Yup! Still in Vegas, still big, the annual consumer electronics bonanza we fondly refer to as CES drew to an end yesterday.

First off, although more crowed compared to last year, the popular trade show giant still seemed somewhat off from its previous record attendance. But hey, who’s counting, or not happy about the lack of past years’ never-ending cab and bus lines in front of hotels.

Instead, relative to previous years anyway, CES 2010 seemed much about “quality before quantity”, with some really interesting and innovative nuggets across a still impressive line-up of exhibitors.

So, what are my primary take-aways?

Read the rest of this entry »

“What we are seeing in the U.S. today in terms of smartphone penetration, 3G data, nobody else is seeing in the rest of the planet,” said Ralph de la Vega of AT&T during a conference call the other day.

“The amount of growth and data that we are seeing in wireless data is unprecedented,” he added.

As the long-standing negative buzz on AT&T’s network has peaked over the past few weeks (due in part to a recent Consumer Reports article and an aggressive advertising campaign from Verizon), AT&T has shifted from the somewhat defiant and dismissive stance taken earlier this year (when such reports were characterized as “anecdotal feedback” and “sweeping generalizations”) to a more plaintive tone - as demonstrated above.

Whether or not it’s good long-term policy for any company to publicly complain about how difficult it is for them to provide the service they’re being paid to provide is open for discussion - particularly when that company’s current windfall success is almost entirely dependent upon a soon-to-expire exclusive partnership with another company (i.e. Apple).

In any event, while the technical challenges AT&T faces may be very real, I would be more receptive to the recent “data networks are hard” excuses coming out of the company if it were able to a better job of getting even voice coverage up to par in the NYC area - above is a screen shot from my iPhone, taken from my home office.  My apartment (the blue dot) is located within 2 miles of downtown Manhattan - not exactly the middle of nowhere.  Yet, I get almost zero bars - and an unusable voice connection.

In AT&T’s defense, the company has recently launched an iPhone app to allow users to send the company location-specific reports of poor service (of course, in cases of no coverage you’d have to put the iPhone on an available wireless network for the app to function).

So that’s what I’ve done - I’ve installed the app, sent in my report, and am waiting  to see if my voice (let alone data) service improves.

In the meantime, while at my desk at home, it would appear I own an expensive  iTouch.

I have to admit I’ve been more than a bit skeptical of recent reports touting mobile video as The Next Big Thing.  Yes, it’s something a lot of people (especially younger people) seem to want, it’s a great use case for us mass-transit users, and with Moore’s Law apparently still in effect, current hardware can now support an excellent user experience.

My issue, though, is with the network.

Read the rest of this entry »

Last week, I attended the first HD Communication Summit, here, in New York. 

I have to confess, the concept of high definition voice transmission was new to me. 

Yet, by the time I left the auditorium, Jeff Pulver and team certainly made sure I was up to speed. (For the purpose of full disclosure, although I am a “telco guy”, I am primarily focused on market analysis and vendor scouting in the fixed broadband consumer data space. That keeps core voice service topics outside my purview).

So why HD-quality voice transmission, if for decades standard-definition 300 to 3000 Hz service quality has done just fine for most of us?

Among the arguments, once people have gotten a taste of what wideband voice communications is like, they wouldn’t want to turn back - ever!  

Read the rest of this entry »

I was on vacation in Mexico several weeks ago (we’re fine, thanks), and couldn’t help but notice that the local carrier TelCel was able to deliver robust voice coverage in my hotel room situated halfway between Cancun and Belize - while back home, just across the river from Manhattan, AT&T seems unable to deliver voice coverage in all but one 4-ft. corner of my apartment.

Returning home to NYC and in need of a quick news fix, I tried using the NPR iPhone app on 23rd St. one day.  After one sentence, the data connection dropped.  I tried restarting the app - this time I heard two sentences before the connection dropped again.  I tried once more before giving up, recalling NAB president David Rehr’s recent prediction that 130 million mobile devices will be receiving mobile video by 2012 and wondering what the chances of that really were, given that getting even audio to an iPhone in Manhattan is such a hit-or-miss proposition.
Read the rest of this entry »

A quick update on my recent ever got pinged by your CEO? post, and some related commentary on online social media in the enterprise world.

Presumably by way of a forward-thinking PR department close to Deutsche Telekom management (indeed my employer), I recently received a LinkedIn invite to connect to DT CEO Rene Obermann.
Read the rest of this entry »

Rant alert:   OK, so calls drop way too often (maybe 50% of the time) for me to use my iPhone in half the rooms in my my apartment - an apartment remotely located less than a mile from the sparsely-populated and little-known island of Manhattan….   Occasionally I can’t even use the phone on said island without having to cross the street to get bars… SMS messages occasionally arrive sometime the next day…

As hardware, the Apple iPhone itself is so well-executed that I tend to put up with the terrible AT&T voice network - to grudgingly accept it… but every now and then, I come across articles about other users experiencing similar problems (both voice and data), and I’m once again reminded of how disappointing the coverage is - at least in the New York City metro area.

And such is the case now - I’ve posted before about the poor performance of the AT&T voice/3G data network here in NY/NJ, but a recent article by Matt Richtel in the NY Times compels me to comment again.   A few user and analyst quotes from the article:

• “…the actual experience has been abysmal.”
• “I found myself walking around Manhattan frustrated”
• “AT&T is constantly falling below the threshold”

Strong words. For their part, AT&T has recently announced an $11 bil investment in shoring up their wireless network over the next year, and otherwise appears to be moving directly from the denial phase into the acceptance phase: while in January AT&T was pushing back (claiming one study merely took “anecdotal feedback from only 30 customers to fashion some sweeping generalizations about us in particular” and a similar Consumer Reports article was “based on anecdotal feedback from a self-selected group of subscribers”), this week spokesman Mark Siegel noticeably softened the AT&T stance: “I’m not minimizing the frustration somebody may feel, but I think the improvements in wireless in this country have been extraordinary.”

Maybe.  But there’s one heck of a long way to go.  And that’s OK - on a technical level, these are difficult problems to solve, we understand that.  Meanwhile, though, memo to AT&T (and Apple for that matter): even assuming a best-case 3G coverage scenario, there’s really no excuse for the pure science fiction portrayed in advertisements such as the one above.  It comes down to basic truth in advertising (as someone who’s had a bit of experience in the industry on the music side, it amazes me how they ever got away with airing this, even for a short period of time).

Cisco expects the percentage of mobile data related to internet video to roughly double by 2013, driving overall mobile traffic growth of 100% per year for the foreseeable future.  I frankly don’t see numbers like that happening, at least not based on the performance of the one 3G network I have experience with (I’d be happy just to be able to make a phone call from the bedroom).

The trend is unmistakable: the consumer electronics industry has discovered the internet, and activities that have until now always involved a “computer” (such as internet video viewing and mobile internet access) will be increasingly done using a new generation of leaner and meaner dedicated CE devices instead.  This is all well and good: arguably, the modern home computer – more flexible and powerful but also more complicated and (let’s face it) maintenance-intensive than ever – is clearly overkill for such activities.  But as the computer justifiably loses the battle to convince us it’s also a CE device, CE devices are in turn left to grapple with an issue of their own: how much and how best to emulate the computer.

I’m talking software deployment.  You buy a computer, it includes a license for an operating system, and you’re free to go and install whatever software (or malware) you want - in other words, “you buy it, you break it” (in a way, an inversion of the “Pottery Barn rule ” invoked by Colin Powell over the war in Iraq).  But what about a smartphone, or that internet-enabled television you’ll be buying within the next year or two?  While the availability of a rich selection of high quality 3rd party applications is in the best interest of both the device maker and the user, a wide open ”no guard-rails” software deployment policy is in both parties’ worst interest: poorly written applications can harm both the user  as well as the brand, and (news flash) the average home user is a lot less interested in taking on that kind of responsibility than many companies in the computer industry have ever really understood.

For their upcoming line of internet-enabled televisions, Yahoo/Intel have addressed the issue by going with a “widget” rather than “application” model: lightweight software running on a JavaScript engine rather than the OS itself.  Taking another approach, Apple (which in terms of revenue has been a CE company with a side business in computers for a while now) has come up with the iTunes App Store: applications for the iPhone (and likely for the Apple TV in the near future) are installed on the OS itself, but must be first vetted by (and subsequently purchased through) Apple.  This offers the best of both worlds: the developer base for the device is virtually unlimited, but nothing’s going to break, and apps are guaranteed to be secure.  In fact, the “app store” model is currently being imitated by other smartphone makers such as Nokia because it’s been so successful and popular with users.

Well, 98% of us, that is – there’s also a growing geek subculture out there that believes they have the right to do whatever they want to with something they’ve purchased, thank you very much – and they’re dedicated to removing the iPhone’s software restrictions - “jailbreaking”, as it’s called.  Although the practice is in direct violation of the iPhone EULA (software license agreement), it’s gotten so widespread now that a Google search of “jailbreak” and “iPhone” currently yields 3.6 million results -and so the two sides (the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Apple) are set to face off this spring.

Apparently, this dispute is subject to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act , originally meant to fight piracy of copyrighted “works” such as film and music – therefore, it will ultimately fall upon those famously tech-savvy folks at the Library of Congress to decide the issue.  A case can be made for either side – but although I have to admit I’d love the ability to put my iPhone on a network that covers the NYC metro area better than AT&T , I tend to side with Apple on this one – not only because I feel the iPhone EULA puts them on a pretty strong legal footing, but also because I feel that it’s “good and right” to treat software for CE devices differently than software for computers.

One thing is for certain, though – just as developers will continue to write great App Store applications for Apple, others will continue to hack open the system.  What’s unknown is whether Apple go to the length of actually suing users – a tactic that didn’t work very well for the RIAA .

“You think we need this phone anymore?” I asked my wife.  Although I’d retired ye olde twisted copper line a few years back, going that one step further and losing the VOIP phone - well, that felt a little reckless.  But the fact remained that aside from a weekly call to my wife’s family in Germany, our use usage of that line had dwindled down to getting the occasional cold call for donations from the Police Benevolent Association of New York City (where I hadn’t lived for several years).

Live Simple.  Lean and Mean. (or our pale bourgeois version of it, at least) - to us, it seemed like a good idea at the time.   It turns out we weren’t alone: a recent US government survey claims that 17.5% (or 1 in 6) US households now depend exclusively on cellular networks for telephone service.

Nevertheless, I’ve found these major home network revisions require (ahem) particularly well documented key stakeholder buy-in, so I waited a week or two and asked Anja once again if Skype could be a workable Vonage replacement for her calls home.  Only after getting further assurance did I finally make the ‘Dear John’ call to break it off with Vonage (at one point, to spare the call center operator from having to go through his whole customer retention script with me, I think I might have actually said “it’s not you, it’s me”).

As it happened, though, both Anja and I came to rue that fateful day: my comeuppance coincided with a switch to the iPhone – or should I say to the remarkably dismal (in the NYC metro area at least) AT&T voice network that comes tethered to it like a ball and chain.  For her, it turned out she hated having to either boot up the laptop and run Skype or try to cradle a tiny cell phone on her shoulder during those leisurely Sunday morning calls home to Germany after all…

She’s one resourceful e-shopper, though, and soon came across what I think could be the Next Cool Geek Accessory – the retro cell phone handset. While she uses hers only at home for purely ergonomic reasons, I can imagine these things starting to turn up on the streets of the Williamsburg (and other ghettos of hip), just as black horn rim glasses did 10 years ago.  For the rest of us (those of us old enough to remember), making a call with these huge ancient headsets is somehow strangely reassuring.

Yep. I like this thing - both for the sheer comfort and clunkiness of it, as well as for the juxtaposition of vintage design and current technology - there are even Bluetooth and USB versions available.

Who knows, if my AT&T voice coverage ever improves enough to make it worthwhile, I might just get a Bluetooth handset for my iPhone…

Net Neutrality.  Up to now, the conventional definition of the concept has been that internet service providers shall be prohibited from “blocking or slowing content from some applications or companies” (as quoted from a recent NetworkWorld article).  Arguably, the definitive infraction against this particular notion of Net Neutrality was Comcast’s recent ‘managing’ of Bit Torrent traffic via the insertion of spurious connection reset packets.

However, the whole issue the issue of Net Neutrality (at the last mile between the ISP and the consumer, at least) is rapidly becoming a moot point: in preparation for the expected explosion of demand for longer-form video over IP, most major carriers are now scrambling to assemble and/or acquire proprietary content delivery networks (CDN)s to avoid the ever more congested and unpredictable system of routers out there in the public cloud (a recent post about just what Google, Microsoft, and Verizon are up to can be found here).

So while your neighborhood ISP might maintain a commitment to Net Neutrality itself, the real action is well upstream, as major corporations join already established CDN players such as Akamai, Edge Networks, and Yahoo’s Cloudfront to distribute and/or cache digital media content out along the edge of the cloud, in effect forming competing private mini-clouds to minimize the role of the public internet itself.

Put another way, in the purest sense of the term, Net Neutrality has already become something of an anachronism – not due to any localized slowing down of unfavored packets at the ISP level, but due to a globalized speeding up of favored packets on CDNs, before they ever reach the ISP.   A recent Wall Street Journal article touches on just this nuanced distinction: according to Google, their recent proprietary internet/CDN initiatives “do not rely on the carrier’s unilateral control over the last-mile connections to consumers, and also do not involve discriminatory intent“ - and even the independent public interest organization Public Knowledge (whose directors include internet academic and Obama advisor Lawrence Lessig) now maintains that “caching in no way is a part of the Net Neutrality issue.”

I’m of the opinion there’s considerably more gray area here.  But no matter - since the public internet will simply not scale to meet the anticipated bandwidth demand once short-tail (mainstream) premium digital media over IP becomes widespread, both carriers and content owners will increasingly invest in proprietary content delivery networks - and as consumers buy into the mass-market internet video offerings made possible by these high-performance CDNs, the very concept of Net Neutrality will seem increasingly quaint - and the “internet” as a whole will come to resemble the American health care system: multi-tiered and largely privatized.

So to the extent long-form video over IP ultimately enjoys widespread mass-market success,  the innocent ideal of a truly egalitarian and fundamentally neutral internet is destined to end, no matter what your local ISP’s policies are.

Don’t shoot the messenger…