Recently in Technology Category

At a recent event I spoke with an ex-Adobe exec who blamed Apple for Flash not being available on the iPhone. The lack of Flash support on this device is the real Apple tax as I pointed out a while back. Now, Adobe has announced it will have Flash available for just about every smartphone on the market save Apple. David Coursey of PC World had this to say on the matter:

The unwillingness of Apple to play well with others should not be considered more than a momentary setback. While Apple's QuickTime competes with Flash, that is not likely to keep the Adobe technology off the iPhone for long.

It should not surprise anyone to see Apple announce its support for Flash 10.1 on the iPhone either at its anticipated pre-holiday announcement of new desktops or in early 2010. The delay should not result in any significant disadvantage for Apple or its iPhone customers.

I hope he is right but based on past research it seems Apple is in no rush to help Adobe. I hope it's just a matter of priorities because without Flash, you don't have true internet access.

One of the most interesting green technologies I have seen is carbon scrubbing where a chemical reaction is used to rid CO₂ from the atmosphere. Why is this fascinating to me? Because carbon scrubbing can be done anywhere in the world and still be effective. Ideally you want to scrub carbon where the source of emissions are but if this is not possible for financial or other reasons, the next best thing is to do it where prices are lower.

Once scrubbed you have to decide what to do with the carbon. A common idea is to bury it but you can also use it to manufacture plastics. The great news is this technology is getting better and if it continues to improve, carbon scrubbing could become a major contributor to the green movement.

Let's face it... The easiest way to change the way the world consumes and burns fuel is to not require as much change. My point is it is a lot easier to perfect this technology than to have to develop an entire new infrastructure for powering cars, airlines, etc. Think about it. Depending on what direction we go in, every gas station will have to also carry hydrogen. Or the entire global electrical grid will have to be beefed up to rapidly charge cars. Another option companies are working on is replaceable electric batteries for automobiles which can be rapidly swapped at gas stations.

Scrubbing carbon from the air would avoid the need to do any of these things. It is far from perfected mind you but it is a great technology to have in our collective green arsenal.

The great thing about scrubbing is again, no behavior change. You get to keep your gas guzzling car or SUV and save the planet at the same time. More.

Cisco has done a remarkable job pushing the telepresence market forward but on the low-end of the market the company left lots of room for smaller players such as Tandberg, Lifesize, etc to prosper while relying on Cisco's marketing and PR to carry them forward. Now Cisco is about to pick up Norway based Tandberg, a strong player in the video market for $3 billion in cash.

Obviously this deal is in line with the John Chamber's vision of video everywhere and moreover allows Cisco to control a large part of the video market. Cisco is now in the position now more than ever of being able to lower the prices of the video units it sells so as to move more routers and other data center products.

Companies like Polycom are not pleased with the situation. Stefan Karapetkov, Emerging Technologies Director for the company had this to say in his blog:

Cisco announced today that they will acquire Tandberg, and this will have significant impact on the video communications market. It will reduce competition, and limit customers' choices, especially in the telepresence space. It will, hurt Radvision who now fills the gap in Cisco's video infrastructure portfolio.

I am however more concerned about the standards-compliance that have been the pillar of the video communication industry for years. Tandberg and Polycom worked together in international standardization bodies such as ITU-T and in industry consortiums such as IMTC to define standard mechanisms for video systems to communicate.

Cisco on the other hand is less interested in standards, and considers proprietary extensions as a way to gain competitive advantage. The concern of the video communication industry right now should be that the combined company will be so heavily dominated by Cisco that standards will become last priority, far after integrating Tandberg products with Cisco Call Manager and WebEx.

Telling is the fact that both Tandberg and Cisco declined participating in interoperability events over the last few months.

While I am not as up to date on the travel schedule of Tandberg and Cisco - especially as it pertains to standards meetings, it is obvious that with this acquisition, Cisco will have a major, overshadowing position in video and this is bad for customers as there will be less room for competition.

As a Cisco investor, you should look at this move in a positive way as Cisco has had a good track record with M&A in the b2b space.

Still, the Tandberg acquisition is a large one and the larger the acquired company, the more chance for failure. This deal will be a tough one to screw up though as Cisco's sales channel has the right relationships to move lots of Tandberg s gear. Polycom is not a small company and they are well respected in voice and video. This deal will put pressure on them but could also open up gaps in the market which can be exploited as Cisco digests this large video meal.

xG Technology proclaimed in 2005 that they have a revolutionary technology which allows wireless broadband using unlicensed and licensed frequencies. They said they could build the equivalent to a WiMAX network without the need to spend a massive amount on spectrum auctions and moreover, their technology had better range than WiMAX.

It seemed too good to be true and after some years of waiting, the communications industry got impatient. After all, this revolutionary technology had the potential to change the way wireless networks are deployed. If it was real, where was it? Again, it seemed beyond what was possible and after time, even patient old me figured the story didn't add up. I even asked the company to show us the technology so we could set the record straight.

xG responded with an invitation for a visit a short while after.

I drove to xG Technology's Florida headquarters and met the management team and drilled them with questions. I was the first person from the outside to see the company's xMax technology in action and wanted to come back with an accurate story. Of course, I wanted to know what you want to know - are they going to change the wireless world or not? Are they going to give WiMAX and LTE a run for its money? Most importantly, I wanted to understand how it is possible for a company few have heard of to go up against the major wireless players and win - doing something in a different way.

The results of my questions can be summed up as follows... The company bit off more than it could chew in 1995 and should have waited before talking.

A discussion of xMax, frequencies used, etc



It is obvious now they underestimated the complexity of what they were trying to accomplish. xG had to develop a wireless technology in a noisy spectrum from scratch. This is far more difficult than developing technology in a licensed spectrum where interference is a relative afterthought. They had to build base stations, chips, test gear and even a phone. In the world of WiMAX you can purchase chips from one vendor, test systems from another and phones from other companies. Time to market in WiMAX is much shorter as an entire ecosystem is developing products which interoperate and interconnect with one another. Imagine building it all yourself in spectrum which most engineers will tell you is not usable.

When you realize the size, scope and you might even add lunacy of the undertaking, it makes sense that the company spent $100 million dollars developing it all. Moreover, while they have about 50 engineers today, they averaged about 30 during their corporate history. It does seem impossible when you think about it.

Now that we got that out of the way - on to some specifics about the solution.

What frequencies does it run on? Currently 902-928 MHz but it is software definable meaning the solution can potentially be used in white space situations as well.

I had a chance to see the digital and RF boards which end-user devices would incorporate. At this point they are 2-8 times as large as a comparable WiMAX chipset but I would expect them to come down in size over time and as they are produced in volume.

xG xMax digital and RF boards

Voice is transmitted over the network via SIP with header compression and other techniques which minimize latency, bandwidth use, etc. The company's first handset the TX60 has integrated WiFI.

TX60 with soon to be added flip antenna

Perhaps the most interesting stat is they estimate that 700 MHz spectrum costs about 12 times more than equivalent xMax coverage when you factor in the cost of the frequency auctions.

Mobile base switching center

I was further told that one of the company's customers Townes Tele-Communications, Inc. has a few towers and their 100 foot tower has a range of 2.5 miles while one at 350 feet in the air has 6-8 mile range and is superior in coverage area to the nearby GSM equipment.

Now for the real-world test. President and CTO Joe Bobier handed me a TX60 phone and told me they are still working on their battery management technology. This phone had none I was told.
 

With that we made a call and I started talking to the command center from a few feet away. The voice quality? It was good. As good as any cell phone for sure. We then went into the test vehicle which had a massive power inverter for laptops which run diagnostics on the phone in a real-world setting. The quality was still great.

xG Technology command center

 

We drove for 30-45 minutes and the voice quality never diminished except in one spot where everyone warned me voice quality would be a bit choppy. Generally There was no latency or anything which made you think you were talking on any phone which is inferior to what you may use today. I kept asking the people on the other end to count to ten when we were near overhead wires or in areas I suspected there would be poor reception. Other than the spot mentioned above, the quality never diminished.

Mobile testing in South Florida

As the test ran on, the phone got "fry an egg on me" hot and at some point the sound stopped working. The phone was still connected according to the laptop but you couldn't converse. We called once more and after a while the voice couldn't be heard again.

It is worth pointing out that the phone was plugged into the laptop which graphed its diagnostics and this meant the phone was charging and subsequently running hotter than it would have on batteries alone. It was as hot as early WiFi phones I had tested some years back and Joe suspected the heat was the issue with the phone. I have no reason to doubt this assertion.

In summary, it works. Was it a perfect demo? No. But they never are and when you compare this to what the wireless carriers have had years to perfect, you come away very impressed. There are lots of discussions we can have about noise floors in the 900 MHz spectrum and how the company deals with interference but they are beyond the scope of this article. Moreover, we drove around enough residential and commercial areas that I am satisfied that I experienced a real-world test.

Who is the target for this technology? Incumbents (playing in other areas) CLECs, cable companies, mobile operators, OEMs,content providers such as Google, MVNOs, etc.

What does it cost? Well for a cool $2 billion you could have 70% POP coverage for 452 metros or about 90% of the population of the US. This would include at least a megabit of bandwidth per channel.

I know what you are thinking. Can it scale? The answer of course is I don't know but any customer is going to test it out before they buy and the company knows this. In addition, the description of how xG lays out its channels leads me to believe they have thought this issue through well.

But in the end there is nothing like a real-world volume test to know for sure.

So was it worth the trip? Yes. Can xMax from xG Technology change the wireless world? Quite possibly. But before we go too far down this path it is worth mentioning that areas of coverage are exclusive meaning only one carrier can pick up each city or metro area. This is an important consideration for companies looking to become a next-gen wireless carrier.

For now I believe the question has been answered. At least for my demo, xMax worked well and is real. When you realize that this company may have found a way to take a frequency riddled with wireless garbage and turn it into a fully functioning wireless voice and data network you start to see how much of a game changer this could be for the wireless industry.

Skype has been doing a great job integrating with Asterisk, ShoreTel, Nortel, Cisco and others. It took years to get the ball rolling but now the momentum is strong and further shows just how serious the software-based phone company is about integrating with SMB and enterprise customers.

I spoke with Ian Robin Skype's Head of Commercial Development Business regarding the progress the company is making integrating with equipment providers and the channel.

The video below has the details.

Last week's most interesting tech news may just be the controversy brewing in the world of net neutrality where FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski is looking to extend these principles to wireless networks. To me it makes sense that all networks should embrace net neutrality and subsequently charge users accordingly. In other words if I want to stream infinite amounts of music and videos, I should be allowed to as I realize I have to pay for my greater than average usage. Currently I use Skype video on an EVDO wireless network when no broadband alternatives exist and I am always fearful my carrier will shut me down for doing so. Why? Because the terms of service of many wireless carriers forbid VoIP and restrict the amount of bandwidth used per month. I would rather pay a few dollars more per month for EVDO and not live in fear. Moreover, if I want to see my family on Skype, I prefer to see them at the highest resolution and best quality possible and it upsets me that deep packet inspection tools are used by carriers to slow "undesirable" net traffic and in turn potentially reduce the clarity of video calls.

When I purchased an iPhone a while back I wanted it purely for web browsing but AT&T forced me to purchase a voice plan which cost me more than $40/per month. Did I feel like I was being ripped off? Sure. But I knew the phone was subsidized and moreover I knew telecom rules, rates and regulations in the US have often defied logic. For many years it cost much more to call someone one town over than it did to call someone across the country. Local calls while generally free cost the carrier money. In the nineties a thriving international callback business was launched when people realized they could call into the US from an international number and hang up and let a computer call them back from the US where rates were far cheaper. This International callback space preceded the IP communications market but similar to VoIP, it looked for opportunities to reduce phone rates by playing on the inconsistencies in international telecom rates and regulations.

Carriers have to deal with these inconsistencies while trying to generate profit in a world where VoIP has wreaked havoc on their ability to make money. Thankfully the cellular market exists because if it didn't, AT&T would be a very different company - perhaps more similar to Kodak as it watches its monopoly (duopoly, etc) position erode.

Part of the reason the FCC is talking about net neutrality principles has to do with Apple denying Google Voice into the app store. As most journalists know,  you are better off getting information out of the CIA than you are out of Apple - when it doesn't want to comment that is. Google says Apple didn't approve of their application, Apple said it hasn't decided. I believe Apple realizes this application will cut into AT&T revenue, making it less feasible for it and other carriers to pay the hefty fees the iPhone commands from carriers. You may recall an application called Newber which was developed last year allowed the iPhone to have a second phone line and bypass calls which would normally ride on the AT&T wireless network. It should be no surprise that Apple didn't approve of this application either - or as they like to say about VoIP apps when the FCC asks, -- "We are still considering it."

But back to the Apple/Google or should I say AT&T/Google controversy? Recently AT&T happened to point out that Google Voice doesn't adhere to net neutrality principles because it doesn't allow calls to areas of the countries where termination rates are high. Actually AT&T has a good point and while many "free press" advocates are complaining that this is not an apples to apples comparison because Google is not a telephone company.

While this is true, Google is not an underdog and it is difficult to feel sorry for a company which has a monopoly on web searching. Moreover, this dominant position has allowed the company to help wipe out much of the newspaper and magazine business which many argue is reducing the quality of articles consumers have access to. Amazingly Google can give things away all day long without affecting its stock price. They build browsers, operating systems, applications, services and all the while they don't have to make money from any of it - their core search business fuels the destruction of value in countless industries. In fact blogger Flourian Seroussi thinks Google is dumping and feels they need to be brought to justice.

The reason the newspaper discussion above is relevant is because Google seems to thrive on destroying business models as it looks for new ways to potentially generate revenue. These moves are all considered to be positive for consumers but in the newspaper and magazine example, there is little money left for serious investigative reporting at these organizations. I wonder if Google continues down its desired path, will it also reduce AT&T's ability to invest in its network? Likewise for other carriers worldwide.

Remember that $40/month I paid AT&T above? Some of it went to reinvesting in a faster network. I may not like to pay it but I do realize carriers need to make profit.

So yes, if Google wants the world to be utopian and fair then it needs to connect to all numbers as well. The company argues that it shouldn't need to do this but I find the argument less than convincing. One of the things which has bothered me about Skype and now Google Voice is that they tell you they aren't cannibalizing carrier revenue because you need a phone line to leverage these services. What they are doing however is cannibalizing the carrier's ability to make money as long-distance is where the profit lies.

Andy Abramson reminds us that AT&T actually had a service called CallVantage which was years ahead of most all other VoIP players and he further explains that AT&T could be in a much different position if they didn't kill this product. To me it is obvious that when AT&T put back the old Ma Bell back together they realized they were in a monopolistic position to control traffic and it was far better to control the pipes and make money from information providers than it was to rely on other carriers to uphold net neutrality principles. So killing CallVantage made sense to them at the time.

The challenge to AT&T now is what happens if the femtocell market becomes essential to their future? These devices take cell traffic off 3G and 4G networks and funnel it through devices which are connected to broadband lines - similar to how WiFi telephony works via local access points.

In other words, perhaps AT&T will soon have to deal with net neutrality principles from an "information service" perspective - whether it wants to or not. And when it does, its perspective on net neutrality may begin to change.

There are no simple answers here but the ramifications wireless FCC changes could be tremendous, enabling consumers to take advantage of Google Voice on the iPhone today, perhaps at the expense of long-term investment in 4G networks worldwide.