August 2009 Archives

Kudos to companies such as Grandstream, MegaPath, and Netsuite for offering and to Rich Tehrani in his blog for raising and promoting what will turn out to be a much more effective 'cash for clunkers' campaign: turning in old legacy PSTN/TDM equipment and obsolete premises-based solutions for IP and where appropriate hosted tools and recycling them to avoid e-waste. 

The cash for clunkers in the comm industry will arguably be more effective in that this one doesn't involve governments, subsidies, and kowtowing to special interests. The Sierra Club has criticized what had started out to be a well-intentioned program into 'support for gas guzzlers'. Money allocated for this program has arguably come at the expense of more efficient mass transit. While there has been stimulus money to build new systems, agencies are being starved to buy vehicles and operating funds to provide services. 

In contrast going to software-based IP and hosted means less goods that have to be manufactured from raw resources that must be extracted and processed, and lowered transportation costs and the consequent environmental consequences at all stages. Smaller computing footprints means less space to heat and cool and land wasted.

NetSuite cites a recent impact study by Greenspace that demonstrated that the average NetSuite customer reduces its electricity bill by $10,000 per year after switching from an on premise system. In aggregate, the NetSuite platform saved NetSuite customers more than $61 million in energy bills in 2008, eliminating the output of nearly 423,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide.

Rich in his blog has announced there is an official cash for phone system clunkers web page which will have links to important references such as ITEXPO West (Sept.1-3 in Los Angeles) "which is the global gathering place for all things IP communications"  and "is the equivalent of an automotive supermarket (yes, communications in this case) where you can meet with all the vendors who save you money by replacing your old equipment. In many cases they can replace the "clunker" with something which is hosted meaning zero CAPEX costs.

Rich mentioned Grandstream's Cash for PSTN clunker program that they implemented with MegaPath. MegaPath is running a promo in which they will offer a $250 dollar credit for VARS or End users who purchase Grandstream's PBX. 

Hosted and IP solutions also make telework more feasible both functionally and costwise, which means fewer air-killing/land-eating/energy-draining commute trips. Fewer and shorter trips results in a longer vehicle lifespan and less need for vehicles. Isn't that assurredly a better way than the current automotive program to reduce environmental damage from cars, trucks, and vans?

Rich pointed out another key benefit from this program: increased ability to save money on conference calls with this new technology. That means you do not have to make as many business trips, thereby avoiding car, plane, bus, and train emissions, and cutting down on the demand for greenspace destroying and must-be-maintained infrastructure that also results in more air, land, and water waste.

"In the auto industry you get a "cash for clunkers" offer once in a lifetime," says Rich. "In the telecom space we do it every day."

See you at ITEXPO West!

Commuting is bad for the environment. Emissions from vehicles both directly and indirectly through fossil-fueled and river-befouling power plants, and from construction and maintenance combined with open space land grabs combine to form a toxic stew that is slowly killing us. Something to keep in mind as a reality check during the insane U.S. healthcare debate and the endless go-rounds what to do about the costs and doctor shortages in Canada.

Transportation typically accounts for 1/3 of emissions, and motor vehicles at 2/3rds of that. Commuting trips are about 20 percent of all travel.

The Canadians have done great work in assessing the health impacts from air pollution and accidents. A landmark study by the Canadian Medical Association, No Breathing Room: National Illness Costs of Air Pollution pegs the pricetag at $8 billion in 2008, killing some 21,000 Canadians per year. 

A fair estimate is $35 million in costs and 915 fatalities from commuting in Canada per year . Or $350 million and 9,150 deaths annually in the U.S. which has roughly 10 times the population.

 Now a new study by Smartrisk, The Economic Burden of Injury in Canada  shows much those so-called 'accidents' add to the pricetag of commuting. It estimates that transportation-related injuries cost $3.7 billion resulting in 3,067 deaths and 30,932 hospitalizations; transportation is the leading cause of unintentional injury deaths.

"Motor vehicle incidents were the most common cause of transport related injuries, accounting for 1,331 or 43% of transport related deaths and over half of all other transport related injuries," said the report. 

Calculating the literal impacts for car commuting comes up with 266 deaths and 3,300 hospitalized injuries and at a cost of $270 million in Canada. And over 2,600 in fatalities, and 33,000 injuries costing $2.7 billion in the U.S.

And who pays the pricetags? The persons in the mirror either through pain and suffering, more bills, higher premiums, and tax hikes. What can that individual in front  can do about it? Go telecommute, locate on busy transit routes, and end free staff parking.

U.K.-based Sparxent via its Verismic Software subsidiary that has some good advice on identifying promising green technologies in IT and at the same time avoiding greenwashing. Verismic Software develops solutions including power management  to extend systems management and service desk capabilities.

Verismic recommends looking for green solutions which meet the following criteria:
 
1.     Measurable eco-benefits.  A number of technologies promise a reduction in CO2 emissions or other green benefits, but customers often have no way to actually measure the result. In any new market, there are vendors willing to ride the hype and promise benefits that are hard to quantify after implementation. Before making a purchasing decision, don't just rely on vendor estimates. Be sure to ask the vendor how the actual benefits will be measured and how you will be able to demonstrate your investment return.
 
2.     Simple to configure and manage. IT managers are acutely aware of the need to keep administration overhead costs low and green solutions should be no exception. Some green technologies can help reduce an organization's carbon footprint, but require extensive resources to manage. IT professionals should delve past the presentation layers to identify technologies that are simple to configure and maintain over time, as well as those which will be most compatible with the existing infrastructure. The best solutions are often designed with automated management features built into the product.
 
3.     Purpose-built versus peripheral add-ons. Solutions designed and built from the ground up with the goal of reducing an environmental impact often perform at a higher level than products with green components added as an afterthought. If a solution claims to address a number of pain points for IT - including a reduced carbon footprint - buyers should be suspicious. Field experience confirms that environmental considerations should be the primary factors in product development to ensure quality.
 
4.     Technology versus vendor. Because this is an emerging new market, solutions and their performance differ vastly between vendors. IT managers should carefully evaluate the technology itself, understanding there are many innovative solutions new to the market which can help them achieve their eco-goals. Early innovations often come from smaller, nimble entrants to the market since established may be more complacent or approach with green technology as an afterthought. 
 
5.     Existing products relabeled as "green." There are many technologies which have been on the market for some time which are now being marketed as green solutions (for example, teleconferencing.) These repackaged technologies were developed to solve other problems and are not truly designed to bring the most value to the overall goal of reducing carbon footprint. While these products may provide benefits, they are often more market-friendly than eco-friendly. 

[OK: comment here. That point can be applied to most any method and solution that has been around for at least 10 years i.e. before the advent of 'green' branding, marketing, and markets. 

Energy saving/waste-limiting methods have been around since there has been energy and waste. What matters are the merits. Do these solutions actually cut down on resource consumption and result in less garbage being chucked into the environment whose consequences we pay for in more ways than one?]
 
"The green IT industry has exploded in recent years and navigating these waters has become increasingly complex for IT professionals who are concerned about reducing carbon emissions," said Mark McGinn, managing director at Verismic. "We believe every vendor should ensure their products truly deliver both tangible and measureable benefits for the environment before they carry the green label. In addition, customers should be savvy in their selection criteria to maximize their eco-investments and avoid being 'greenwashed'."
 

It's a popular topic to be discussed at the next World Telecoms Council meeting.  Members of the World Telecoms Council contribute to the agenda for all meetings. This November they have opted for three main themes:

• Green and sustainable telecoms strategy
• Opportunities for the wholesale telecoms industry
• Business models and strategies for recovery and growth