tag:app-rising.com,2008://1 2008-11-21T15:28:21Z Movable Type Open Source 4.1 tag:app-rising.com,2008://1.1291 2008-11-21T15:00:45Z 2008-11-21T15:28:21Z

While not a new observation it's become more acute in recent weeks that at least on one front in the Great Broadband Debates all parties seem to be in agreement: we need more people using and relying upon broadband to...

Geoff Daily While not a new observation it's become more acute in recent weeks that at least on one front in the Great Broadband Debates all parties seem to be in agreement: we need more people using and relying upon broadband to a greater degree. It's the one issue that unites network, applications, content, and public interest people, both ideologically (we've all drank the broadband Kool-Aid) as well as from a business perspective (more users = more potential customers). In particular this has been a major point of emphasis among the big-time network operators. I've now heard telcos and cablecos alike strongly suggesting that we need to be pursuing policies that can help stimulate understanding of and demand for broadband. Yet while it obviously behooves any online purveyor of apps or content to have a larger marketplace to sell into, I have yet to see these overlapping interests turn into a working consensus over what needs to be done to stimulate consumer demand. Of course, I can see why some might be wary of supporting any initiative that'll result in increasing subscription rates and ultimately profits for multi-billion dollar network operators. Also, there's the issue that apps guys want to talk about network deployment and management, whereas these are topics that network operators would rather just faded away. But I think what might be really stalling a coordinated campaign to increase demand for bandwidth is that I have yet to see a concise plan or even any specific actions that can be done to improve this situation. We've got studies showing that part of what's holding back people who don't subscribe to broadband is cost, but even more significant is that many people still don't have computers at home. On top of this, most people without broadband don't see the value it holds; it's a nice-to-have not a must-have service. And taking this a step further, I'd argue that we've done a poor job of educating even those who already have broadband about how they can use it to improve their lives. The Internet may be this endless sandbox, library without walls, communications nirvana, but it also tends to be a medium that can only be fully exploited by those with the know how and initiative to spend a lot of time finding and figuring out how to use apps. From a policy point of view it comes down the simple question of: what can the government really do to spur demand for bandwidth? One obvious answer is to continue making more of their services available online, in particular in ways that add value to the old paradigm in order to incentivize people to shift into the new. For example, webcasting government meetings through a company like Granicus. Today many of these meetings at all levels of government can be watched on TV, but what's possible online is revolutionary: never missing a meeting, watching at your convenience, easily search through agenda items, look up related materials, and more. But this alone won't be enough as there's a ton of training and equipping that needs to be done in order to help all Americans participate in this new age of communications. In order to shift the paradigm in a big way we need big ideas and a coordinated campaign uniting the abilities and interests of all parts of the Internet value chain to stand together and help inspire our country to embrace what a networked life can be. Spurring demand for broadband and therefore apps and content is an issue we can all agree on. So let's use this common ground to start finding ways to work together on crafting effective federal policy to accomplish these specific goals rather than wasting all of our time bickering over issues we don't agree on. This isn't to say we can ignore those issues we don't see eye-to-eye on, but I'm hopeful that by working together we can find more common ground that can lead to a more productive dialog and ultimately lead to more effective legislation. tag:app-rising.com,2008://1.1290 2008-11-19T19:37:22Z 2008-11-20T15:36:34Z

Earlier this week I attended my first Broadband Breakfast Club, an innovative series of breakfast meetings in DC aimed at providing a venue for the various stakeholders in broadband policy debates to come together and discuss/debate issues in a more...

Geoff Daily here.]]> tag:app-rising.com,2008://1.1289 2008-11-13T12:18:57Z 2008-11-13T14:08:24Z

According to a number of readers, in my post on Tuesday I gave the impression that AT&T and the cablecos are big, evil corporations for having begun implementing bandwidth caps. But that's not necessarily the case. My overall stance on...

Geoff Daily Gigi Sohn and Tim Wu have said similar things. This doesn't mean though that we should not be vigilant in monitoring what's happening and vocal in expressing our displeasure when good intentions turn into harmful actions. But let's take a breath and let things pan out before rushing to judgment. ]]> tag:app-rising.com,2008://1.1288 2008-11-12T15:54:21Z 2008-11-12T17:58:31Z

Broadband over Power Lines, or BPL, has been a boondoggle for years. Initially touted as a leading contender for establishing a third broadband pipe into homes to compete with DSL and cable, it has since proven to be an unreliable...

Geoff Daily article this morning entitled, "IBM to help build broadband network in power lines." Apparently IBM is teaming up with a new company called International Broadband Electric Communications Inc. to deploy BPL across large swathes of rural America. What's interesting about this is that they admit that BPL can't compete with cable and DSL; it costs too much for not enough speed. So instead of trying to establish it as a third pipe, they're going to focus on areas that aren't being adequately served by cable or DSL, where 86% of homes have no other broadband options. Within the next two years they plan on working with electric cooperatives to build out to reach 340,000 homes. On the surface this is kind of exciting. I'm all for anything that allows more people to get online who can't today. But digging a little deeper there's still a lot of uncertainty. First off, as far as I can tell there's been no mention of what speeds will ultimately be offered. I suppose anything will be better than nothing, but it's hard to get too excited without knowing what users will be receiving. Secondly, they mention prices starting at $30 a month. While that's cheaper than satellite, which is typically the option of last resort for connectivity, I'd like to see a basic package under $20. If we're trying to get people who may have never used the Internet before and don't understand its value, we can't expect them to pay too much for it. Third, I can't get over the sense that at best BPL is nothing more than a stopgap technology. While it'd be great to give rural users a way to get online, ultimately we need to be focused on providing them with the kind of connectivity that can support the kind of applications and economic development that only full fiber networks make possible. But some of the rhetoric being used to describe this initiative has me worried that its impact is being blown out of proportion: "'The technology is important but what's really important is this is a seminal moment in the delivery of broadband services to rural customers,' said Bill Moroney, the head of the Utilities Telecom Council, an industry trade group." The simple truth about BPL is that it really only works for three purposes: - As a stopgap technology to be used only until something better can be put into place. - As a way for utilities to monitor their electrical networks. - As a solution for in-home networking. This last purpose is the area that gets me most excited about BPL. Imagine a day when all your appliances are smart, but rather than everything having to have Ethernet ports or wireless cards built in to connect to the Internet instead all you had to do is plug in the power cord and get connected via BPL. In my mind, that's where our energy developing BPL should be focused as that's got unlimited potential, whereas broadband via BPL has a limited future as it can't compete with alternative technologies. The most important thing to remember in all this, though, is that while it could be great to get more people online who can't do so today, we can't take our eye off the ball when it comes to planning out these areas' broadband future. We can't say that now that these places have BPL we don't have to worry about them anymore. And I'm hopeful that even advocates of BPL understand this as the second part of the quote from Moroney I pulled out of the article above states: ""Here's a beginning and really a great leap forward." I couldn't agree more. This BPL to rural areas initiative is a beginning not the endgame. As long as we keep that in mind and put BPL in its place, then this will be a terrific step forward.]]> tag:app-rising.com,2008://1.1287 2008-11-11T14:58:33Z 2008-11-11T15:49:03Z

There's a great Wired article from last week about AT&T's new trial of bandwidth caps in Reno, NV. It hits on how the introduction of bandwidth caps is happening primarily on networks where bandwidth is scarce, like on cable networks...

Geoff Daily article from last week about AT&T's new trial of bandwidth caps in Reno, NV. It hits on how the introduction of bandwidth caps is happening primarily on networks where bandwidth is scarce, like on cable networks and now AT&T. Then it points to the fact that this is also a play by these corporations to try and make more money from there users. And then finishes it with this: "Meanwhile, Verizon, one of the few companies holding out on broadband caps, says it has no plans for implementing broadband caps in the near future. 'That's not to say it won't ever happen. But at the moment we have plenty of capacity and we're happy to deliver to our users as much bandwidth as they require,' said Verizon spokesman Jim Smith." Wow. Game, set, match, Verizon. I don't see how anyone can ever doubt their decision to invest in a full fiber infrastructure any more. Not only is their network affording them more flexibility in offering better service, they're also winning big time in the court of public opinion if for no other reason than they're able to avoid being lumped in with those big, evil corporations that are trying to restrict service and charge more for it. I mean, that's really what this is boiling down to from consumers' perspectives: some companies want to take away their unlimited plans and make their bills go up, and Verizon doesn't. Why? Because they have a better product and infrastructure. Now I should say that this is more from the tech savvy person's perspective. Or put another way, the average Wired reader. I can't say for sure this will have as much impact on the ground as AT&T and Verizon don't generally compete for wireline customers and not every cable company has implemented bandwidth caps. Plus those that have don't exactly go out of the way to make them public. But I can't help but feel like this article may be a bellwether of things to come as Verizon's decision to invest in a full fiber infrastructure continues to pay more and more dividends. The question is how aggressive they're going to be in exploiting this advantage. Imagine the commercial in areas where FiOS competes against capped cable: "Hey, so I here Comcast's capped your service...But it's not even that fast to begin with...And don't you notice how slow it gets sometimes, and how some apps don't see to work right? Why not come over to Verizon FiOS where we've got bandwidth galore." If I were Verizon I'd be doing everything in my power to get consumers hungry for bandwidth as the more they want the more they'll need FiOS, and the better that investment in full fiber networks will look, both technologically and in terms of public perception.]]> tag:app-rising.com,2008://1.1286 2008-11-10T13:07:28Z 2008-11-10T13:23:56Z

A few weeks ago I wrote about the frustrations of being an NFL fan without cable service when it comes to trying to watch the games especially now that Monday Night Football's on ESPN. But the most widely denounced aspect...

Geoff Daily frustrations of being an NFL fan without cable service when it comes to trying to watch the games especially now that Monday Night Football's on ESPN. But the most widely denounced aspect of the NFL's restrictive approach to content distribution has been their decision to play a few games on Thursday night's that are only available on NFL Network, a TV channel that many cable systems don't have as in order to add it to their lineup they'd have to increase prices for all their subscribers regardless of whether or not they actually want that channel. I've heard NFL fans across the country lamenting this state of affairs, especially in my fantasy football league, which I wrote about my hyperconnected draft for back in August. There are lots of frustrated fans who want to watch these games but can't. Or can they? Here's the most unbelievably crazy thing about this whole state of affairs: those NFL Network games are available to anyone online. I'm not talking about just clips or a recording to watch after the fact. If you go to NFL.com (or even the boxscore at ESPN.com, which includes a link) on Thursday nights you can watch live video of the game in action. It's a pretty good experience too, with decent quality video and the ability to switch between multiple cameras to watch different angles on the action. But what makes this crazy is that the average fan doesn't know they can do this. When I mentioned it on my league's message board I had one friend who was beside himself that he'd just spent a night reading the play-by-play online when he could've been watching the game live. He was incredulous that this existed and he didn't know as he's a big-time fan plus to make matters even more unbelievable he's a techie so there were no barriers from that perspective. Instead I think part of what happened was such a big deal was made about the games only being available on NFL Network that us fans assumed we couldn't watch it anywhere else and that we were resigned to either going to a bar or watching the stats tick up. And yet in reality while the NFL has kept their games off of a large number of cable systems, they've also made these games more accessible then just about any others (though I should mention NBC has also been streaming live video of Sunday Night Football games). This example highlights both how content owners need to be more forthright with their audience as to what's available where and when, plus it shows how just because you put something online doesn't mean people will know it's there to watch even if they're really interested in the content.]]> tag:app-rising.com,2008://1.1285 2008-11-06T13:38:48Z 2008-11-06T14:07:35Z

OK, this is starting to get a bit absurd. As I continue to explore our past, present, and future economic stimulus packages I can't help but mention reported plans to extend another $25 billion line of credit to the auto...

Geoff Daily OK, this is starting to get a bit absurd. As I continue to explore our past, present, and future economic stimulus packages I can't help but mention reported plans to extend another $25 billion line of credit to the auto industry in addition to the $25 billion Congress has already set aside. Before I get into this I have to say that in no way am I saying we shouldn't be doing this. I totally understand that the auto industry is responsible for thousands and even millions of jobs in this country, and that this money isn't totally a giveaway so much as a loan that'll hopefully be paid back, so I'm generally supportive of efforts to ensure their continued viability. Yet let's take a step back and consider this. The first half of this $50 billion was ostensibly to support new investment in alternative fuel cars. So after years of automakers fighting higher fuel efficiency standards and refusing to invest in developing alternative fuel cars, we're now having to bail out an entire industry with taxpayer dollars in the hopes of finally spurring them to action now that the market has passed them by. The second half of this $50 billion is to serve as a line of credit upon which automakers can draw upon to keep up with basic expenses, like their healthcare and pension obligations to their workers. While I know that much of this has to do with helping them overcome the lack of available credit elsewhere, I can't help feeling like this is an instance of taxpayer dollars having to prop up a business model that can't support itself, which makes me worry about the long-term future of getting that money back. But my issue isn't with the mistakes the auto industry has made. Instead what frustrates me is the mindset that's led to these massive infusions of cash that says it's more important to protect existing paradigms than to embrace new paradigms and possibilities. That it's more important to bail out the biggest of companies so they can continue with business as usual than to support the efforts of smaller businesses and independent entrepreneurs to innovate and establish new paradigms for the 21st century. It feels like we're so caught up in the frenzy of trying to hold on to what we already have that we've taken our eye off the ball as to what can be done to support the growth of new industries and the creation of new jobs. Again, I'm not trying to say we're wrong for doing this, but instead I'm trying to stress the fact that instead of just trying to survive we have the opportunity to thrive during this economic crisis so long as we prioritize supporting new ideas and entrepreneurship at least as much as we do holding on to old ideas and the status quo. I mean think about it: what would happen if we gave fiber deployers a $50 billion line of credit to deploy new networks in rural areas? I'd bet within 5-10 years we'd have well over half of rural America wired with full fiber networks, if not more. That would put us so far ahead of the rest of the world it's not even funny. By doing this we'd be creating jobs associated with the deployment and management of the network, we'd be empowering existing businesses to expand and laying the groundwork for new businesses to locate themselves in rural areas, we'd be establishing the framework for a host of new efficiencies that can be driven by the use of the network across all of society, and beyond. Plus it's arguable that those entities that want to deploy fiber have greater needs than the auto industry as without huge amounts of capital they can't afford to put any infrastructure in the ground, without that infrastructure they don't have any revenue, and without any revenue they can't be creating jobs. I've said this once but I'll continue saying it over and over until it gets through to people: it's not that we can't wire rural America with fiber--we've got the people, technology, demand, and resources to do so--it's about where our priorities are. And in my mind while we're working to bolster existing paradigms we need to be devoting as much time and energy to supporting efforts to establish new paradigms as this is the only way we're going to be able to create the new jobs, new growth, and new efficiencies that'll help us weather this and any future economic storm. tag:app-rising.com,2008://1.1284 2008-11-05T14:49:14Z 2008-11-05T15:23:59Z

Wow. Watching the election last night was a mind-boggling experience from an online perspective. There were just so many choices. Every major TV news channel was streaming live coverage online. Alongside video on these sites were a host of interactive...

Geoff Daily VideotheVote.org provided a venue through which user-generated content documenting the election experience could be aggregated. There were just so many new sources of information and varying perspectives from across the country, and really around the globe as the world was most definitely watching America last night. And increasingly these online resources were of the interactive multimedia-driven variety that demands broadband. So it's hard to fathom how our next presidential election is going to be covered four years from now when hopefully everyone in America has and uses broadband, where fiber is everywhere so video of the highest quality can be delivered, and where the traditional news outlets have even more experience delivering compelling online experiences. One final thought to share on this online coverage from a bandwidth perspective is let's think about how much media was created in the last 12 hours. Consider this math: - Let's say there were a million people outside last night celebrating nationwide (a number that has to be low as there may have been near that many in Chicago alone) - Let's say 10% of those people were capturing some or all of the evening in photos and on video, so roughly 100,000 people (based on the number of cellphones and cameras I saw in crowds it could've been much higher) - Let's say each of those people created 100MB worth of content (another low number for anyone shooting video or lots of hi-res photos) - Now let's say that 10% of these people decide to upload their photo and videos to a website to share with friends and family (a likely low number since most people who create digital content today share it in some way online) So based on these four low-ball estimates we get 10,000 people times 100MB which equals 1 Terabyte (TB) worth of content created in less than half a day and likely to be uploaded over the next couple of days. A few years ago that was an unfathomable amount of information, now we're creating that in a night, and that number's only going up as more people start using these technologies, the technologies gain ever higher resolution, and this content increasingly makes its way online.]]> tag:app-rising.com,2008://1.1283 2008-11-03T12:12:18Z 2008-11-03T12:27:20Z

As I build my argument for the establishment of a Rural Fiber Fund I can't help but point out the many places we're spending billions with less efficacy and clarity of vision than what I've been proposing as the solution...

Geoff Daily As I build my argument for the establishment of a Rural Fiber Fund I can't help but point out the many places we're spending billions with less efficacy and clarity of vision than what I've been proposing as the solution to the rural broadband problem. My latest target is the Universal Service Fund, or USF. You'll recognize that name from your phone bill as each month you pay a little bit into this fund that has the intent of ensuring rural areas have access to phone service. More recently there's been a push to have USF apply not just to phone service but also to broadband. But there's a fly in this soup: by all accounts the USF is a broken system. It's not done all that well to spur the deployment of new infrastructure, and instead exists primarily today to subsidize the existing business model of network operators with no accommodations made for upgrading that infrastructure or even for getting these operators self-sufficient and not relying on USF contributions every month to stay viable. To give you a sense for the cost of this program, check out this quote from Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) in a letter to FCC Chairman Kevin Martin: "The program has already cost Americans $51 billion over ten years, and yet there is still no end in sight," he says. "Adding broadband will only entrap yet another service in this broken and anti-competitive subsidy program." Hmm...so we've spent $50 billion over 10 years and don't have much of anything to show for it other than some rural areas having telephone service. But where have we seen that number before? That's right, it's basically what I've been proposing for the Rural Fiber Fund. So think of it this way: if instead of subsidizing providers of phone service we'd focused on getting next-gen infrastructure in place we'd already have wired all of rural America with a full fiber network for the same cost. Yet again this proves that it's not that we don't have the money to do this, it's about where our priorities are and what our vision for America's future is. So let's change those priorities, commit ourselves to achieving the goal of a Full Fiber Nation, and establish the Rural Fiber Fund to help those areas where competition isn't working get a leg up on the global economy. It's not a matter of can we afford to do it, it's can we afford not to, can we take the chance of losing our small towns. I say no. tag:app-rising.com,2008://1.1282 2008-10-31T14:30:12Z 2008-10-31T14:41:35Z

I'm a sucker for cool new online interfaces, especially those that find a way to bring traditional paradigms into the networked environment. To that end, let me point you to one of Amazon.com's latest projects: Amazon Windowshop Beta. Here what...

Geoff Daily Amazon Windowshop Beta. Here what you'll find is a dynamic way to peruse through books, audiobooks, music, videogames, and movies. Simply use your up-down-left-right arrows to scroll through and any time you pause on something that looks of interest the site will automatically start feeding you more info, like playing a movie trailer or audio of someone reading a book. There are many things I love about this: - It's slick. Super easy navigation, smooth animation when stuff moves around, reasonably intuitive structuring of where things are; it just works. - It demands bandwidth. Lots of video is thrown around as you can easily watch a dozen trailers within minutes, though this also seems to rely on processor speed as much as connectivity, so it can get a little sluggish if your computer's slow. - It lets you buy right away. Not surprising it enables this, but what's neat is that most of these products have a digital online version so you can go from perusing to purchasing immediately. - It's arguably better than regular window shopping. This is what really gets me going. I actually think I like window shopping through this site better in real life. For movies when you're in a store all you have to go on is what the box looks like. The same often holds true for music, though many stores nowadays have listening stations. It's also arguable whether or not this is better for games as it's commonplace to have stations set up where you can play the game first, and that doesn't exist on this site yet. But even still, I found myself really enjoying Amazon's attempt to reinvent window shopping. While for now it may be more gimmick than game changer, it helps point to a future where online experiences become more graphical, more interactive, more robust, and more capable of improving upon paradigms we're already familiar with. So good work, Amazon. Keep it up!]]> tag:app-rising.com,2008://1.1281 2008-10-30T14:47:08Z 2008-10-30T15:08:45Z

Last night I took time to watch Sen. Obama's infomercial. While I generally enjoyed it something caught my attention during the last few minutes as it cut to live video of him addressing a crowd in Florida. He was going...

Geoff Daily Last night I took time to watch Sen. Obama's infomercial. While I generally enjoyed it something caught my attention during the last few minutes as it cut to live video of him addressing a crowd in Florida. He was going on about laying broadband lines everywhere even citing the need to get these networks into rural areas so businesses can locate there. Then he paused slightly, and began saying, "$15 billion a year." I sat up in my seat immediately somehow hoping beyond hope that he was committing himself to spending some serious money on upgrading our nation's telecommunications infrastructure. Only his next words showed that instead this was just his usual call for investing $15 billion a year for five years in green technology. My first reaction was frustration. Yet again we have a politician who pays lip service to broadband who while he seems to get the economic development aspect of broadband hasn't yet put the pieces together regarding how broadband can help make us energy independent, improve our healthcare, expand our educational opportunities, and so on. But then I found myself getting hopeful. While we haven't convinced everyone about the need for fiber, we have had great success in establishing the necessity of broadband. While we haven't gotten serious dollars committed to solving these problems, especially in rural areas, we've got another economic stimulus package coming down the pike, the FCC's about to attempt to revise USF, and we've got a president who at least claims to understand the urgent importance of getting our rural communities wired, so the money may soon be there. It seems like now is the time that new ideas can be turned into action. Take this for example: Instead of $15 billion a year for greentech, what if we said $20 billion a year for upgrading our 21st century technological infrastructure. We then split that in half, $10 billion a year for five years for greentech, and $10 billion a year for five years for fiber. Or even better, why not $50 billion a year for five years, $25 billion each for greentech and fiber. That way from the fiber perspective you'd have enough to wire the entire country while likely also having some left over to help get people equipped and educated to use these networks. Plus on the greentech side we'd have enough money to not just develop new technologies but get them deployed, like giant solar farms, massive upgrades to our electrical distribution systems, and so on. Now it may feel like I'm playing with Monopoly money here, but let's put this into perspective. I'm only talking about $250 billion. Contrast that against the $700 billion bailout. Are we really better off funneling hundreds of billions of dollars into banks that'll be used for them to buy other banks and become bigger? Or should we invest that money into securing America's future and bringing our technological infrastructures into the 21st century? I think you all know my answer to this. I can only hope that whoever becomes our next president agrees. tag:app-rising.com,2008://1.1280 2008-10-29T12:50:10Z 2008-10-29T13:15:56Z

Yesterday on the way to meeting my wife for dinner I got to talking with my cab driver, asking him the question, What does broadband mean to you? At first he hesitated, so I cajoled him a bit questioning whether...

Geoff Daily Yesterday on the way to meeting my wife for dinner I got to talking with my cab driver, asking him the question, What does broadband mean to you? At first he hesitated, so I cajoled him a bit questioning whether or not he's even heard of the term before, but then he responded (and I paraphrase), "Isn't that the cable thing?" Well yes, I responded, but what about the telephone company, would you get broadband from them? He paused again and then mumbled, "Well maybe Verizon..." I pressed further, asking if he'd heard of fiber-to-the-home, which didn't ring any bells until I said FiOS, which he immediately recognized as they're marketing it in the DC suburb in which he lives. Let's pause for a moment and marvel at what just happened: this cab driver just said DSL does not qualify as broadband. What's remarkable about this is that while he did seem more tech savvy than some, he also in no way gave any indication that he's an early adopter. In talking with him it really felt like I was getting an insight into mainstream America's perception of these issues. The fact that to him DSL does not mean broadband was stunning. It leaves me hopeful that perhaps the marketplace is starting to understand the relative value of next-generation infrastructure. It also suggests that anyone trying to compete in the broadband wars with nothing more than DSL has quite the uphill battle to face. tag:app-rising.com,2008://1.1278 2008-10-27T14:46:19Z 2008-10-27T15:14:55Z

I came across this really interesting post on Slashdot.org last week from a user who's trying to find ways to not waste bandwidth. He (or she) shares that their broadband connection has a cap of 1GB per month and that...

Geoff Daily post on Slashdot.org last week from a user who's trying to find ways to not waste bandwidth. He (or she) shares that their broadband connection has a cap of 1GB per month and that they're charged at a rate of 2.5 cents per MB thereafter. What's been frustrating for them is that so many sites nowadays have a tendency to send more and more data regardless of whether or not you want it. He even cites things like how if you watch a YouTube video, click a link, but then try to go back to that original video it has to load again even though it was just downloaded a few minutes earlier. While wherever this user is located has much lower bandwidth caps than anything being discussed here in the States, it does speak to an inevitable outcome of any cap: the need to ration your usage to avoid paying overage fees. This makes me wonder what will happen moving forward in terms of app development as a result of this. Already developers have to spend a lot of time trying to squeeze as much data as possible through a tiny pipe. Now we're also going to make them worry about conserving bandwidth over time as well. In some ways this may not be all bad as it may lead to more efficient apps as well as efforts to improve the user experience of that YouTube example above, plus often where you introduce limitations it affords an opportunity for creativity to thrive to overcome these boundaries. But at the same time, I can't help but worry that this could also lead to more time being wasted trying to overcome the limitations of broadband infrastructure rather than staying focused on developing exciting new applications that rely on the availability of lots of bandwidth. This may be especially true for the growing number of apps that demand not just high bandwidth but that that throughput be sustained for a long period of time, like when watching a high quality live webcast or utilizing terminal computing where you access a virtual computer over the network and your apps reside on a server rather than your desktop. Also, from the user perspective, I hate that we're now going to be forcing users to start worrying about how much bandwidth they're using at a time when we've still got so much work to do to encourage them to want to use more in the first place. And without that demand for more bandwidth we won't be able to get the networks that'll supply big bandwidth connectivity. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for finding more efficient ways to utilize networks. I figure the more we can do with less, then ultimately the more we'll be able to do with more once the capacity's there to do so. And I completely respect the need for network operators to find ways to maintain a viable business in the face of growing demand for bandwidth overwhelming the standard all-you-can-eat model of broadband service. But even still, I can't help but find myself frustrated that at a time when I and others are trying to find ways to get people to use more bandwidth to prove the need for full fiber networks we're simultaneously entering an era when apps developers and users may need to worry about using less.]]> tag:app-rising.com,2008://1.1276 2008-10-23T13:25:21Z 2008-10-23T13:56:56Z

A few days ago I discovered this site, an effort by the National Science Foundation entitled "NSF and the Birth of the Internet". It's a Flash-based site that takes you through the history of the Internet and NSF's role in...

Geoff Daily site, an effort by the National Science Foundation entitled "NSF and the Birth of the Internet". It's a Flash-based site that takes you through the history of the Internet and NSF's role in supporting its growth. Select a decade and choose from a handful of entries, many of which include video that features the thought leaders that made the Internet possible. The information in this site is interesting, though not necessarily new to anyone already familiar with this history. The interface is simple and works well. And I was impressed that they were able to make the musings of highly technical people enjoyable to watch. The three things that stood out to me the most came during the 2000s section in a discussion about the future. They include: - The fact that the capacity of the human eye is about 10Gbps, so until networks are capable of supporting that to each user, we can't claim to have achieved enough speed to stop investing in capacity. - Next-gen protocols are being built with interplanetary communication in mind, where sending data between planets may take minutes, if not hours and even days. While I don't see a lot of near-term need for this, I still find it interesting as my cousin's actually been working in this space (pun intended). - At one point a speaker made an offhanded remark about how we haven't established the all-optical Internet yet, but that's exactly the opportunity we have by building a new model for in-network delivery in full fiber communities and getting them peered with each other. So hopefully through the work being done in places like Lafayette, LA we'll be able to extend this project with a significant new chapter as we prepare ourselves to have 2010 be the decade that dwarfs all others in the evolution of human communication.]]> tag:app-rising.com,2008://1.1275 2008-10-20T13:43:49Z 2008-10-20T18:43:06Z

Since I started App-Rising.com I've been advocating that we need a stronger emphasis on finding ways to spur demand for broadband rather than focusing all our attention on increasing capacity. At first these pleas seemed to be falling on deaf...

Geoff Daily article about Connected Nation's recent report based on interviews with 50,000 consumers that recommended a stronger emphasis be placed on consumers and why nearly half of America still does not subscribe to broadband service. Short version: it's too expensive and they don't know why they need it. A few weeks ago at the "Why Broadband Matter" Senate Commerce Committee hearing, I heard One Economy cofounder Rey Ramsey argue forcefully for this issue, that we can not achieve our goals of achieving a broadband nation without an equal emphasis on generating demand as supply. Now, some may find this a hard pill to swallow as one obvious outcome of increasing demand for broadband is creating new broadband customers thereby enriching broadband providers of cable, DSL, wireless, and fiber service. But ultimately this is an issue we should all be able to agree on as the more broadband subscribers the more customers there are available for entities on the Internet to sell to or draw an audience from. This is especially true in this day and age where so many websites and other online experiences rely on video that needs the bandwidth of broadband to work. Even if you don't like the idea of putting more money into the pockets of incumbents, you can't deny that the more people you can get onto the network of networks that is the Internet at higher speeds, the more valuable that network becomes. Increasing demand can also have a positive affect on increasing supply. For example, at the core of the Connected Nation model is an effort to aggregate demand in areas without broadband to show providers that there's business to be had in these areas, helping spur deployment. Also, as consumers use more bandwidth there's upward pressure on operators to increase capacity just to keep up lest these networks don't deliver the service they promised. And if we can get enough people demanding true broadband, it can help make the business models for deploying full fiber networks even more feasible than they already are. Imagine what happens when instead of the customer base being 50% of households it's 75%? More customers means more revenue either to fund fiber deployment directly or create more customers so there's more room for competition that leads to increases in capacity. But we need to remember that it's not just about educating consumers, we also need to find ways to enlighten politicians because without them able to understand why broadband matters how can we expect them to be the champions that we need them to be on these issues? And yet, despite my renewed hope that more focus will soon be put on increasing demand for broadband I can't help but worry that like in the discussion around deployment we're still not talking in concrete enough terms about not just what our goals are but how we can achieve them. It's not that there aren't things happening at all levels of government and in communities, things like One Economy's push to get computers into low-income housing and efforts to train seniors, but what we've been missing is a large-scale coordinated approach towards igniting the imaginations of everyone about the possibilities of the Internet to revolutionize how we communicate with the world. We need to find a way to create a unified message that all parties can adopt and work together under the common banner of getting more people to understand why broadband matters, because the more we do to increase demand for broadband the greater our chances of finding someone to do the job of increasing supply to the levels America needs to achieve in order to stay competitive in the global economy.]]>