Archive for the ‘Cool Stuff’ Category

Wi-Fi? Wi-Not?

Thursday, February 18th, 2010

In the past several weeks, there have been several news articles and blog posts about the possibility of Wi-Fi being a solution to congested mobile networks.  There was a piece in Total Telecom, one by Maggie Reardon, and one by Stephen Rayment for the FT.

The argument is that the widespread adoption of smart phones and mobile Internet has congested mobile wireless networks to the breaking point.  In order to alleviate congestion on their 3G or 4G network, carriers could offload traffic onto Wi-Fi networks (including those of other operators).  This would free up the carriers’ limited spectrum resources which they obtained at auction through the licensing process.  And, it could be done more cheaply than upgrading existing cell sites. (Dana Blankenhorn at ZDNet correctly points out the inconsistency of giving more spectrum to wireless carriers if unlicensed operation is the solution. It was not so long ago that wireless carriers were crying foul that all Wi-Fi networks such as the now defunct Cometa presented unfair competition because they had not spent billions to acquire their licenses at auction.)

Insight:  Integrating mobile networks with Wi-Fi is a good idea.  It is, however, not a new one.  At a conference nearly eight years ago at Columbia University and in the ensuing paper, I suggested that wireless carriers consider incorporating Wi-Fi into their networks.  My reasoning was not so much about load balancing as it was about market segmentation.  Complementing existing 3G networks with Wi-Fi would enable carriers to offer tiered services – a best efforts service and a better than best efforts service – charging different prices for both and increasing profitability.  I also suggested it would be possible to use spectrum not licensed to the carrier such as the spectrum which has been allocated to CB RadioGMRS, or FRS.  A 2003 FCC rule change would allow handsets cable of operating both on mobile networks and in these bands. In this way, carriers could offer services like push-to-talk or walkie-talkies without encumbering their already burdened spectrum and networks. Users would be able to speak directly to others in their area, even users on other carriers’ networks.  Alas, there was not much economic incentive for carriers to sell such handsets because it would reduce the mobile termination revenues which carriers charge one another (and eventually their subscribers) for completing calls over their networks.  However, with the balance of market power tipping away from networks and in favor of handset providers recently, it might be possible that we would see such enabled handsets in the next few years.

Network Neutrality and the Samurai

Sunday, January 10th, 2010

The ITU Association of Japan just published my September keynote on Network Neutrality in the Highlights section of its January 2010 ITU AJ Journal.  The article is password protected, but if you are a member of the Association, you can get it from the website. (The article is in Japanese).

One of the points I made in the keynote (which is not in the brief article), was an analogy of Network Neutrality issues to Edō Period Japan.  The sankin kōtai laws of the Tokugawa Shogunate imposed a rule of prioritization on the Tokaido and Nakaseido roads between Edō (now, Tokyo) and Kyoto, as well as on other “kaido” emanating from the capital.  Access to Japanese roads was prioritized by social status, with only the Samurai class having access to the center of the road as their procession called a daimyo gyoretsu passed.  Lower classes were required to clear the road kneel down and bow as the Samurai passed.  Punishment for failing to clear the road was possible decapitation.

The concept of prioritization is not new, but it is universal.  It expresses fundamental and competing notions of fairness versus economic efficiency.  We think it is unfair to give preferential treatment to certain customers (those who are willing to pay more or have higher social status).  At the same time, we also think it is economically inefficient to mandate a single (or limited set of) Internet access options for everyone, including those who are willing to pay more for premium services.  When the network (or Tokkaido Road) is congested, prioritization can make users better off.  Prioritization can be accomplished based on economic characteristics, arrival order, processing load, urgency, or even social status.

Insight: Since all messages on an IP-based network travel at the same speed (the speed of light), in discussions of Network Neutrality, it is never who gets to go faster, rather which packet, or which samurai, gets to go first.  Such prioritization must be done in a way which is socially permissible and economically desirable.  Given that the penalty for breaching a classes of service restrains in Edo Japan was capital, I think I would rather get a reset packet.

Next Generation Spectrum Regulation

Wednesday, December 9th, 2009
Spectrum band plan created by price-guided mechanisms

Spectrum band plan created by price-guided mechanisms

Winston Churchill famously said, “democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”  Perhaps the same can be said of spectrum auctions.  Auction mechanisms have been used starting in New Zealand in 1994 to award spectrum licenses to those who have the highest monetary value. Spectrum auctions have generally been highly effective, with the occasional failure.

Despite their success, auctions have some notable drawbacks such as the so-called winners curse and the fact the up-front license fees require spectrum users to raise capital beyond the princely sums necessary to build a wireless network – a barrier to entry.  However, auctions are far better than the administrative processes which have been used for nearly a century to determine spectrum assignments.  Administrative decisions tend not to be economically efficient because the regulator has limited access to information which market participants would be more able to amass and utilize. There are also problems of political independence and of regulatory capture.

While auctions have been used to determine who gets spectrum rights, they have not really been used to determine the contours of those rights.  These contours are still determined through administrative decisions.

I have just completed a major study on next generation spectrum regulation which can serve as the basis for removing certain barriers to spectrum access, allowing more effective sharing and efficient allocations.

I can think of no reason why a properly designed auction could not determine not only who gets the spectrum rights, but what those rights are.  (Think of it this way: an auction on eBay for a car could determine not just who gets the car, but the color of the car and whether it comes with, say, leather seats or alloy wheels.)  I built a mathematical model of a next-generation spectrum auction using the Shannon-Hartley Theorem as a means modeling behavior by valuing the spectrum when considering the actions of other would-be users.  In my model bidders could express their demands for not just bandwidth, but power, modulation, underlay/interference, and other characteristics.  When I ran an MS Excel-based version of the model, the result was a mix of high and low power uses in the winning bids.  The low power bidders (similar to UWB spectral densities) could in a second round be aggregated into some form of licensed commons with the coordination protocol determined in that part of the auction.  The outcome would resemble a shared use or common arrangement where no one party controlled the spectrum.  However, the most interesting thing was that because bidders could obtain spectrum allocations that more closely fit their needs, more than 40% of the spectrum bandwidth available in the auction was left unsold.  This spectrum was valued by the market to be best allocated to either public sector use or even low- to mid-power unlicensed use.

Insight:  You cannot see, touch, taste, smell, or hear radio spectrum.  Spectrum is not a thing; it is an idea – a legal and engineering construct that explains a physical phenomenon and helps us arrange our behavior accordingly.  That fundamental physical phenomenon is the fact that when electromagnetic waves are: (1) harmonic in frequency; (2) incident in time; and (3) alight on the same reception device, the ability of those waves to be used as information carriers is degraded.  This deleterious effect is known to us as interference.  Without some form of intervention, it is impossible to exclude or limit the use of a common resource such as spectrum. Without exclusion, users consume the spectrum without regard to fact that their usage causes the deleterious effect of interference for other would-be users.  Policies which help to mitigate inference with the least amount of effort will be the most socially beneficial.

Japan Communications’ New Business Model

Wednesday, October 28th, 2009

On my October business trip to Tokyo, I took time to meet with Japan Communications‘ CEO Frank Sanda.  I know Frank from my work on the Eamon Ryan’s Advisory Forum on Broadband.  I wanted to see Frank and his team because they just launched a new product for Hewlett-Packard.  HP will now sell netbooks in Japan which come with 100 minutes of mobile wireless connectivity. Consumers can buy connectivity on a pay-as-you-go basis from Japan Communications, but branded as an HP service.

Japan Communications built a really cool billing system to handle payment and authentication.  But, Japan Communications does not have a wireless network.  That it gets from the leading carrier NTT DoCoMo. Japan Communications leases capacity on DoCoMo’s network nationwide, and has the ability to purchase more capacity as this business grows. HP gets to determine which devices are sold and can sell the connectivity as its own.  Furthermore, Japan Communications could set up such a system to sell anyone else’s networked devices.  Say, how about a Carterfone?

While Japan Communications negotiated with DoCoMo to get on its network, it was able to do so because the Japanese Ministry for Communications and Information created which rules opened the networks of three largest wireless operators DoCoMo, KDDI, and SoftBank to wholesale. There was apparently a three-year battle at the Ministry in which Japan Communications was at the center. Japan’s policy to require wholesale access to wireless networks goes further than the US FCC’s rules for its 700 MHz auction which mandated these open these networks to foreign devices and handsets.

Insight: This seems like a really cool business model with implications for carriers, devices manufacturers, and application service providers around the world. I have said in a previous Cool Stuff, it is not a questions of whether wireless networks should be open or closed. Rather, there is some optimal level of openness which will maximize the carrier’s return.  A privately determined level of openness will no doubt diverge from a level of openness which represents a public optimal. However, this begs the question whether opening networks to wholesale in this way is good policy and whether the Europe and the US should follow suit.  The answer is far more complex than can be addressed in a humble blog entry.  Nonetheless, I am curious see how this market will develop.

Cool Cube

Saturday, October 24th, 2009
C is for CUBE

C is for CUBE. The School has its own hand sign.

On my trip to Japan earlier this month, I was invited by my good friend Prof. Harumasa Sato to speak to his undergraduate students at the Konan University in Kobe.  Prof. Sato did not ask me to talk about spectrum, Net Neutrality, interconnection, or some other issue in communications.  Rather, he asked me to speak to his students about my life and international career experience.  Since this is the inaugural year for the school, so I was delighted to address the students.

Prof. Sato is the Dean of the new business school and spent the past three years setting it up. And, what can I say for his efforts?  It’s totally fucking cool.  The school is referred to as “CUBE”, aptly named for the building cube-like shape.  Prof. Sato roams the halls speaking to his students. (When I was in business school, and the students saw the Dean coming, they went the other way).  Inside, the building is a fantastic mix of high-tech classrooms, work spaces, meeting spaces, and offices. The main lounge is an English-only “O-Zone” so that the students can practice their business English.  The TV in the lounge is not a TV, it’s a Mac streaming YouTube.  Everything is wireless, including room lighting controls, projection monitors, and the contactless RFID security passes, which are in cell phones. Students use their cell phones not only as security cards to gain entrance to certain areas of the building, but to buy drinks from the vending machines.

Insight:  Kids today, I tell you.  They don’t know how cool they’ve got it.  My time at CUBE got me thinking about my own undergraduate experience.  As a college student, I spent Spring and Summer semesters junior year studying in Japan.  I cannot imagine how different my education would have been had we had these technologies and the wide-spread adoption of the Internet.

Volts for Clunkers

Friday, August 7th, 2009
Source: Coneee, flickr.com, used under creative commons.

Source: Coneee, flickr.com, used under creative commons.

In the past week, there has been a lot of talk about the US federal government’s “Cash for Clunkers” program.  By most accounts, the program has been quite popular.  Indeed, the program’s original $1 billion in funding was exhausted in about two weeks, prompting Congress to vote another $2 billion for the program this past week.

Under the program, consumers can trade-in an old car which gets less than 18 MPG towards the purchase of a new car.  The consumer gets a credit equal to the scrap value of the car, plus $3,500 to $4,500.  The car dealership then takes the traded-in car, pours solvent into the engine to ruin the lubricating oil, and runs it until the engine seizes.  The car is then junked for scrap.  More than 230,000 cars have been traded in under the program so far.

Insight:  In junking the clunker cars, we are about to throw a whole bunch of babies out the bath water.  It consumes a tremendous about of  natural resources to produce an automobile.  So, while it is good to get a quarter million 18-MPG or less motors off of the road, it does not make sense to crush all of those cars to leave them to rust in a junk yard.  In fact, it is a bit of an environmental nightmare.

I suggest that the Cash for Clunkers Program consider a plan which permits rolling-up the clunkers, removing their seized engines, and converting the cars to electric vehciles.

Internal combustion engines have had their day, but sooner or later they will have to give way to a more efficient system.  Because of the ability to quickly replenish the vehicle’s energy supply with cheap oil, internal combustion engines are convenient, but they are truly wasteful. Internal combustion engines are perpetually trying to tear themselves apart from the inside and turn most of their chemical and kinetic energy to heat.

So, in light of not having to produce more steal and generate more waste in the production, the electrification of existing vehicles makes some sense. To electrify the cars, requires removing the internal combustion engine and the fuel system and replacing them with an electric motor and battery system.  Pretty much everything else in the cars stays.  The conversion to electric is not all that hard to do.  In fact, DIYers are already doing conversions in their garages – takes about 40 to 100 hours and good set of tools.  Nearly all electric cars are already conversions.  Even the macdaddy of electric vehicles – the Telsa Roadster – is just a pumped up Lotus Elise with better aerodynamics and giant cordless phone battery.  And, despite the fact that the clunkers used cars, they are still attractive for conversion.  Since an electric motor has a single moving part, a well-done electric conversion can be expected to last for over 1 million miles.  Further, used cars have already gone through a break-in period so there is a lot less friction in the bearings and drivetrains.

As a threshold problem, one would need to determine statistically which makes and models are being traded in as clunkers.  Further, one would have to determine, from an engineering stand point, which of the most makes and models could be converted to electric cars.  Finally, a business case would have to be completed in order to determine whether conversions of these vehicles could be done at minimum viable scale.

We can do this.  After all, we already own GM and it is idling factories and laying-off workers.

The electrified clunkers could then be sold a low cost to be used as daily commuter cars.  This would have a multiplier effect for both the economic and environmental dimensions of the program.

NB:  I do not argue that electric cars are an environmental panacea.  First, the electricity used to charge the cars has to be generated in a carbon-neutral way. Second, more than 90% the alloys need to make high efficiency electric motors comes from China.  This would have the effect of changing geopolitical power from oil-exporting countries to a single nation.  However, the present situation is unsustainable.

T-Mobile’s G1 Android and Apple iPhone: market power or just marketing?

Friday, February 13th, 2009

T-Mobile recently introduced its G1 mobile phone in Germany, the first to use the open Android platform. The G1 joins the more proprietary iPhone which T-Mobile has sold in Germany under an exclusive agreement with Apple. The G1 is manufactured for T-Mobile by HTC in Taiwan and the Android platform is an open standards effort of the Open Handset Alliance – a consortium comprised of Google and several mobile phone manufacturers and networks. By contrast, the iPhone is a more closed platform where modifications may result in it being rendered inoperable. Given that T-Mobile is embracing open and proprietary strategies for the operating systems, begs questions on the efficacy a hybrid business strategy and whether this is unfair competition.

Both the Apple and Android approaches have had to grapple with the optimal level of openness. No pure strategy is viable: too restrictive, and the phone is of minimal value; too open, and it becomes unprofitable. Originally, the iPhone’s operating system was derided as being overly restrictive. Apple tried to harness the energy of individuals trying to improve the iPhone by launching the App Store in July 2008. It now boasts 15,000 third party applications for sale. At the same time, the Android platform is an open standard, not full open source. The source code carries an Apache license, so some extensions to the code may be proprietary. Further, Android’s Software Development Kit might allow Google to control an Android Market in a way which resembles the App Store.

Insight: It is not necessarily unfair competition for T-Mobile to be the exclusive source for both the G1 and the iPhone in Germany. Despite the 200 patents filed for the iPhone, it is not inherently irreproducible – save its cachet as a technocrati status symbol. Both Samsung’s Instinct and the RIM’s Blackberry Storm have already been launched to compete with the iPhone. Similarly, any other network could market a phone employing the Android platform. Whether these devices are better or worse is a matter of consumer preference. The fact that T-Mobile is now marketing phones based on both open and proprietary software suggests that neither approach is the Holy Grail of business models. T-Mobile initially launched the G1 in the US in order to compete with AT&T which is the exclusive sources for the iPhone there. The decision to sell the G1 in Germany probably embraces economies of scope and scale, more then the question of openness.

A German language version of this note, authored with Christian Wernick, will be published in Wirtschaftsdienst, available at: www.wirtschaftsdienst.eu.

Obama’s Inaugural Address and the Optimal Government

Saturday, January 24th, 2009

This past week, I watched, with great excitement the Inauguration of Barack Obama as the 44th President.  In the following days, a read and listened to many blogs and news accounts of his Inaugural Address, some touting it as an exemplary piece of oration and others calling it flat, especially in light of Mr. Obama’s skill.

There was, however, one passage which to my mind received too little attention:

The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works, whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified.

Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end.

And those of us who manage the public’s dollars will be held to account, to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day, because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched. (Source: NYT)

Insight: If Mr. Obama truly adopts this approach to government, then it represents a major step forward for the United States and the welfare of its people.  This efficiency frontier for government is something I have written about before in Cool Stuff (The Transition and Irish Broadband Forum).  Defining the contours of this efficiency frontier is the next generation of policy research and debate.  I commend Mr. Obama for taking a truly bipartisan approach to government (“I won” comments aside).

I wonder if this explains the hit I got on my blog from a Starbucks in Washington, DC.

One Year of Cool Stuff

Tuesday, January 13th, 2009

Today marks the first anniversary of Cool Stuff (in this incarnation).  In the past year, I have made 30 posts in 10 categories and 54 tags. There are a total of 41 comments.  Cool Stuff has garnered more than 1,600 hits, with the post on John McCain and Wi-Fi being far and away the most popular post.

Insight:  I have greatly enjoyed writing Cool Stuff and will try to devote a bit more time to it.  I get jazzed when I find that people are reading my blog and that it is helping to generate thinking about the next generation of issues in communications strategy, business, and policy.  I also think it is really cool when I get a Google search hit – especially when someone hits my blog when they were might not have exactly been looking for it.  To this end, I have created the Top Ten Google Hits on Cool Stuff (all of these are real search terms reported by the WordPress blog stats plug-in).  The Top Ten Google Hits on Cool Stuff are:

10.       “pusher prop airplane”

9.         ken carter aircraft

8.         hackintosh illegal

7.         ken carter’s wife

6.         unlicensed to kill: a brief history of t

5.         irish directions advice i wouldn’t start

4.         always be sincere, whether you mean it o

3.         cool shit for browning hi power

2.         fcc working paper science fiction

And the number one Google Hit on Cool Stuff is:

recommend stuff white people like.

One Word Oxymorons

Sunday, January 11th, 2009

We’re all familiar with the term oxymoron.  Oxymorons are a subset of the expressions called contradictions in terms. The definition of an oxymoron is a figure of speech that combines two normally contradictory terms. Oxymoron is a loanword from Greek oxy (’sharp’) and moros (‘dull’); itself an oxymoron. In popular usage, the term oxymoron is sometimes used more loosely, in the sense of a simple contradiction in terms.

One of the most famous examples of colloquial oxymorons is jumbo shrimp.  The term Jumbo, coming from the name of P.T. Barnum’s enormous African Elephant, now synonymous with ‘large’ and shrimp has taken on the meaning of ‘small’.

Insight:  The other day I got to thinking whether is there a word so confused, so self-contradictory that it is its own oxymoron.  Well, I came up with two: naturalize and favorites.  Naturalize means literally, “to put into the state of nature;” however, to be in the state of nature means to be unaffected by human intervention.  The word favorite is itself a superlative, meaning something that one likes the best.  The word favorites is then a plural superlative, itself an oxymoron.