Recently in Yahoo 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.

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?

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. :-)

First it was free WiFi on Virgin America courtesy of Google... Now it seems there is a mad rush to give WiFi away in lots of places such as airports and even Times Square. It seemed to first start with Mountain View, California - Google's hometown, where the search giant hung radios to "light up" the city with wireless internet. Then of course it was Virgin America and more recently, Google will be giving away WiFi at 47 airports for the holidays. Some of the larger airports included are Houston, Las Vegas, Miami, San Jose (no surprise), San Diego and Orlando. Sadly there are no New York airports on the list.

Not to be outdone, Yahoo! has announced that as of today it will provide free WiFi throughout Times Square for the holidays.

The trend is clear... Internet advertising giants are looking to extend their reach and they realize that the next frontier for growth is the mobile web. The best way to reach mobile web users of course is by providing something users really want. And free wireless broadband is likely at the top of the list.

Bill Gurley writes correctly that Google is positioned to take over the world. I am certainly paraphrasing and adding some personal bias - he describes in detail how the company invested great sums of money to assemble a superior turn-by-turn GPS database which includes a street view and in so doing is now able to take marketshare from competing mapping vendors by using advertising to subsidize the cost of acquiring this information.

Advertising revenue in fact will drive the company's operating system, software as a service and just about everything else.

As the company shares part of this revenue with partners you have seen wide adoption of Android by wireless carriers and no doubt hardware vendors installing the Google Chrome OS are next.

Expect the company to continue going after Microsoft products - by giving services away and supporting them through ads.

Any competitor which has an inferior ad network and generates less money from advertising (this is all of them) is pretty much domed.

The only way to stop the onslaught is to build a far superior search engine and hope the world switches. At this point the sheer marketshare Google commands in search allows them to utilize their massive database of user behavior as a massive focus group allowing them to improve by the second.

I just can't see anything stopping this company besides, a scandal, high level departure, illness or something similar. Even then, the company is a monopoly at this point and perhaps momentum will ensure their future success.

Is the company using its power in a way which warrants them being broken up by the DOJ? Possibly, but Google reminds me a heck of a lot of Wal-Mart as the larger it gets, the better consumers do. Giving away free GPS for example is a pro-consumer behavior and as long as the company keeps breaking into new markets and giving things away, it is tough to see how the Google could be considered to be harming customers.

Getting back to the headline of this article -- do I really think Microsoft is doomed? Yes. Immediately? Obviously not. But any time a company with a quality name in the market can make money while giving away good products which you charge for, you are done.

Just a kid, that's all I was in the early eighties in high school as I took a class in BASIC. I was always fascinated by all things electronic and whether it was video games or advanced scientific calculators, I couldn't get enough. At Westhill high School, they had a Prime minicomputer and it was on this machine where I was instructed how to program. I also had a Commodore 64 at home and with it I wrote my own video games at night and on weekends.

In the early eighties, Route. 128 in Boston was the stuff of legend... It is where all the minicomputer companies lived - Wang, Prime Computer, DEC and many others. Prime was my link to this area and it seems like it was yesterday when I wrote a math quiz program on the schools's minicomputer which I used to better prepare me for the math portion of the SAT. Today, Rt. 128 is a distant second to Silicon Valley in terms of technology and of course all the minicomputer companies missed the PC altogether and are gone.

If you are wondering why Silicon Valley took the lead over Boston, you may want to refer to this article from Vivek Wadhwa which discusses how the Valley follows a more open model where innovation is more readily shared with small companies and moreover spread through job hopping. In addition, he points out a book from AnnaLee Saxenian (which was published in 1994 predicting that Boston would be the loser in the tech race

Here is an excerpt from the article:

She noted that Silicon Valley had an amazing dynamism about it. There were extensive professional networks, job hopping was the norm, information was exchanged openly, and the culture encouraged risk taking. The Silicon Valley ecosystem supported entrepreneurial experimentation and collective learning. In other words, Silicon Valley was a very open network--a giant social networking site working in analog before the concept of such a thing even existed.

This organizational mechanism was in sharp contrast to that of Route 128. Dominated by large, vertically integrated, and secretive minicomputer producers such as DEC, Wang, Prime, and Data General. Technology, skill, and know-how were trapped within the boundaries of the large corporations.

The differences were evident at many levels: venture capitalists in Silicon Valley had deep roots in local networks and were far more nimble than their east coast counterparts; educational institutions and research labs in the West partnered with local startups as well as more established firms, while those in the East worked only with the largest corporations; and the meritocratic openness of Silicon Valley made it a magnet for non-traditional talent and immigrants.

By the mid-1990s the east had missed the shift from minicomputers to personal computers as the flexible Silicon Valley ecosystem sped ahead with innovation across a diversifying range of components and systems going from chips, routers, and application software to ecommerce and search engines. Today Silicon Valley is the leading location for cleantech venture activity, an area widely considered to be the next big value creation engine for the U.S. and the world.

Boston, however, is no slouch. The Route 128 community remains the second biggest in the U.S. in terms of venture funds committed. Boston has powerful research institutions, still, and lots of very strong companies. In some areas, such as biotech, Boston may even rival Silicon Valley. But overall, its pretty clear that the Valley has not only won but is racing further ahead.

Most entrepreneurs and engineers that come to Silicon Valley, come to experience this network and to embrace the culture it has created. That's why I came, too. Network effects don't just work for fax machines. But then again, most of them knew that intrinsically. University guys like me need to do a bunch of surveys to figure it out. They voted with their hearts and feet.

At this point the game is even tougher to win if you aren't in Silicon Valley due to the propensity for exit strategies to present themselves more readily where the acquirers are. Yahoo, Google, Cisco and Oracle are just a few of the companies responsible for billions of dollars worth of M&A dollars. And as this these companies have grown, they  have made so many millionaires that they in turn go out and launch new companies and/or invest in others which are nearby.

If you are looking for a lesson here it is that a company which mirrors Silicon Valley and is more open, flexible and shares information more readily will likely always beat the company which is inflexible and contains many silos.

I spent some time analyzing a Blackberry Storm 2 in a Verizon store in Norwalk, CT where I chatted with prospective customers as well as Verizon store employees and management. First the phone itself is improved with WiFi support, a capacitive touchscreen and worldphone support. I think typing on the device is about as good as it is on the iPhone at this point. Although a common feature of smartphones I really like the ability to go back to my last application. As you would expect the device is fine for applications like email where it does a good job of understanding what is typed and autocorrecting text, it still comes up short as a web browser.

Although faster than the previous device, the delay in browsing graphically rich sites and those with JavaScript continue to be its undoing (yes, JavaScript rendering is now faster -- thankfully) and it is evident that the mobile browser is the major Achilles heel for device manufacturers. They should all partner with companies like Opera until they figure out how to do mobile browsing correctly.

Prospective customers I spoke with were not extremely impressed by the device and most I spoke with were in the store to compare the phone with - you guessed it, the iPhone.

By the way, reasons given to me to not buy the iPhone include the AT&T network and the fact that applications like Loopt (the iPhone needs to allow background apps for it to function properly) and Blackberry Messenger don't work on it.

Store employees were eager to volunteer that Droid is coming out in a few weeks and is worth a look. They also mentioned that there was interest in the latest RIM phones and many are selling but unlike the rollout of the first version of this device, they aren't seeing the long lines. Then again, it was a cold and rainy day which could have been part of the problem as nearby Stew Leonard's, that world famous supermarket had half the normal amount of cars in its parking lot.

My take? People have already purchased their iPhones and other smartphones and if they weren't out in force today to see their Storm 2, they aren't coming out in force to see the Droid. Besides I haven't seen much if any consumer promotion for this gadget - could this be a sign of Verizon giving up and hoping for better results from the new Google Powered Motorola phone? If the Droid is the iPhone killer Verizon store representatives say it is, the death will be very slow as word of mouth and advertising get more people to trade up. Time will tell.

As Om Malik points out, turn-by-turn GPS navigation with voice guidance has come to Google Maps and carriers can't be happy about it. Who is even less happy? TomTom and Garmin. According to Google, less than 1% of navigation devices are connected to the cloud and ironically my TomTom Go 740 Live with Google local integration is one of these devices and it is limited - it really only allows you to query Google for local establishments and it does receive real-time traffic data.

As the video above explains, Google Maps navigation was built from the ground up to be internet connected meaning you can get the latest maps and business data automatically over the net without having to download new maps manually. Google touts lots of features which they say most GPS units don't have such as voice recognition, the ability fix spelling errors and of course infinite points of interest. Other benefits touted include the ability to navigate via search meaning you can ask your device to navigate to a museum with a specific exhibit.

Other benefits include real-time traffic data and the ability to choose alternate routes. The software also allows you to search for POIs on your route and you can also leverage satellite and street view as you navigate. By the way, I bet you didn't know some Google Street View data comes from a tricycle (pictured and courtesy of AP/MSNBC)

The video above also references the new Droid phone which has an available car dock which when connected goes into car mode which makes it easier to access features you need while driving.

Om is right that carriers are likely not happy about this new and free service from Google but I wonder if at the moment carriers aren't just more frenzied about not having the iPhone which includes tens of thousands of applications in its device ecosystem.

From Verizon's point of view, this new relationship with Google is a defensive land grab and will slow down the onslaught of the iPhone by making their devices more attractive and simultaneously cutting the legs off of Garmin and TomTom. It should be noted that TomTom does have a $99 iPhone GPS app which is pretty slick but can they keep this price point when the competition has a lot more features and is free?

Google's challenge remains, do they ignore the iPhone when they come out with leading edge applications like this one so they can artificially boost their Android OS sales or do they try to get all apps they produce to work on as many devices as possible so they can boost ad revenue? It has to be a constant debate for the search leader and for now, if you have an Android 2.0 device you can get a real nifty GPS app for free. What's not to like about that?

Oh, and one other point. If we have known mobile search is coming and will be he and Microsoft and Yahoo! are trying to take on Google in this space and finally have an opportunity to become a leader in at least one niche of search, why haven't either of these companies jumped on this opportunity? Why is it that Google is the only company to take advantage of an opportunity we all saw coming. I realize Yahoo is trying and so is Microsoft but Google seems to be in a position to have even greater marketshare in mobile search than they do in PC search. And it seems unacceptable that the competition just let them take it so easily.

I really excited to speak at the Illinois Institute of Technology Rice Campus for the VoIP Conference and Expo 2009. This will be my first time to this event and interestingly the third time in recent weeks in which I am in Chicago instead of Vegas for a show. Maybe the city didn't get the Olympics but they certainly seem to have gotten all the shows - WiMAX World, Supercomm and now this event.

Getting back to my talk - I am moderating a Keynote Panel titled: Are the "Bells" ringing for Carrier VoIP? And my panelists include Carl Ford, Crossfire Media; Anne Lee, ALU; Gaston Ormazabal, Verizon and Henning Schulzrinne, Columbia University at 4:00 pm this Thursday 10/29/2009. I hope to see you there. Here is the schedule with my panel in yellow at the bottom.

Here is the website for details.