Communications

iPhone, Android, 700 MHz — What maximizes wireless innovation?

At the Emerging Communications Conference eComm 2008, I'm moderating a panel "Wireless Innovation, with or without operators."  This will be a discussion — smart people from differing camps responding to (hopefully) probing questions from yours truly, and the audience.  Points of view represented include Google Android, J2ME/JavaFX Mobile, iPhoneWebDev.com, Skype and Trolltech Qtopia (Nokia), plus Chris Sacca, formerly head of Google's wireless initiatives.  I've been thinking about subjects and questions for the panel.  As a start, I'll set down my current views, then seek others' views and questions.

2007 Breakthrough — Public discussion of "Open" wireless networks

For the first time ever, US mainstream media is talking about open handsets and open networks.  It started with the iPhone launch in June, as people discussed pros and cons of the Apple-AT&T lock in.  Then Google proposed, and the FCC partially adopted, a set of open access criteria for the 700 MHz auctions that are currently in progress.  Finally, speculation about a G-Phone got resolved when Google announced the Open Handset Alliance and Android open source mobile phone software.

What's Next?

In the near term, we won't see open wireless Internet access at 700 MHz — that will take years.  The 700 MHz spectrum doesn't even become available until analog TV is turned off (scheduled for February 2009).  Then building out a network takes time, independent of whether it's WiMAX, HSDPA, EVDO or LTE.  And at this point, neither base stations nor mobile devices are available for the 700 MHz band.  Vendor's will talk a good story, but are unlikely to make major product investments until they know they have orders in the pipeline.

There are two areas that should drive innovation in the US wireless market over the next 24 months.

• Affordable open mobile Internet access as a result of competition, i.e. in advance of 700 MHz
• Further innovations in the handset space

Open mobile Internet access in advance of 700 MHz services

As I've pointed out elsewhere, US competition to offer mobile Internet access is about to ratchet up significantly, as T-Mobile USA uses the spectrum they acquired in the 2006 AWS auctions to go head-to-head with AT&T, Verizon and Sprint.  In 2006, T-Mobile USA spent more than $4B to buy additional spectrum that will allow them full national coverage. Then they committed another $2.7B to build out 3G mobile coverage on this spectrum.  Recently, they've disclosed $10B of investment for 2007-2009.   In addition to these four cellular networks, there's at least the threat of a national WiMAX network, between Clearwire and/or Sprint.  Finally, WiFi access points continue to proliferate.  Four plus competitors is enough to unbalance a market, so it's likely we'll see affordable flat rate data bundles that are effectively open access at some point in the next 24 months.

Handset innovation

Here's the real excitement, at least in the next 24 months.  The iPhone is truly a break through device, if nothing else it's the first mobile Internet browser that really works.  Every other handset vendor has embraced iPhone concepts and is scrambling to bring out their own next generation devices.

Meanwhile phones based on the Android stack should show up later in 2008.  During the next 24 months we'll see if the Google initiative has a significant impact on handset software.  Remember, Google doesn't have to make money on their software (as Microsoft does with Windows Mobile) or on handsets (as Nokia does with Symbian).

Finally, there's an open question of where, in the handset stack, maximum innovation will occur.  John Puterbaugh distinguishes five layers where innovation might occur:

1. Operating Systems and Mobile Platforms - Symbian, RIM, Windows Mobile, Palm, Java FX Mobile, Android, LiMo
2. Application UI Frameworks - Series 60, Qtopia, uiONE, GNOME / GMAE, KDE, GTK
3. Runtime environments - Java, JavaScript, Flash, BREW, and various Mobile Internet Browsers
4. Media Players - Windows Media Player, Quicktime, Real, Ogg Vorbis
5. Applications - Celltop, Yahoo! Go, Nokia WidSets, and various Mobile AJAX “players”

I might have separated out mobile Internet browsers and mobile AJAX as an area that deserves a layer of it's own, but you get the idea.  Yes, there is no single answer for mobile application development and that's a problem, but it's also prompting an enormous amount of competition and innovation.

Do you have questions for the panel?

I look forward to a lively discussion at eComm 2008 in Mountain View California on March 14th and hope to see you there.

In the spirit of full disclosure, NMS Communications is a member of, and contributor to, the Open Handset Alliance, primarily through our LiveWire Mobile subsidiary.  But then we're also active in various GSM Association working groups including contributing to the GSMA's (IMS-based) Video Share Project and we've delivered IMS handset software for Symbian, Windows Mobile and several other environments.

Google is playing to win in the 700 MHz auctions

Many say Google will bid to lose in the upcoming 700 MHz auctions and many more are equivocating.  The idea is Google's entry alone will induce enough openness, and besides they couldn't afford to become an operator.  This shows a total lack of understanding!

Google is run by idealists who want to change the world and have the money to undertake grand projects.

They are already seeking to index, and make available, all the world's information. As part of this vision they are scanning all existing books and fighting the legal battles this implies.  When their own video repository failed to gain traction, they bought YouTube for $1.65B, and took on their legal hassles. Most recently their Palimpsest project is going to host enormous scientific databases for free.  In short Google is not afraid to spend money or take large risks, including legal risks, to accomplish something they believe in.

Critical for Google's vision, and for their business, is open Internet access.  Fixed access is relatively open today, but mobile is a big problem.  So Google won't seek a little opening on the part of some US operators.  Google needs open mobile access, i.e. dumb pipes, which means the total destruction of existing mobile operator business models.

They've already started from the edge with the Open Handset Alliance and the Android open-source mobile handset stack. Google's made a major investment here, not to compete for revenue on handset software or to control applications on edge devices, but to tip the balance from operators to the edge.  First and foremost, Android is an open platform to encourage innovation.  It's also free.  Google doesn't need or expect a direct return on this investment.

The 700 MHz auctions are just the next step.  Again, look for something unconventional.  Google doesn't need or want to become a mobile operator.  They want to create an industry where mobile dumb pipes are widely available.

 

Assuming Google wins, what might they do?

This is speculation on my part, but a good plan might be two fold. 

First pick the latest mass market technology for mobile broadband access, probably mobile WiMAX, and set up a program to foster numerous independent wireless ISPs (WISPs) rolling out services on Google's frequencies.  In the 1990s, the US had thousands of ISPs providing dial up access over traditional phone lines.  The goal here would be to duplicate that entrepreneurial flurry for both fixed and mobile wireless access.

You may argue fixed is OK as services are local, but for mobile you really need regional and national coverage.  Yes, but Google themselves could offer WISPs the opportunity to participate in a federation for national roaming, perhaps using Google Checkout for payments.

Second, formalize a set of rules for smart-radios based on the work they've been doing for open access to TV White Space.  Throw open their spectrum to anyone who's willing to use appropriate smart radio technology, thus fostering long term innovation.  Open access in the 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz bands has certainly fostered innovation.  Google could achieve something similar.

These two steps, a mass market technology like WiMAX for rapid deployment, and open access for innovation, yield the maximum long term benefit for this spectrum and increase the likelihood that other countries will follow the US lead (as the world has done for 2.4 GHz and WiFi).

========================================================

 

Michael Stanford on Brough Turner on Network Neutrality

A few weeks ago, Michael Stanford and I had a brief email exchange on Network Neutrality.  In it I gave my current thoughts and included some links to blog posts I've written, over the past 2+ years, touching on Internet access and/or network neutrality.  The problem of course, is that it's my blog, so I've written short posts, mostly in response to things I'd just read.  Nowhere are the posts organized, and I've certainly never written a proper paper on the subject.

Now I'm flattered to find that Michael has written, in his wirevolution blog, an excellent summary of my various posts entitled "Brough Turner on Network Neutrality."  I should probably write that paper, but thanks to Michael's review, I now have an excellent excuse for further delay.  :-)

Conversations at a football game - Open spectrum for laymen

I just found out about a wonderful explanation of open spectrum that Tim Shepard submitted to the FCC in 2002. When I explain what's possible in open spectrum I typically make analogies to human vision in the presence of sunlight.  Tim's explanation is in terms of sound and human hearing, in a football stadium!

What is Open Spectrum?

Every national government regulates the use of wireless spectrum - a result of interference problems that arose in the early decades of the 20th century. Since then, there's been enormous progress in wireless technology. Unfortunately we prohibit the use of this new technology in almost all of the spectrum. This has enormous cost for society. Consider where would our economy be if computers only used technology which existed in 1953 (the year current US color TV broadcasting standards were frozen)? Consider, under current regulations, most wireless spectrum is effectively empty most of the time, even in major cities like New York, London, Tokyo or Beijing.

Today, it's possible to design robust wireless systems that would function reliably even if there were no spectrum regulations at all. Unfortunately, currently deployed wireless systems (radio, TV, navigation, etc.) depend upon current regulations for their reliable operation so, as Tim Shepard puts it, "The path into the future will be tricky."

None-the-less, we owe it to ourselves to navigate that tricky path. If nothing else, we need spectrum to provide "broadband" in rural areas around the world, and to provide high capacity mobile connectivity in both urban and rural areas.

Other sources:

• Wikipedia
• Open Spectrum FAQ
• Open Spectrum: A Path to Ubiquitous Connectivity
• The Open Spectrum Foundation
• Radio Revolution, by Kevin Werbach

F2C Continues

Martin Geddes gave the best presentation of morning. He was speaking from notes and promised me he'd post a summary in his blog.  Meanwhile, here's something he wrote on the subject in early February.

Addendum:  Martin has just posted a summary of his speech at F2C.

F2C - First Impressions

I'm at Freedom to Connect (F2C) blogging live (a first for me!). It's in Washington DC area (well, Silver Springs MD) and it's very US-centric. One of my concerns in coming was that the conference would be buried in discussions of Network Neutrality - something I regard as a distraction - and other current discussions without consideration of long term issues.  If anything, political change takes time, frequently years, so one should really think about the long term.

Indeed, the first speaker was FCC Commissioner Michael Copps whose talk addressed Network Neutrality and the recent history of who did what to whom.

Luckily, in David Isenberg's opening talk, he emphasized that Network Neutrality is only a means to an end and probably not the most efficient means. More important are actions that could promote true competition in first mile connectivity.  He mentioned access to more wireless spectrum, for example, the unused or white space in the TV bands and open access to rights-of-way.  He even used my favorite term - Layer Zero Completion.  Thank you David.

 

Freedom to Connect

I'll be in Washington DC on Monday & Tuesday next week to attend David Isenberg's Freedom to Connect 2006 conference, this year a joint venture of David's isen.com and PulverMedia of VON conference fame. There are a ton of interesting people on the schedule and, based on last year's conference, there will be plenty of interesting people in the audience as well.
From the conference home page:

The future of telecommunications starts now; there's a new U.S. Telecom Bill in the works, there's new networks in Europe, fast fiber in Asia, wireless across Africa and networks a-building in cities and villages around the world. Join the discussion.  Shape the debate. Assert your F2C:Freedom to Connect.

This is a US-centric conference, driven by frustrations with US policy and the fact that, while US broadband adoption has been fast (even more rapid than cell phone adoption), the US is still falling behind other nations in broadband connections, connection speeds and costs.

Of course it's public policy, so there's lots of politics and lots of muddle.  Fundamentally, there are two topics, which should be independent: 

• transport layer connectivity, commonly referred to as "broadband access"
  
• freedom to communicate electronically, a generalization of "freedom of speech"

Unfortunately, most US residents connect to the Internet using a service from a monopoly or duopoly provider, and recently, these providers have been making scary noises about content-based charging, so the two othewise independent topics become mixed and a muddle ensues.  At a very minimum, the telecom monopolist has an interest is being your only viable voice telephony service provider and the cable company in being your only TV-provider.  When these two compete for both telephony and TV, we move from two monopolists to a duopoly. But that's not much comfort for those of us seeking pure Internet connectivity.  15 Mbps?  100 Mbps?  1Gbps?  More, more, just bring it on!

Net Neutrality - No
Many people see the problem.  Quite a few, otherwise savvy, people think the answer lies in more regulation -- in Net Neutrality laws (here's one proposal) or regulations. Luckily Martin Geddes is on the program. He's a sharp cookie who should adequately kibosh the idea. And in the afternoon, there's a panel Muni Tsunami which will address one way around the problem.  But I worry that no one will actually discuss the root cause of our connectivity dilemma.

Layer Zero
Today the relevant monopoly and the only "natural monopoly" is at Layer Zero -- the physical right-of-way in front of our homes and businesses.  Everything else, copper pairs, coax, fiber, is a government granted monopoly that made sense in it's day, but no more. Yes, I've heard the argument that fiber is a natural monopoly, but that argument is based on the assumption that only services are allowed.  If fiber ownership (e.g. condominium fiber) is an option, or dark fiber in any form, the fiber-is-a-natural-monopoly argument falls to pieces.  Many people would still chose a service provider, but the ownership option would drive enormous competition. While he doesn't talk about Layer Zero competition, Bill St. Arnaud of the Canarie Project in Canada is the most articulate spokesman for condo fiber and customer-owned fiber.  Unfortunately, I don't see Bill on the agenda.  Perhaps I'll have a chance to make the point by careful questions during a Q&A.

Finding more spectrum for unlicensed use

I just stumbled on a great white paper, Reclaiming the Vast Wasteland, Why Unlicensed Use of the White Space in the TV Bands Will Not Cause Interference to DTV Viewers, by Michael J. Marcus, Paul Kolodzy and Andrew Lippman, published October 2005 by the New America Foundation.

I’ve long been an advocate of license-exempt access to wireless spectrum because of the enormous economic benefits we’ve realized from the few slivers of spectrum where license-exempt operation is currently permitted. Here rampant competition has emerged and usage has soared as WiFi, Bluetooth, pre-WiMAX and dozens of proprietary systems have taken off.  And, it’s in these bands that we see new modulation schemes, smart antennas, and mass-market products.

Unfortunately, only a few slivers of spectrum are allocated for license-exempt use, even though most licensed spectrum is unused. In particular, large swathes of TV spectrum are unused — even in a major city, most broadcast TV channels are empty.

Our waste of spectrum is not a technical problem. Wireless performance (in bps per Hz per sq. mile, for example) has been improving exponentially for over a century. But as the result of government regulation, wireless spectrum utilization is frozen on a band-by-band basis at the state-of-the-art as it stood when the band was defined 20, 40, or 60 years ago.  (In the US, broadcast TV was first authorized in 1941 and slightly updated for color broadcasting in 1953).

In the US in 2004, the FCC proposed allowing a new generation of wireless devices to make use of vacant TV channels. These are prime frequencies, as they more readily penetrate buildings, trees and other obstructions. Unfortunately, the National Association of Broadcasters and other broadcast TV industry lobbyists have strenuously objected to any use of any part of “their” bands and have raised a variety of objections.  Marcus, Kolodzy & Lippman thoroughly debunk each and every one of their points.

We have the potential to open up prime wireless spectrum for broadband access and unlimited other purposes.  It would be a pity if vested interests continued to block access to otherwise unused spectrum.