ManyMedia

MuniWireless has a post called Find out if your ISP is a bad ISP with Glasnost in which author Esme Vos asks if your ISP is “playing funny games” with your Internet connection. She urges inquiry:

Simply go to Glasnost (appropriate name as it refers to a period in the 1980s in the USSR when there was a bit more openness and transparency). Glasnost is but one weapon in your arsenal for finding out the TRUTH about your broadband connection and your ISP. It is a product of Measurement Lab, founded by the New America Foundation’s Open Technology Institute, the PlanetLab Consortium, Google Inc. and academic researchers: “M-Lab was developed in 2008 after Vint Cerf and others at Google initiated conversations with network researchers to learn more about challenges to the effective study of broadband networks.”

Vos reported that her ISP came out clean. I can report (finally, after days of busy servers) that my ISP is doing well as of this post. However, all ISPs will not have such good reports.

As a matter of business ISPs will remind us that there are two sides to every story, in this case the service users and the service providers. To their credit, they will need to take steps to understand the user-side demand and manage their resources to provide the best services possible. I’d give them this credit if they didn’t “play funny games” in the process.

Content, Network Glasnost, Internet, ISPs, MuniWireless, service providers

eComm, “the world’s leading-edge telecom, Internet communications and mobile innovation event,” is being held in San Francisco, CA, at the San Francisco Airport Marriott Hotel, from March 3-5, 2009. This year’s theme is Defining the Post-Telecom Era, which the conference organizers will do in a series of rapid-fire talks from a wide range of speakers.

You can save $400 on registration fees by registering before the end of January. Additionally, if you wish to save an additional 20%, contact me for details.

Content, Events, Network, Policy communications, conference, Internet, telecom

Here’s a link to the website for Challenges for FTTB/H in Europe, an International WIK conference, which is coming to Berlin, Germany on March, 23rd/24th 2009. The site offers PDF files for the program and for registration.

WIK is organizing an international conference on critical issues of FTTB/H deployment in March 2009. Following our successful NGA conference in 2007 where VDSL was in the centre of attention the focus of the 2009 event (Berlin, 23/24 March) is on deploying fibre towards the building/home. The conference addresses key issues of technology, deployment & operation, regulation, investment & financing, national fibre broadband strategies and business cases.

This conference will provide insights into the experiences, expectations and perspectives of leading international network operators, investors, equipment manufacturers, National Regulatory Authorities (NRAs), representatives of the European Commission, government officials and independent experts. WIK is delighted to announce many senior speakers including Joeri Van Bogaert (President FTTH Council Europe), Henry Ergas (Chairman Concept Economics Australia), Timotheus Höttges (Board Member T-Home Germany), Kip Meek (Chairman Broadband Stakeholder Group UK), Alf Henryk Wulf (Chairman of the Board, Alcatel-Lucent, Germany).

Events business, conference, Europe, fiber, fiber optic cable, fiber to the home, FTTB, FTTH

Professor Jay Gillette, writing for Network World, picked up where I left off. Thanks Jay!

One of the most interesting papers from this conference was written by Robert Desourdis of SAIC. During the Emergency Communications and Disaster Management panel, he presented some of his thinking from this paper (pdf) . The part about 24 deficiencies? Why Pearl Harbor took the US Fleet by surprise, and not coincidentally how Sept. 11 happened, and Katrina’s response failures. It’s about who we are, collectively.

Finally, it’s worth noting that lots of communities are trying to take the “broadband” matter into their own hands. At the PTC ’09 final luncheon on Wednesday, Louis Zacharilla of The Intelligent Community Forum awarded seven community networking awards recognizing communities that display at least one (in most cases several) of these Intelligent Community Indicators. These are communities that were being passed by for high speed broadband connections, or communities whose leaders decided that they would make their network connections an economic priority. There are some good lessons here.

Events, Network, Scenarios behavior, communications, disaster management, intelligent communities, PTC09

Moderator Gary Kim will introduce speakers Frank Fawzi, Jeff Lattomus, and Peter Pattullo, for this session on Telecom 2.0.

Gary Kim (no PowerPoints!), encourages questions from the audience.

Peter Pattulo: clean build of his company, focus on hosted applications (unheard of 11 years ago), reinvented telecom company–now on 8th revision of software. All capabilities brought as close to problem as possible, developer APIs not really part of their profit model; more about removing friction.

Frank Fawzi: Amazed with everything 2.0, ecosystems, et al. From Pete’s description, he hears that we all want to make money, create a way to monetize your services and intellectual property. Telecom 2.0 is the next migration; starts to feel like early days of bringing solutions to market that customers are valuing and deploying. Marriage of Internet and traditional telecom: we attacked to make that happen. Carrier 7+ billion minutes, wholesaler with distinction: TDM or SIP, or API layer with widgets and applets that deal with diff biz environments (order fulfillment, upselling, collaboration and conferencing, emergency notification, insertion of voice and telecom functionality w/in web sequence. Is broker between “customer owner” carriers, and communities of software users, bridging gap between those silos.

Jeff Lattomus: We (in this room) are the dedicated ones. (Applause) Sales for western US and PacRim, bottom line is we’re all here to make money. Metaswitch is manufacturer of class 4 -5 app driven manufacturer. How to drive new revenue? Telecom 2.0 is all the new ways of serving customers with new apps (like Google) to make point and click easy access to new services? How to develop?

Open standards, developing gadgets for customers to try. We need to drive innovation.

Gary: Telecom 1.0 is telecom as we’ve known it over last decade: voice driven revenue service. Revenue models now changing, direction unknown. How are you making your money: carriers and supporters, apps, etc. If voice is application, can I drive revenue to me and build company around that? New people coming into market, wedge into existing value chain. Some conversation is from telecom people, others making telecom providers irrelevant. How does Telecom 2.0 work for you?

Frank: built our biz around partners (carriers and large users), continue to evolve new services and not commoditization. Challenge is to make voice so critical where end user is willing to pay for that value. As we expand reach, working with other carriers, this becomes a pressure to derive diff value props from their products, voice enabled.

Jeff: in marketplace it’s a buzzword, is a true application space, but is like IMS (gotta have it). Need to take a pragmatic approach: what do our customers actually need, evolution to get there. Build apps today for pragmatic revenue generating services. Kids will drive technology in next 15 years. Some things are true apps, making them a reality in industry has to be things you guys want to buy.

Frank: just signed long term agreement with Microsoft, leveraging cloud computing and carriers. Space starting to move down to apps with voice enablement. Expanding functionality. Hosted model, SAAS or communications as a service, trial apps for revenue, move on with minimal investment.

Peter: Going from 1.0 to 2.0 is about reducing friction. Not just download, is giving power to guys in enterprise to solve their problems. Adding voice to some business process, new tool sets to solve problems. Microsoft (excel): gave tools to build own spreadsheets. Telecom 2.0 is pushing ability to the edge, to connect.

Gary: is up to vendors to develop tools. How good is each of us to value and understand real business problems? More than just usage–need to be business process facilitators?

Peter: we may never know our customers well enough. There’s real pain out there. Example of delivery service going to sites where they couldn’t deliver. From our perspective, not that there is pain, it’s that we need tools for customers to use. [wait, first you need to understand problem before you can deliver appropriate tools. -jc]

Jeff: Open standards is one driver: develop some apps to get customers started (moving from legacy environment), and allow and support customer development. Work closely to understand customer base.

Gary: some think Telecom 2.0 is for enterprises, but some real pain is felt by smaller businesses. Communications tools: increase transparency to see processes. Should be able to automate certain processes that are not transparent now (e.g., healthcare appointments).

Peter: lot of niche apps that only work in limited ways, as opposed to generic apps that won’t fit as well. Opportunity cost vs expenses.

Frank: moving from time of “minute is a minute” to long tail, move up to set of apps that can be standardized and customized for specific needs. What we can do is provide well defined widgets and apps to build and customize application resources.

Jeff: key theme is automation to put processes in customers’ hands, so they can use for their customers, or what’s most useful to them. Make it mobile. Make it something worth paying for.

Peter: almost like we’re coming out of stone age: number of opportunities is endless.

Gary: most opportunities aren’t big, they’re lots of small that add up. Need to be better at communicating to end users to empower them. Take each of the functions, convince people to use them to solve problems, turn functionality into a widget that they can use to drive traffic.

Jeff: what is next gen product line? Creativity of software. Roomfuls of equipment, but power is in software. Softswitch = software.

Gary: assets are not being deployed to 100% capacity. Some amount of biz logic in work thru old time processes.

Question: iPhone not just communication device, is an info and commerce device. (?)

Frank: is about evolution, not revolution. things that we can do today is voice mashups, things without a huge amount of IT, from the cloud. New edge of the network is not a box, it’s apps and processes. Lot of apps, not a lot of use. Simplify to our level. Push out media, voice mashups, etc. Voice is no longer a commodity minute, now is a value prop.

Peter: we separated apps for control from network. Softswitches, don’t have to completely rewrite software due to new technology.

Question: are we over-complicating things? Everyone wants to communicate, how do we simplify?

Peter: we gotta simplify. Drop dead simple.

Q: so are we over-complicating?

Peter: making voice as app and making voice as central, yes in some ways we are.

Lunch and awards ceremonies!

Events, Network changes, mashups, Network, PTC09, switches, technology

This is the fourth and final day of my coverage of this conference. The information for this morning (today) is here.

The first session this morning is on Policy. Walda Roseman is moderator for speakers Rob Frieden, Heather Hudson, Francis Pereira, and Laura Sherman.

Walda Roseman: Broadband Mobility: Matching Promise with Performance in Asia

Wireless and mobile platforms in delivery of broadband.

Promise in this region: all Asian citizens will have access by 2015, mobile and wireless platforms and advanced user devices will provide access to a full range of services in next few years, and medium and low income countries (wireless is access to info and services) will be able to share in benefits. No commonly accepted definition of what broadband is; working definition is whether or not wireless access on fully loaded system can support services comparable to ADSL.

Asia-Pacific Broadband Opportunity and challenge: Asia has “a yawning broadband divide” with half of economies having highest penetration, many least served areas are also Asian. ITU chart: highest income economies have access, 31 lower income countries with low or no access.

Observations: most systems cannot maintain broadband speeds when network is fully loaded. Usage of mobile systems varies. Much of data needs are being served on mobile platforms.

Is Asia ready? short answer: no, maybe not for a long time. Nationwide, service is out of reach, quality of service is low.

Government policy as driver of mobile broadband: first step is strong political and regulator will, legal framework, and responsiveness by government to market needs and expectations. Foremost is partnership between government and industry. Need to promote quality of service, availability of spectrum, equipment, and global interoperability.

Problems: Asia falls way short of meeting needs, gov support is required.

Heather Hudson: Overcoming the Challenges of Isolation (Small Islands)

Quote from last August indicating complete drop of access. Region is highly diverse, has severe challenges because of isolation and small populations. (Also includes landlocked countries who depend on transport thru another country.) Most areas have low and lower middle income countries.

Importance: disaster communications, imports, experts, tourism, distance learning, development of back offices for information work. Example: Bits for Borneo: broadband in the jungle, diversifying gross national happiness, University of SOuth Pacific for distance education.

Regulatory policies: most have competition in mobile, few in fixed line. Trends to better devices. Mobile growing: more than 60% of phone subscribers in some areas, competition in some areas, prices higher than average.

Bad news: Internet access is limited in speed, less than 3 subscribers per 100 people, some countries <1 in 200. Availability of broadband: price high (150% of gross national income, in wealthier countries: 2%. of GNI). Monthly use prices also very high (in relative GNI and absolute $ terms).

International connectivity: generally getting cheaper, most islands served by satellite, high transit rates and tarriff proxies (e.g., Skype-out: over $1 per min, compared to $.02 to Singapore and Hong Kong).

Strategies to bridge the connectivity gaps: increase competition, recognize demand, limit periods of exclusivity, extend access through resale, and reduce local barriers. Think about community access as first priority. Universal service funds must be open to all providers. Perhaps a universal (targetted?) broadband fund for Pacific Islands?

Rob Frieden: The Spin in Broadband Statistics: How the FCC makes False Assessments of Next Gen Network Deployment in the US

Check the book.

Absent market failure, should govs stimulate broadband investment, subsidize service, or become a carrier? FCC (for a number of reasons) hasn’t really been telling the truth in terms of broadband penetration. In policy process, may be incentive to skew. “Incentivize” is common term. National goal for broadband, “mission accomplished.” $7B subsidiary to incumbents, delivery poor or non-existent to certain areas. FCC statistics say we’re doing great, based on 200k bits/sec definition. Penetration goes to 77% of all zip codes, with 4 or more broadband choices. FCC tells us (by zip) by numerical figure in internal charts (considered “trade secrets” which are confidential). However, wireless carriers don’t claim the trade secret exemption and willingly disclose coverage maps.

US ranks 15th among OECD nations in household penetration. Lags most nations on basis of per capita.

Whose statistics are most credible? State department was outraged at cooked books. Most options don’t exceed 200 kbps, but FCC shows increase in coverage.

Case study: Port Matilda PA. Current strategies and statistics not working. Erates have achieved modest goals, wi-fi mixed, incumbent has right of first refusal (not optimal).

Need to use better statistics, adopt best practices (other nations).

Francis Pereira: The Effectiveness of Government Policies in Broadband Deployment: An Assessment of Select Asian Countries

Broadband penetration and adoption rates vary across countries (globally). Various plans for ubiquitous, ultra high speed, or advanced ICT apps and services deployments (diff countries use diff strategies).

Sinapore’s gov initiatives: TradeNet, One Broadband Network incentives to conduct e-commerce, GeBiz (gov site), and iN2015. Singapore and Hong Kong (TradeLink) chart, different priorities and reasons for services. Singapore’s TradeNet iniative processed 99% of all trade declarations w 2400 companies, reduced processing time, etc.

Korea’s eVision: knowledge government priority. General challenges: no definition of impacts, statistical approaches, to attribution, nature of ICT.

Some evidence for hourly compensation for production costs in manufacturing, inward FDI stock as % of GDP (chart), and employment, total assets and other measurements. Singapore: 95% of biz obtained info did so electronically at least once in last year. 94% transacted at least once, and 80% were satisfied w transaction. Korea: evidence of standard of living, effectiveness of policies, new methods of assessing contribution of ICT to society, and new business models for broadband deployment (funding last mile).

Laura Sherman: Advancing Broadband in Singapore: From Monopoly to Competition

Represents Iridium Satellite LLC (disclosure). Will use Singapore as model. Statistics: 1997 monopoly wireless, now different. Sector reform process: restructuring and limited competition: First phase (’92-’94): separated regulator and operations. Second phase (95-98): duopoly in mobile, ended Singtel’s monopoly, added a third mobile license.

Facilities-based and WTO commitments, less limitations. Dramatic changes between 1999 and 2003, changed regulation process, now unlimited competition allowed (over 50 present in fixed and mobile). Connectivity is the impetus in driving growth.

Current Code of Practice for competition: looks at true competition, will deregulate as market changes. Facilitated thru tech-neutral licensing, nominal fees, no foreign ownership limits.

New regulatory phase, five year plan. Lessons learned: connectivity is key, limited political interference, transparent reg process, competition at all levels of value chain, tech-neutral licensing and fees.

Question: definition of broadband based on speed delivered (esp in light of deep packet and other internal routing processes)? Rob: Yes, extent for carriers to throttle and other network neutralities is second level of process, first is transparency of process and fact finding, statistics compilation. Gov should require parity between promised and delivered bit rates. Heather: pricing models haven’t moved, is another important metric. Also Canada as example: some countries have done better at serving remote areas (Canada is good!) Walda: also some countries are better at measuring throughput, dropped calls, sound quality, data… especially compared to what’s advertised.

Q (speaker from Nepal): concentration on all countries not equal.

Q (from island representative): comment about undue bias in competition: does not work in rural areas. In New Zealand and Australia, 5-10% unserved, but Islands 80% unserved. Way to go forward: define universal service development and how we pay for it. Another person disagrees: way to facilitate is thru new operators.

Quote from FCC outgoing chair warns of excessive intervention (see article from FT.com). Heather: voice service is important, competition is coming to mobile if (?) is willing to pay. Community level access in some levels might be appropriate. Laura: Malaysia throws a lot of money at connectivity but has huge licensing fees. Rob: agrees to a point with outgoing FCC Chair, but his FCC overstated and prevented competition, boxed in facilities to incumbent services.

Q: how to pay for terminal, tech support, etc? Rob: eRate top heavy (wiring), (no?) support for digital literacy. Heather: competitive subsidy system for schools in US. Need to operationalize it to serve operational, health and other services. Francis: re: who’s going to pay – what are advantages? Islands have special zones for access to certain people, is growth area. Strategic areas served first: build to rural areas vs building new hospital. Society pays because of net return on investment. Walda: India’s software zones.

Q: re lack of transparency and gaming aspects that to be considered in Austral-Asia, Is there a role for US or other that can model universal service? Walda: yes, it is being looked at for policy and operational levels, share best practices, Africa is where it is most effectively being done. Heather: liberalization is not same as deregulation. Need to set rules of the game. Enforcement in many countries is difficult for various reasons. Additionally: quality of service is critical, not enough attention to monitoring. What about a sub-regional approach? Look at EcTel (?). Laura isn’t sure it’s working. Objective isn’t being met. Walda: Quality of service: she wouldn’t blame anybody right now, first push is expansion, only after that has succeeded should one question quality.

Events, Network, Policy Asia, broadband, FCC, Pacific Islands, PTC09, satellite

Freedom to Connect: F2C09

This is David Isenberg’s Freedom to Connect (F2C09) conference, which will be held on March 30-31 in Washington DC. This year’s theme is the Emerging Internet Economy.

I’ve been to a few of his F2C confs and they’re a fascinating mix of Internet and telecom insiders talking on- and off-the record, engaging conversations, topped off by great food and outstanding music. His program for this year is amazing (again).

The registration fee is half-price this month, so it is timely to mention. Who attends and why? From his site:

F2C 2009 presents the people of the Internet who:

• enable economic growth,
• strengthen democracy,
• facilitate creativity and innovation,
• make the Earth greener, and
• lower the barriers that divide people.

F2C 2009 will tell the story of:

• on-line, network-enabled industry and culture, new jobs and sustainable growth
• Burlington VT, where muni fiber enables business, artistic endeavor, and new telemedicine
• how Lafayette LA’s community came together as it built its muni fiber network
• the twin cities of Cedar Falls and Waterloo, Iowa, where one twin has a muni net, and the other doesn’t
• how municipal CIOs are planning for Seattle, Portland and San Francisco municipal fiber networks
• city nets, wired and wireless, that didn’t work — what went wrong and what that teaches
• what Obama’s infrastructure and economic recovery plans mean for tomorrow’s network
• and more…

Events, Network, Policy, Scenarios collaboration, conference, economy, F2C09, fiber, telecom, telecommunications, Washington DC

Here is the description for this session. Moderator Louis Zacharilla will talk with Jay Gillette, Wes Rosenbalm, and Brad Woodside. I’m looking forward to this session.

What intelligent communities are doing to build the new “railroad.”

LZ: What is an intelligent community? A town, city or metro region that has (crisis or wisdom) come to understand the challenges, and has taken steps to create an economy capable of seizing its opportunities.

All Roads Lead to (your community here). Our lives are where our homes are.

Broadband economy: Community Opportunities. Every community has oportunities to use broadband for economic, political and socila development. Global trade opportunities, innovation becomes as important as location, resources or capital. Global community of vendors, search for education and culture, etc.

Community choice: taking advantage of broadband opportunity requires prolonged, conscious efforts to adapt: collaborative efforts between public, private and non-profoit sectors, identify challenges and development of strategies, edu and consulting, leadership from others.

Virtuous cycle: broadband access : knowledge workforce (what types of jobs are being created?) : innovation : digital inclusion (possibility to close digital divide) : marketing and advocacy (tell the story).

Indicator #1: broadband

Why governments get involved: overcome a broadband gap (market failure, prices, poor quality service), fill a broadband hold (unwired locations), or make a “broadband statement (community that “gets it”). Intervention: policy, networks for govs, public-private partnerships (and two others, but covering the latter).

Jay Gillette: Successful Intelligent Community Development: Leadership. Vision, Technology

Theory guides practice and practice corrects theory.

Topics: 1. successful economic and community development: people using tech catalysts to achieve community goals. 2. A positive negative example (Hays USA Info City Iniative), 3.Leadership is the key, 4. Develop an inspiring vision, and 5. Conclusions.

Successful economic and community development: focus on economic and community development, not just eco-devo. Thrive, not survive: not just biz as usual, three sector approach: gov, biz and civic. Succeed: no sector can go it alone, build economic foundation for community structure on top. Prosper: use tech catalysts to achieve the community’s goals; quality of life attracts knowledge workers, technology infrastructure and apps.

Hays USA Info City Initiative: early attempt at an intelligent community iniative, great project that produced small lasting change. University/rural trade center, vision of “smart city” through info technology. Good participation from IT professionals (rest of community missing). Set-back: Meetings resulted in unrelated election caused halt to project, leadership changes, Info City initiative scaled back to sharing gov IT resources (fill pot holes), gov shakeup. People need knowledge of future stakes, start at home with vision first.

Leadership is the key: significant, supported, sustained. Lessons relearned (matters at all levels). Top: anchor tenants, power elites in social networks. Lower levels: effective gov leaders, visionaries and champions, must truly lead. Leadership by 3S model: significant (power level, supported by tech & other communities, sustained over time.

Develping an inspiring vision: three key words for tech-based community advance: Develop (vision), Develop plans, and develop the vision to insprire, thrive. Not filled potholes, show the finished vision.

Conclusions then Recommendations: 1. Leadership is a social influence phenomonon. Leaders must be creative convincing, communicate well. Followers must get it, go with it, make it their own. Rec: build the community thru coalition of sectors. 2. Vision can embody our tech-based future as bright info renaissance, requiring us to be renaissance men and women, confident people, educated and competent, collaborating together. Rec: develop an inspiring vision, appropriate to your own community, in a supportable plan. 3. tgech provides a foundation for community structures and quality of life. Red; plan for evolving tech as catalyst for achieving community goals, not as end.

(His Worship) Brad Woodside: longest serving mayor of Fredricton. Partnership in builiding broadband. Wanted to move on their timeline, not industry. Canadian broadband is highly regulated. City council prioritized, perfect size to collaborate (“enovation?”) (commercials playing in background) Muni-wifi based fredEzone gave public wifi. Start up costs recovered, network costs recovered, now profitable and reduced community price point.

Why haven’t others done this? Some not willing to front costs. Our community needed this, was prepared to pay for it as 21st Century infrastructure. Was a critical service.

LZ: all industries there have benefited. One thing you see in Intelligent Community movement is these communities are often neglected by carriers.

Wes Rosenbalm: Advanced Broadband Comes to Rural America

Bristol is small rural community in southwest corner of VA, Appalacian Mountain region. Hard working (17k) people, average income $20k; primary industry is coal and tabacco, also NASCAR raceway and birthplace of country music. Coal industry declined by 5-10%, tobacco by 67% annually. Brain drain of youth is climbing.

Muni-utilities initiated fiber to users project (Optinet). Started in 1999. Need: improve communications at Bristol’s 8 electric substations. Answer: build fiber network. 2000: BVU, all schools and gov ofices, investment in fiber to user. 2001: engineering firm determines cost, survey of customer interest (they were interested), business plans determined feasibility.

Developed “culture of use” mission: enhance economic development in rural mountainous Virginia, and improve quality of life thru broadband access at affordable, stable prices.

Uphill battle: VA law barred municipalities from offering telecom services. Sued state and won, overturned law. General Assembly reversed, another state went to Supreme Ct and definition of “any entity” does not include muni utils. However, VA legislature allowed Bristol because of level of investment. Incumbent phone co accuses of bross-subsidizing phone rates. (that’s funny!) Commission ruled against complaint. Three years and $2.5M in legal fees later (wow), they were allowed to offer services. BVU becomes first muni utility in US to deploy a fiber to user network offering triple play of phone, cable and data services.

Aggressive marketing campaign: familiar name, reliable electric provider for 60 yrs, customer installs exceed projections (waiting list from customers), advanced entertainment services are added (continuous improvement). OptiNet saved customers >$10M based on competitors’ rates and deals, and captured 65% of market in 5 years (consideration re: credit problems on customer level).

Was it possible to share fiber with neighbors? Neighboring rural coal counties also inadequate services, network could reach out to other needy communities. Fed and tobacco funding sources enabled partnerships to happen. (long term thinking: didn’t use funds to balance budgets) Partnerships with Cumberland Plateau (200 mi expansion in four counties, $17M in grants and matches) 2003-2007.

Passes 1800 potential business customers, nine industrial parks. Significant: major tech conpanies brought high paying jobs (CGI, Northrop Grumman). Region now championed by state and national leaders as “broadband gateway…”

Broadband build-outs in Southwest VA brings 1,220 jobs (and lots more).

Collaborative ventures: AccessBristol high tech area for new businesses. Fielding “how did you do it” calls from around the world. That took time: BVU Focus formed to help other munis develop solutions for their communities. First customer: Charlotte NC area (BVU managing their net, 5% growth in 2008, 27% revenue projection increase. Hard-earned victory: revenues have increased 50% since 2003, have improved quality of life, and biz potential unlimited. Impact is far reaching: 800 miles thru 8 counties. Have received numerous awards.

Questions: Interconnection with local incumbent? Wes: Yes, with the two nearby.

Broadband power lines? Wes: wasn’t available at the time, exploring, also wireless, for future use.

Education level and culture of use: how is it being communicated and sustained? Brad: University offers computer sci, rural areas not really a barrier, culture has evolved and they’re constantly promoting value and vision; also younger generation is growing up knowing. Wes: had to deal with the issues of lower edu level and older population. Had a hard time getting people off dial-up. Had to market 64K service off of optical network, made it a teaser. Made a difference with older population. Still working on penetration due to lower expectations. Jay: really believes in education, in cases of aging population: they have trouble coordinating hand and mouse. Different kind of issue. Other communities are going to have issues. National discussion of broadband will help all. (Price resistance is hurting.)

Q: Need to get a large fraction of service is important to economic success of project. Did you consider wholesale models? Brad: passed. Wes: Bristol started off with different economic model, but wasn’t practical because of muni utility model. Partner with Peercom (wireless) helped. Brad: Different rules between US and Canada; they had to sit and wait for private sector. Partnership benefited both.

Q: Charges at low or no cost to customers, any pressure to exercise control over content? Wes: short answer: no, but lots of conversations particularly on TV, ended up (without?) pay per view basis. Jay: is business and moral issues, common carrier issues and “blue” channels, “blue” chat are very lucrative and popular but people don’t want to admit that they use them.

LZ: Seven Habits of Intelligent Communities

1. Have leaders who convince people there is more to be won than lost from Broadband Economy
2. Do what it takes to get broadband but don’t fall in love with the technology. (It’s about the people.)
3. Are open rather than closed
4. Have big visions and appetite for action
5. Create local heroes to advocate
6. Never miss a chance to tell their stories
7. Plan for economic growth in zero-net-emissions world

Awards ceremony tomorrow (luncheon)!

Events, Network, Policy collaboration, partnerships, private, PTC09, public

This afternoon’s session

Omar Altaji: Subsea Cable

The world is getting smaller: expanding global industries, mobile roaming, etc. Subsea Systems have role: demand rises, consumption is strong, prices stablized, capital budgets scarce, emerging markets growing.

Market characteristics: enterprise and residential customers, applications, services and quality requirements drive demand. TeleGrography reports aggregate demand (international) at 52%. Drivers: content-rich and web 2.0 apps, strong growth in broadband access, adoption of high def, real-time apps, growth in layer 2 Ethernet and higher speeds, increase in data storage requirements and other data center and hosting apps.

Global Crossing: outpacing the industry average in growth of IP traffic and high capacity services (118% between Q ’07 and Q3 ’08). Capacity requirements: since ’04, most routes satisfied by upgrading existing cables. Some systems can be upgraded beyond design cap, as required to meet demand. Advances in tranmission technology continue to increase capacity (greater efficiencies).

Rational measured expansion: upgrading existing systems, over-build elements: AC-1 (35G), SAC (320G, up to 480G per pair), MAC (160G, up to 460G per pair). (Maps of networks)

Costa Rica case study: adding value to existing systems: Value added by inserting/extending new landing points to existing cable. Insert “UNQUI” landing into PAC systems. Complex, cost effective undertaking re: new Branching Units in live system ( minimized interruption to customers). Landing into Costa Rica (picture of cable being brought ashore, cutting ceremony).

Demand is real. Smart extended reach really matters (partnering, teaming, existing infrastructure, wholesale enterprise segments). In spite of economic slow-down, demand fundamentals will be strong, aggressive cost containment strategies is more crucial.

Michael Rieger: Rational Initiatives or New Bubble: Offshore Oil and Gas Applications, US Gulf of Mexico

Need: major production platforms require secure, stable and expandable communications: offshore fields are expensive to develop, reliable bandwidth is key to operations and safety, remote facility automation, flexibility to add new platforms.

Gulf of Mexico: Production: oil 1.3M barrels per day, 7.4B cu ft per day. 3800 platforms, 694 manned. Motivations: hurricanes in 2005, 2008, right thru BP field (in Gulf, Mississippi to Texas). Serious financial impact. Platforms going into deeper resources, microwave in serial, so if storms take in near stations, also takes out farther stations.

Goal of fiber solutions: direct virtual communications path to each platform, create “disaster proof” network. Objectives: secure communication channels, sufficient bandwidth for current and future needs, high reliability, buildable and flexible (risk averse industry–explosives!), cost effective.

Design requirements: bandwidth (10 G/sec to 7 primary platforms, upgradable), config (2 pair, 19 branches), technology (powered trunk), expansion (branches to 100 km, sea floor termination. Integrated solution.

OADM (optical Add Drop Modules) Branching Unit used to customize capacity to design. Dynamic riser cable components for floating requirements. Fiber distribution canister works at sea floor level.

First 9 months? 2008 hurricanes provided proof of concept, looking good. Next stage: on sea floor recovery.

Bjarni Thorvardarson: Developments in the Atlantic

Finding ways out of the Glut: Atlantic cables can be classified into two categories: general capacity (NY-London commodities) players, diverse or geographically focused cables. Commodity route: capacity is 13Tbit/sec with about 30% utilized, growing at 40-50% per year. Largest international capacity market in world, going to call for new submarine cables within 4 years. At cost of $400-500M per new system, we’ll see new price paradigm. Large and growing demand will cause trans-Atlantic market to be continuously competitive but at equilibrium.

Diversity and Geo-focus: pursue blue ocean strategy whenever possible. Look at different demand areas and unique markets (Canada, Ireland, Chicago/Boston, Manchester to North America). Tap new markets by leveraging your assets: identify and realize unique potential of your assets, e.g., connect Icelandic data centers to Europe and US, connect Northern Ireland, create unique low latency and diverse Amsterdam to North America.

Motoyoshi Tokioka: The Submarine Cable System Industry as an Ecosystem

Key word: ecosystem (pic of coral reef with fish) is a challenge our industry is facing. Critical questions: how to build robust and sustainable industry? Is a complex market (competition, unpredictable) Cooperation helps keep market rational (is it optimum?). Is someone looking at the whole picture?

What happened around turn of the century? Market ups and downs (internet bubble in 1999-2000-2001) in terms of contracted dollars (US $M), calls for different approach. Supplier ecosystem of users (outside circle), cable owners + marine operators + component/materials suppliers (mid-circle), cables + project management, repeaters and terminal equipment (inner circle). We don’t do business alone, are supported by other players. Industry ecosystem: owners, suppliers, installers, users.

Conclusion: ecosystem, not “ego” system: share long-term vision, consider long-term profits, encourage industry-wide innovation. Optimize cooperation for industry growth: i

MT: limited application, carry over into related industries.
MT-san: sizemic activity monitoring and controls

What factors do you consider in mixed market, and how can govs help?

BT: on Gov side, didn’t work, demand in near-term didn’t appear. Straightforward business case, sometimes helps with gov intervention, sometimes not.

OA: What govs can do: was against law to land cable before, closed market (being privatized), took Presidential decree to facilitate permits, licensing, etc.

Events, Network commodity cable, oil and gas industry, PTC09, undersea cable

Next session: The Future of Broadband Mobility. Ken Zita (KZ) moderates with speakers Jen-Hon Lin (JHL), Sachio Semmoto (SS), Yoshiyuki Takeda (YT), and Michael Tyler (MT).

Ken Zita:

How about let’s talk about 4G? Broadband mobility is where the future is going. Mobile phones are everywhere. This is about the fast change that affects the social fabric of the world.

The arrival of very high speed and all-IP mobile networks is imminent. “4G” will transform markets and mobile services paradigm worldwide. Ultrabroadband: 160-250MB/s down and 50MB/s up, commercial 2H09.

Impact of broadband on mobile business strategy? remains tied to legacy bandwidth economics” and is relatively untouched by economics of the Internet: switched to packet (open), shift to IP allows service creation of content service independent of access network. Gateways for media downloads vs mere transporters of bits (diff business models).

How will mobile biz models evolve with broadband? On-demand video, P2P, user-generated content and application downloads will displace basic access services (voice) for new revenue growth. Emerging financial models have more moving parts, less revenue certainty (ad hoc revenue events, on-demand content, connectivity, commissions and revenue sharing). Timing the transition of revenue is important. No “net neutrality” for mobile today.

Who owns what? How will network/device/content/brand/web storefronts evolve as mobile experience? Can mobile operators preserve closed ecosystem? Apple, Nokia, Google on integrated, vertical services. Mobile content without networks, who will build the next Apple store?

Search: speed to the handset is exciting but mobile search needs to evolve too. What is required to crate “meaningful” mobile search and net-centric mobile customers? Today, search is a drag. Contextualize with geography and who you are.

Operational challenges: service delivery involves controlling content thru middleware, or finding a way to stay relevant as consumers download content from off-network sites. Technology (networks, layers, content). Video hits local mobile network.

Can Asian mobile SPs globalize? North Asia is streets ahead of the rest of the world in mobile adoption, but past attempts by Japanese and Korean operators have failed. Big difference: mobile content strategies (opening up services), platform for delivering lifestyle services and knowledge uniquely appropriate to local market. Does network scale have a natural or optimal limit re: services that involve local market knowledge and customization?

What does it mean to create a “mobile Internet?”

YK: Widening world of mobile phones (various data types). DoCoMo’s challenge: communication to info access, life assistance, behavior assistance (personalization of services). Number of mobile phone subscribers growing, Mar ’08 is 102.72M. Ratio of 3G (chart w many countries) is high in Japan.

Frequency chart re: spectrum assignment, present and future (FDD (700-2GHz) and TDD (2-2.5GHz) systems. Devices and Mobile communication systems (illustration). Technology and market trends in Japan all trending higher in all bands, from fixed network services to LTE/Super3G and 4G. Deployment in layers over time, to ultimate status of Super 3G and 4G after 2020.

Trends of Next Gen Systems adopted by Carriers (chart). Change in business models of mobile from vertical integration to open systems (Android, G1 and iPhone, etc.)

JHL: Taiwan mobile market overview: 25.28M mobile users in Nov 2008, penetration 109.8%. Mobile revenue si 59.26% of total telecom market in 2007. Private telecom co, mible WiMax in 2007. Is a full service provider, 97% market share in fixed, mobile 35.5%.

Performance: Netbooks 99% market share, 93% Notebooks and motherboards (chart). Trends and opportunities: fiber to home, LTE/WiMax (converging).

Business model is key: connect to anyone at any time, any place, any devices; ubiquitous network society. Value of networks is proportional to number of subscribers. How could operators realize such value?

SS: The Future of Broadband Mobility

From 10 years ago: fixed broadband. Formed a company then, now sold and doing something else. Now: mobile operator mainly focus on broadband data service (estab. Jan 2005, two directors, lots of outside directors, 3K employees, $4B raised in financing). Now has >1M subscribers. Is different from incumbents: they are mobile company with voice service; his company is mobile broadband service.

Unique biz model: data centric strategy, unique netbook bundling marketing, mobile and fixed bundled service. Efficient network with low running cost, is price leader in mobile broadband service. Not stealing subscribers from incumbents: not stealing voice services, is all data, trending upward.

In PC market, we have created a new demand, “bundled sales of data card and net book.” “Special discounted price: $1-$200 US.” (Net books: ASUS, Acer, Dell, HP, Sony, Toshiba.) Targeting new users by clearly differentiating mobile phones and data. (chart with speed, monthly charge and other: fast speed with low monthly charge.) This is the key.

MT: Four Trends, Fundamental Change (no PowerPoint)

1. Big change in capability of mobile devices. Now powerful processors, versatile radio freq interface that can connect to variety of networks, including phone and data, also makes device mfgrs strategic players.

2. Network layer structure that’s visible to outside world. Implications: service creation not tied to circuit-switched network, or network fabric. Carriers that don’t merely want to carry bits will become app provicers; value on app platforms and tools, resources and tools that can be used.

3. Increasing role of downloading. Mobiles are looking more like the Internet. End-user chooses and uses devices and apps.

4. Emergency of boundary management: boundary between network operator management and outside world, open boundaries. Closed worlds not being successful commercially. Operator has resources at diff layers, other important apps: strong authentication services (to prevent theft of services).

Examples: Eqo (Vancouver) takes over phone book, does dialing via IP network; also provides IM function that is compatible with all major messaging systems.

Devices, Events, Identity, Network, Scenarios broadband, Devices, hand held, handhelds, mobile, mobile phone, net book, platform, PTC09