Recently in Social Networking Category

I just came across this web page with some important details on ITEXPO. I mentioned the keynoters in a recent post and I still think they are one of the best combinations of thought leaders in our space. Google Voice, Sprint, Digium, Polycom, Skype and Verizon Wireless are some of the companies you will hear from at the show.

In addition there are a full eight conference tracks you cannot find anywhere else:

• Business Communications Delivery Options
• Call Center
• Developer
• Enterprise
• HD Voice
• Service Provider
• Unified Communications
• Video Communications
• TMC University Microsoft OCS

As always, we poll the collective minds of the entire TMCeditorial team and industry when we put together the conference program for TMC events and I believe this is a major differentiator. It seems like just yesterday when TMC launched our first telecom event in Atlanta, GA but it was really 1986!

What I have learned in running communications and tech conferences for 20 years is that if you continue to give your customers unsurpassed value, they come back again and again for more conferences and bring others with them.

To all of you who have attended TMC events over the years - thanks.

I really think this next show in Miami - ITEXPO East 2010 will be our best to date and I am looking forward to welcoming you personally.

Here are more details on this can't miss conference.

It is obvious television viewing is merging with the web and as such, cable companies and other triple-play providers understand they are in increasing danger of becoming providers of dumb pipes. Of course the reason carriers are adverse to this distinction has to do with more than idle cocktail party conversation -- And what do you do? "Well, my company provides stupid data pipes." How nice - I think I'll go get a drink; it was nice talking to you.

You see, carriers want to continue selling enhanced or smart services so they can charge more for each. DVR? That's $10/month. Pay-per-view that's $6.95 per movie. Applications? That's $1.99 each, etc.

But we all know this model as it applies to TV is doomed and within five years we will probably see 20-30% of television watched in the US streamed over the net. This by the way assumes there is no major catalyzing event. I for one think there will be a catalyst which will likely be Apple and/or Google rolling out some new product and/or service which makes watching TVoIP a no brainer. If this happens in the next 18 months or so, expect 30-40% of US TV to be streamed over the net in five years.

In Google's case, picture an Android-powered set-top box with YouTube HD integration which in turn is connected to all major network programming and movies. In Apple's case, their unappreciated TV product gets a major upgrade in features and functions and perhaps links with their much-rumored tablet which like the iPod and iPhone can act as a smart remote control allowing previewing of other channels before viewing them on your main screen.

If you work for a carrier providing video with a business model which doesn't take the above into account, please stop reading, take a deep breath, update your resume and post it quickly on Monster.com. While you wait for the phone to ring, let's consider how to modify your business model to take advantage of this trend.

• You can hire lobbyists to limit net neutrality legislation which you will argue will reduce your investment in broadband which is so essential to our future. Then you slow every video packet you can find on your network. Let's face it, as much as consumers think things should be free and there should be no early termination fees on networks, in reality -- banks and companies don't invest money unless they think they are going to see a return on their investments. I have taken both sides of the argument regarding net neutrality and for the record; I am concerned that carriers have a tremendous amount of control over our networks. But at the same time we should all recognize the massive investments operators are making to provide us wired and wireless broadband. We need these carriers to make a nice return on these investments so they can continue to invest.
• You can try to strike up a deal with Google, Microsoft and/or Apple to see if you can somehow get a partnership going to ensure you can still generate revenue as consumers start streaming more and more TV.
• You can buy content. Take a look at what Comcast is doing with NBC - they will be entering a JV which gives them a 51% stake of NBC Universal which is valued by the two parties at around $30 billion.
• You can attempt to insert yourself as a middleman between web viewers and content. This in my opinion is toughest route but I hope I am wrong in thinking that carriers are not good at building entertainment portals people will gravitate towards. AT&T recently rolled out a portal called AT&T Entertainment and after being live for a few weeks Quantcast says it has roughly 46,000 US unique visitors while Alexa says it doesn't register at all. Then again, AT&T.com has a rank of 500, mostly due to webmail and this means it gets massive traffic levels as it is ranked in the top 500 sites in the world. It is subsequently tough for any sub-site of AT&T to make a major contribution to traffic generation in a few weeks.

Every time the web has become a major resource for providing a service such as shopping, auctions or music, a new player emerges to be dominant and traditional players struggle. Look at how Craigslist, Amazon, eBay and Apple have taken massive amounts of share in the spaces they now play.

TV is the next frontier and Microsoft has been in the space for years with its IPTV offering but Apple and Google are better positioned for the future based on a model which leverages the very fast and dumb pipes today's carriers provide.

How service providers adapt to this changing world of video content delivery will determine their profitability for years to come. The one certainty is this transformation is happening and rapidly. If there are acquisitions to be made to shore up carrier positions, now is probably the best time to do so as valuations in the TVoIP space are likely to only go up.

Hopefully this article has helped your company form a solid TVoIP strategy which means you can just let that phone keep ringing.

You really don't want to be texting while driving if you command the $1.73 million Bugatti Veyron. You may have heard a man recently drove his into a salt water marsh. Oh, by the way, supercars and salt water don't mix. As it happens, other than coral, seaweed, sand and marine life, really not much mixes with saltwater and lasts to talk about it.

By the way, the driver said he was looking at a low flying pelican which is not pictured in this video - I believe this is slang in some areas for checking email on my iPhone.

The car was purchased for $1.25 million last month and has over 1,000 horsepower. After seeing this live video footage below (there is some understandable profanity included in the clip) I have to wonder - is there anything in the world these days which is not being filmed.

Perhaps more importantly, I wonder if paying so much money for your transportation makes sense when people like the cameraman above think you actually purchased a Lamborghini which you can get for about a fifth the money. I guess these are some things to ponder when you cash in your insurance check and go back to the local exotic car dealership.

Did I mention, Bugattis make great gifts for your favorite blogger this holiday season? 

If you don't think the Google business model of giving away as much as possible and subsidizing it through ad revenue is striking fear in the hearts of the tech world, you would be wrong. Even Steve Jobs seems afraid; you may be surprised to learn that Apple has filed a patent which has to do with showing ads in exchange for free entertainment. The patent specifically has Steve Job's name on it and specifies that users must respond to verify they are paying attention. It moreover details increasing levels of difficulty (a smaller and smaller box to click on, etc) of ad verification for the user, meaning you have an incentive to respond in order to show you are paying attention when you get a prompt to do so. Obviously this patent filing describes a user experiance which is very un-Apple like but perhaps the company realizes as I do that showing ads in exchange for entertainment, software and hardware is the natural conclusion of competition from Google.

Google already gives away gobs and gobs of free hardware in the cloud, why is a smartphone or laptop any different than massive amounts of hard disk space and processor time?

And in this perfect world dominated by ads, every hardware vendor is in trouble as they are effectively competing with free or as some call it, less than free.

If you think this idea is far-fetched, consider that Apple seems to have met with Admob, the mobile advertising leader a few weeks before the company was purchased by Google. Whether it made an offer is unknown but you have to imagine the company realizes, like Microsoft that advertising is playing a crucial role in the way technology is being adopted and Google seems to change the rules of the game on a daily basis.

What is unclear is how any of the players in the market will be able to combat the sheer advertiser ecosystem Google has already developed. This head start does not seem like it can be duplicated but with Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer all trying to figure out a way to compete, perhaps we will see more innovation in the ad market in the coming months and years. It makes one wonder if these three may be planning some sort of "we hate Google" ad summit with Rupert Murdoch and other newspaper heads in the near future.

No sooner did I write my latest post on how Google could be in danger of the feds investigating them due to antitrust concerns does this entry turn up explaining how Rupert Murdoch and other newspapers could stop Google from indexing their content and force Bing to pay them for the right to do so. Murdoch has been threatening more and more loudly to take his content away from Google and most of us with any web savvy at all thought this would be similar in effectiveness to putting your head in sand when you are afraid.

But this Bing idea would shift the balance of power overnight. I am sure all websites would like to get paid by Bing for being included in their indexes. But if Bing became the only place you could find the most important news of the day, wouldn't the number two search company pick up at least another 5-10% marketshare?

But what about setting negative precedent? I am reminded of the good old days when I was in high school and Michael Jackson wanted to get MTV to pay for the Thriller video which cost a fortune. Instead, not wanting to set precedent, MTV decided to pay for the "Making of Thriller" video. Problem solved.

So perhaps Microsoft could instead buy a few million copies of the Wall Street Journal and New York Times? Or how about throwing in a newspaper subscription coupon in every copy of Windows 7? Hey wait, a minute - that could work.

Of course this doesn't eliminate Google as a search monopoly but if enough media companies jump on the bandwagon would the balance of power be distributed more evenly and would Google be forced to start paying media companies for the content they link to?

Warning - a bit of self-promotion ahead   and a discount - Guest Blog From Carl Ford

Dear Reader,

Welcome to the next generation of regulation- the one that will be focused on the Wireless device in your hands!

The FCC, in an effort to safeguard the free and open Internet, is looking to formalize and define the principles of network openness that would apply to all platforms that access the Internet as well as the carrier's role in enabling that access.

So now the question is "Can the concept of open be governed?" Does the FCC have a role in Apple's iPhone, even if AT&T is simply a transport partner?  Does Google have to consider itself a carrier because of the use of a phone number? 

Join us at 4GWE, January 20-22, 2010 as we discuss the very relevant topic of the next generation of net neutrality and the FCC's role in the companies, devices, networks and applications driving the 4G Evolution.

Todd Daubert of Kelley Drye, Rick Whitt of Google, Hank Hultquist of AT&T, and Glenn Richards, of Pillsbury Law join us as we discuss where the debate about Net Neutrality should end and what strategies companies should take to monetize 4G networks, applications and devices.

Register NOW For Early Bird Pricing

Don't miss this and other important discussions related to the communication industry's massive evolution to wireless broadband services. Register now for 4GWE and receive the price of $995 for a full three days of conference sessions, all meals and networking events.

Kind Regards,

Carl Ford

Co-Founder Crossfire Media

4G Wireless Evolution Community Developer

In January of this year I asked if Eric Schmidt is cozying up to President Obama to protect a Google Monopoly. I took some flak for the post but the reality is the reality - the company seems to be taking over every facet of tech from book readers to voice to video to unified communications to cloud computing to photo sharing to video serving to office applications. Should I go on? How about turn-by-turn GPS?

OK, I'll stop but that won't stop others like the Chicago Tribune from picking up where I left off and asking serious questions such as whether Google's ability to use its revenue from its monopoly position in search to wipe away competition in other industries is fair or not.

Recently I commented about how Verizon's doubling of its early termination fee to $350 makes sense as the company needs to keep investing in ensuring its network is the best in the US. I may be the only person who appreciates having a fee go up as evidenced by the noise from journalists which is not subsiding. One of my favorite writers and video producers, David Pogue of The New York Times comments today that Verizon is gouging and has a plethora of ideas the company can implement to save consumers money.

Pogue has the following and very interesting comment to share:

Why wouldn't it be a hugely profitable move to start pitching yourself as the GOOD cell company, the one that actually LIKES its customers?

Verizon has some of the best customer service in the country. It has the best network by far. Everyone seems to want to switch to Verizon if they were to carry the iPhone for example. This is because the company has made absolutely massive investments where the competition has cut corners on a relative basis.

So perhaps the most succinct question to pose is what is the cost of being on the best network, having the fastest data download speeds and the least dropped calls? For many, there is no price tag too high to pay for these features and parting with an additional $5/month for phantom data charges and even more for high termination fees is fair.

I look at Verizon Wireless like I look at BMW. Both tout relatively low prices to start. But if you purchase a 328i, metallic paint will cost you $550. Cruise control costs $2,400! Navigation (which Google now gives away) is $2,100, and 19" wheels will cost you over $5,000!

If you think BMWs make some of the best cars around, you hold your nose and pay. Ditto for Verizon Wireless.

Verizon has always been the most restrictive carrier around and they locked down Bluetooth on their devices for many years except for pairing with a headset. Likewise, GPS has been locked down on most devices unless you purchased VZ Navigator for a minimum of $9.99/month or $2.99/day.

But as a customer, these annoyances and high fees were balanced by consistent spending of billions of dollars on wireless and now fiber networks.

Users should keep in mind they can always switch to AT&T, T-Mobile or Sprint if they think Verizon Wireless service isn't worth the extra money.

In fact the massive defection away from Sprint shows consumers consider more than price when it comes to making phone/network purchase decisions. In fact, I would say from a pricing perspective, Sprint may be the most customer friendly company around. I would posit that if AT&T Mobility didn't have the iPhone, consumers would be fleeing from them as well.

The iPhone threw Verizon for a loop and as predicted it is getting clobbered because it did not have the foresight to work with Apple when it had the chance.

So now, the enemy of its enemy is Google and Verizon is allowing a number of new Android phones on its network. They will get a cut of ad revenue by doing this but they are giving up virtually all services which they used to be able to charge for. Google just gave away turn-by-turn GPS for example meaning Verizon can no longer charge $10/month for the same service.

Moreover, Google will roll out dozens of new services which will be ad supported. Verizon will not be able to launch competing services as we all know a carrier can't compete with a software company.

In a moment, Verizon went from being the most closed network in the US to perhaps the most open and there is a cost associated with this move. Again, this is all pro-consumer behavior.

In fact, it seems at this point Verizon has leapfrogged AT&T in terms of openness. Especially when you consider the restrictive policing of the App Store by Apple/AT&T. Anyone who has seen the rich applications and joyous battery-sucking multitasking available on a jailbroken iPhone understands how users are being penalized by Big Brother Apple/AT&T.

So the full question to those upset with Verizon's fees should be, would you pay more for the best network and the most open ecosystem where you can take advantage of the best applications and service values around without the worry of a nanny telling you what you can and can't do?

The author switched from Verizon to AT&T because he wanted an iPhone. For about a year he carried around a Verizon phone for voice and an AT&T phone for data but that proved cumbersome and now he experiences dropped calls and other network snafus which he didn't deal with on Verizon Wireless. He not so secretly despises the App Store Nanny.

TMC's latest gadget blog Gadget Inspector (get it?) kicks off with author Marisa Torrieri performing a video interview with a Verizon Wireless representative comparing the latest Droid phones - the Motorola Droid and the HTC Droid Eris. You can subscribe to her XML/RSS feed to stay up to date on the latest in the world of gadgets and consumer electronics.
 

Wolfram Alpha crashed on to the scene some months back as a computational knowledge engine which is a hybrid of software and expert-populated database of theoretically limitless knowledge. A simple query requesting the population of Norwalk, CT where TMC is headquartered for example brings back a result of 83,456 people and states it is an estimate from 2007.

At the time of its launch, the service was hailed as a Google killer but of course it seems we are all obsessed with the violent destruction of market leaders and as such when something which seemed better than Google turned up, many were ready to bet on it. The reality is that Wolfram Alpha is a different service and can be quite useful - but it isn't a search engine.

Of course if you could integrate it with a search engine both the search engine, Wolfram Alpha and the end-user would benefit.

One would imagine Google would hesitate to help Wolfram Alpha. Perhaps they are reminded of how Yahoo! relied on Google for search and shortly thereafter Google eclipsed Yahoo in size and importance. They obviously don't want to see Wolfram Alpha doing the same thing to them but then again, this analogy is not really the same and I am sure Google is not too concerned about this new project at the moment.

But Microsoft's Bing is another story and of course it makes sense for them and Wolfram to work together because both entities live in the shadow of Google. So you can expect to see Wolfram Alpha results in Bing searches over the next few days.

While Wolfram Alpha is extremely useful when you are looking to plot formulas on a graph and determine what a dodecahedron looks like, I am wondering when they will help me figure out which direction toilets flush in different parts of the world. Thankfully - for now, I can still rely on Wikipedia to provide answers to such crucial questions. :-)