaign that the “Network is the Computer. ” Back in 1995 Larry Ellison was predicting that Network Computers would replace Personal Computers as the computing equipment of choice. And Netscape said for years that the browser was the “next OS.”

The difference now is that a viable broadband mobile infrastructure is in place. Network technologies have matured, not from a technological standpoint (they’ve been mature from some time), but from a social standpoint. The network is now, finally, ready to realize it’s place as the computer because people’s lives are integrated with it more deeply than even Larry could dream more than a decade ago.