Russell Shaw is a specialist in mobile computing, telephony, networking and covers these fields regularly for numerous print and online publications. Russ writes the popular IP Telephony blog on ZDNet and contributes regularly to The Industry Standard blog as well. Author of seven books, Russ' latest book is Wireless Networking Made Easy.
John Yunker is president of Byte Level Research. He closely tracks emerging wireless technologies and their impact on consumers and carriers alike. Over the years he has written a number of major reports on technologies such as Wi-Fi, WiMAX and cellular technologies.
About this blog
Unwired studies emerging wireless technologies and how they complement and conflict with one another. Technologies covered include: Wi-Fi, WiMAX, Ultra-Wideband, Zigbee, EV-DO, UMTS, HSDPA and whatever else comes along.
I've been reacting with some skepticism to the recent FCC ruling that (apparently) all Internet phone service providers provide E911 services within four months.
The mainstream media has been portraying this decision as one in which the FCC has finally gotten it right, and that, besieged by public outcry, the four major U.S.-based regional phone companies who would need to provide all their 400 or so Voice over Internet Protocol rivals access to E911 have finally bowed to the public's wishes.
Would be that this were true.
Instead, the phone companies have been dragged kicking and screaming into this. They are announcing all these deals with the likes of Vonage because investor's hate uncertainty, lawsuits and regulation.
The problem is that while SBC's, Qwest's, Verizon's, and BellSouth's apparent deals with Vonage to provide them with E911 sound so cooperative, what is really going on with here is the industry equivalent of "most-favored nation" treatment. I don't see such a rush to accede to the E911 technical needs of those independent VoIP providers who are less capitalized than Vonage. And,given Vonage's latest $200 million funding round, that means about everyone.
Vonage is playing with the big boys now, no longer leading the charge for its fellow pure-play VoIP providers. That's why I say Vonage is now part of the establishment.
Just in the last week three of the four major old-style regional phone companies in the U.S., have been making frantic announcements that they have been talking to Internet-phone service leader Vonage about ways to ensure that Vonage's subscriber base (600,000 and gaining weekly) can call E-911.
Count Qwest, BellSouth and SBC among the ranks of those who are promising to play nice. Verizon made a similar declaration a few weeks back.
But, as so often happens in the world of corporate speak, those announcements aren't what they seem.
What is really going on is that all of a sudden, after protesting loudly that they are under no obligation to grant Vonage rights to their E-911 infrastructures, the big telcos are playing nice for two reasons. Which are:
*They don't want to be forced into providing E-911 access.
*They don't want to get sued anymore than they have for not offering this access.
Jes' so happens that the FCC is taking up mandatory E-911 on May 17. That's a week from today. And new Chair Kevin Martin has made noises about the fact that he'd really like his staff to come up with technical guidelines for making mandatory E-911 feasible.
Do I need to tell you how like almost any enterprise, big telcos hate to be regulated? See, if they provide E-911 access to competitors such as Vonage, that would render obsolete a key marketing approach on the big telco's part. That would be because the flavor of "911" that you get in most VoIP services does not route the emergency call directly to the dispatcher.
And, if Vonage - a company that wants to eat the old Bells' lunch - gets their way, you can bet thy pippy most of the other 500 or so VoIP providers in the U.S. will insist on the same rights.
Now as to the lawsuit part, State Attorneys General in Texas and Connecticut have each sued Vonage for making misleading statements about E911 in their subscriber contracts. I have read this contract, and as I have commented elsewhere, I think the problem is not intentionally misleading wording, but the fact that these contracts are clumsily crafted and poorly arranged from a topical organization standpoint.
Such transgressions are more sins against the language than the law. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think sins against our language are actionable.
Wait, there's more. It appears almost inevitable in that hockey-deprived land north of the 49th parallel, cumpulsory emergency services access will be mandated by Canada's telecommunications regulatory agency. Looks like a 120-day countdown.
That, I must tell you, scares our telcos half to death. They are acting nice because they don't want to be told what to do.
But even if Vonage does get welcomed into the E-911 infrastructure bosom of the big telcos, that really doesn't solve all the problem. You see, if you call 911 over a VoIP connection that does not map back to your physical address of record, there will not be an easy way for the emergency responder agency to know where you are. Third-party solutions exist, but it's unclear whether roaming VoIP E-911 will be mandated.
The bottom line, then, is the telcos are saying they will make nice with VoIP leader Vonage to stall for time.
Stall for time until these E911 access solutions become so transparent, so easy and inexpensive to implement, that it will be no sweat off big telco's back to do so.
Tech pundit Bob Cringley's annual predictions are always a good read. Here are his wireless predictions:
->WiMax will be a huge story by summer, but widespread adoption of the wireless networking technology will take at least another two years. In the meantime, though, nobody will make money on WiFi, but it will become ubiquitous anyway, especially with the arrival of 802.11n.
( I'm not sure WiMAX can be much more of a "huge" story than it is already. I would add that Wi-Fi will become known more for the applications it supports [see below] than for simply providing Internet access.)
-> VoIP will continue to shatter the telephone industry with the arrival of WiFi phones, which might finally be the killer app for hotspots. Eventually, all the backbone suppliers will figure out that VoIP is their salvation and will either start their own VoIP companies or ally with big VoIP players.
(I agree. Wi-Fi phones [standalone or embedded within PDAs and cellular handsets] are going to give carriers a reason to invest in hotspots; they're a lot cheaper than base stations and can often be partially supported by the venue.)
-> Two thousand five will NOT be the year for UltraWide Band (UWB) networking or Power Line Networking, but both will do really well in 2006.
(After spending time at CES, it's safe to say we'll see commercial UWB products, primarily for wireless USB. However, we will also see a blending of power line and UWB technology for pretty nifty hi-def home networking. But much of this will take until 2006 I'm afraid.)
If Cisco does buy Airespace, this will be one smart purchase, akin to the Linksys deal. Airespace was making nice inroads on Cisco's market share and really understands how to help enterprises make the most of their Wi-Fi grids.
The FCC didn't just suddenly decide to allow Wi-Fi on planes. Two years ago, the FCC lobbied the ITU to allocate global satellite spectrum specifically for the purpose of providing in-flight broadband. This is not news. The news now is that the FCC will be allowing a different form of backhaul (ground to air) to the planes.
The real reason we haven't see Wi-Fi on domestic flights yet is lack of resources and vision. Domestic airlines are terrified of any new cost, regardless of whether or not they may actually profit from it. They'll come to their senses after one of the more aggressive carriers (Jet Blue?) starts deploying Wi-Fi. I also look forward to seeing data from Lufthansa that shows they are nabbing customers from competing carriers based solely on their Wi-Fi service.
And there are other, equally compelling, reasons why I believe airlines will ultimately adopt wireless broadband backhaul to their jets: telemedicine, real-time aircraft monitoring, VoIP, security, content. Like any other commercial venue, wirleess broadband in general and Wi-Fi in particular will serve many audiences and many needs.
What I want to see discussed is the use of VoIP over Wi-Fi on aircraft.
VoIP is currently allowed on at least some of the aircraft using Connexion by Boeing and yet we have the FCC taking a year to study cellular phone use on aircraft. What happens when your cellular phone has Wi-Fi embedded in it? Will a flight attendant tell you not to use your phone even if you're only using Wi-Fi?
Vonage has partnered with Viseon to promote a videophone package and service in Q1 2005. The phone is going to look a bit like this:
I think videophones and VoIP make a powerful combo and will popularize yet another acronym: VVoIP. The Apple iSight inserted new life into the videophone market a year ago, but carriers have been largely unenthused by the devices. I do think people will want this product/service - particularly travelers who want to stay in touch with loved ones (and possibly the office).
But I think a few things need to happen before this can become mass market:
1. A video phone/video softphone bundle. This would include the fixed line phone and a webcam that attaches to the laptop (like the iSight) and includes supporting software. I don't think it will be enough to just sell the fixed line phone by itself. Vonage needs to provide a package suited to business travelers so they can stay in touch with home. They key is to provide bundled devices so that people instantly have someone to "video" with. I think Apple would have had much greater success with iSight if they had created a non-Apple video phone to bundle with it. But they're only just beginning to test the non-Apple waters with the Windows iTunes software. Perhaps their much-rumored Apple wireless phone will be another step in that direction.
2. Video Phone Interoperability. I want to know that this phone will work with other webcams that are already out there. Is there a videophone standard in the works already? I'd certainly like to see some standard -- officially or unofficially -- that everyone can support, including Apple. Apple's iChat software does interop with AOL software, so that's a start.
3. Cellular Phone Interoperability This is perhaps of less importance, but I'd like to see a point where VVoIP works with cellular-based video. This is no doubt a larger challenge because carriers don't like to open their "walled gardens." But I think it's an issue that will need to be addressed eventually. Perhaps Wi-Fi-enabled smart phone/camera phones will bypass carrier networks altogether.
Anyway, I'm glad to see Vonage out there looking for more ways to utilize its network. I'd like to see it pursue home monitoring services as well, as I believe this is currently being overlooked by all carriers.
Scott Carson is no longer president of Connexion by Boeing. He's moving over to VP of commercial airline sales and in his place is Laurette Koellner, who was formerly VP of Internal Services. Hard to tell if this means major changes are in store for Connexion. I like Scott and suspect his skills are needed to help boost sagging jet sales. I still don't fully understand why the new Dreamliner jets don't ship with Wi-Fi by default; maybe he can change that. It seems like a Wi-Fi/picocell infrastructure should be included so that Boeing is in a position to sell the value-add services that airlines increasingly need: consumer voice, data, entertainment, real-time aircraft maintenance, telemedicine, etc.
The iPass announcement yesterday that it will offer its enterprise customers flat-rate pricing for its Wi-Fi network is just another sign that the pay-as-you-go Internet access business model is going away.
And why is that? This quote from their press release pretty much says it all:
"iPass spends a lot of time in dialogue with our customers, and this pricing plan addresses the desires of some of our customers who wanted a way to make the cost of Wi-Fi use predictable," said Jon Russo, vice president of marketing at iPass. "This 'all-you-can-eat' approach allows the IT department to reliably budget the cost of Wi-Fi hotspot access across an entire organization or for a subset within it. iPass expects this new optional pricing plan to further accelerate Wi-Fi usage."
Charging by the minute or charging by the megabyte (MB) inevitably cause user frustration. Phone calls always seem to last longer than we expect and who honestly wants to spend their days monitoring the kilobytes of every email they send? Flat-rate pricing is a big reason why I favor Connexion by Boeing over Tenzing.
Flat-rate pricing is great news for content providers and, I believe, the future of the telecoms industry. VoIP would not be the phonomenon that it is today if consumers were paying for their broadband connections by the MB.
But what I find most interesting is that we're seeing a collision of sorts between per-minute voice plans and flat-rate data plans. If consumers want predictable billing and VoIP is proving that voice works just fine over broadband connections, how can per-minute voice plans survive in the long run?
As any carrier will tell you (privately), they can't.
Perhaps the 3G networks that we're now seeing go nationwide will give carriers the breathing room they need to start testing unlimited voice plans. Or, perhaps unlimited voice usage will be relegated to those Wi-Fi networks that carriers can't figure out how to profit from.
And cellular carriers can insert fine print into their contracts to prevent network overuse. Even Cox caps broadband consumption per month; it's just that the cap is set so high that few people are affected (so far).
Although the iPass announcement only affects IT departments. In a way, we're all IT managers when it comes to our personal cellular and data plans. And it's hard for me to believe that we all won't one day get those flat-rate plans we desire.
The convergence of communications technologies is often portrayed as a wonderful thing for consumers. In many respects it is; the bundling of services often results in cheaper individual services and fewer bills in the mail. For example, I now pay for cable TV, voice and Internet access with one bill. But from the service provider's point of view, convergence can be downright messy; we now have cable companies selling voice services, phone companies selling media content, and wireless carriers headed into the fixed wireless (DSL substitution) market.
This recent article in The Wall Street Journal hits on the many of the major issues. Here's an article excerpt:
Over the past four years, the nation's largest phone companies have lost local phone lines by the millions as consumers fled to cellphones and e-mail. Many customers are giving up their second, and even their primary, phone lines. The intrusion by cable companies only made things worse, forcing the Bells to expand into other areas that promise more growth, such as wireless, high-speed Internet and television.
Covergence may not be pretty, but it sure does make the telecommunications industry exciting once again. These carriers have no choice but be creative and aggressive or they will be left behind; this will result in better prices for consumers and more creative services. Convergence isn't always pretty because creativity isn't always pretty.
This news blurb, by way of Fierce Wireless, claims that the Nintendo handheld gaming device due out later this year will include a headset that supports VoIP over Wi-Fi.
The technology behind Wi-Fi VoIP is plenty interesting, but for the consumer, Wi-Fi VoIP can simply be a lot of fun. Let's start with Wi-Fi. I love to watch the face of people when they first try Wi-Fi. They typically laugh at first, because Wi-Fi seems like magic. Add VoIP to the mix and even more applications can be supported, which translates into more enjoyment for the consumer, young or old. Game makers are wise to pursue Wi-Fi because they're in the fun business. Of course, if they succeed with Wi-Fi VoIP they'll also find themselves in the voice business, making the lives of telecoms executives possibly a bit less fun.
A few weeks after signing up for the CallVantage VoIP service from AT&T, they gave me a follow-up call (which was actually a survey disguised as a follow-up call). But hey, I've got time. And I learned a few things along the way.
The surveyer told me that the major problem AT&T was having with VoIP was installation complaints. Quite simply, their typical customer could not get the darn thing to work. In some cases, the problem had nothing to do with AT&T; it may have been the result of port blocking or poor DSL throughput. But AT&T was taking all the blame for the problems.
Here is my cable modem/Wi-Fi/VoIP setup. As a geek, I enjoyed setting it up, but I can't imagine most people would have the inclination nor patience.
(By the way, how long do you think it will be before these three boxes merge into one; and whose name do you think will be on that one box? Linksys has the edge, but anything is possible still.)
Back to AT&T: the surveyer told me that they were taking a hard look at offering a paid installation service and asked me what I would pay for it. I'm cheap, so naturally I lowballed it. But I also admitted that I would bet they could comfortably charge in the $80 to $100 range because the cost of savings of VoIP could cover the installation costs in four months or less.
So, a month or so passes and here's what I see in a recent AT&T press release:
AT&T also introduced an inside wiring service designed to connect a customer's existing home telephone configuration to AT&T CallVantage Service and activate extensions throughout the home. For a fee, AT&T will dispatch a trained technician to the customer's home. The technician will reconfigure existing lines and telephone jacks, install additional jacks if required, and provide limited assistance with service set-up. The interval for scheduling service is two to five days.
This is great news. Of course, the devil is in the details. Assuming AT&T handles installation like your typical cable company, they could do more harm than good to their business, but I'll assume the latter. Installation is going to be necessary for the vast majority of potential VoIP users and this could provide a nice advantage for CallVantage.
But installation is also going to slow down this revolution, at least until these many technical and operational quirks are resolved.
I recently spoke with Alan Cohen, VP of marketing and product development at Airespace. Airespace sells Wi-Fi network equipment to large companies, hospitals, schools and even a few airports.
While Wi-Fi took hold quickly in homes and small offices, large enterprises have been slow to embrace the technology. Objections have included security, costs, integration and, when all else fails, ROI. Perhaps the greatest obstacle has been the IT manager who just doesn't want another network to manage.
Yet Wi-Fi is addictive. And once a board member or CEO gets hooked on it, a full-scale deployment isn't far behind. I'll give Airespace a great deal of credit for riding out some lean times waiting for these big organizations to finally start spending money. Times now are good, and Cohen says the company is doubling revenues every quarter and will be cash-flow positive by the end of 2005. The company also recently landed about $20 million in additional VC cash.
Looking Beyond Internet Access
What's most exciting about Wi-Fi in large enterprises is all the applications that have little to do with Internet access. For example, a hotel may install Wi-Fi for its guests initially but then realize that it can also use the network for curbside check-in, employee communications, etc. And it is these less-obvious applications that will give Wi-Fi an edge over proprietary wireless technologies in the years ahead. After all, if it's only wireless Internet access you want, Verizon Wireless has something called EV-DO that works comparably well.
What Wi-Fi offers enterprises that the major wireless carriers cannot is flexibility and control, which in turn enables creativity. This leads me to an application that is enabled by Airespace's location tracking feature. Once an enterprise has a network in place, it can use the network to track Wi-Fi-enabled devices, such as a phone, badge or RFID tag.
Cohen said that one of their customers is a hospital that has attached Wi-Fi tags to wheelchairs so it can track them. This hospital loses 110 wheelchairs a year (I guess the same way grocery stores lose carts) at a cost of roughly $10,000 each. This means that if the network helps the hospital cut its losses down to say, 10 a year, this alone will mostly pay for the entire network deployment.
And this is just one of any number of network applications the hospital will use; others include VoIP, doctor and nurse tracking, patient monitoring and medical device tracking. Wi-Fi, as a low-cost, ubiquitous and open technology, allows innovation to flourish. Once you build the network, the applications multiply.
Japanese communications giant NTT DoCoMo just announced the coming release of the N900iL, a dual network 3G FOMA handset that will also operate on Wi-Fi networks.
However, this phone is clearly only designed for corporate users, preferably those who spend most of their time on campus. Why? Because the phones won't operate on public Wi-Fi networks (with the possible exception of an NTT network). A company needs to install a special server that will allow the phone user to switch between Wi-Fi calls and 3G calls, as well as browse the Internet. The features look pretty nifty, but anyone hoping to make a free call from a Starbucks is out of luck.
Now I am fully aware that mobile operators don't want to support devices that will cannibalize their voice business. Operators lives and die by "minutes of use" - the more minutes a subscriber uses, the more revenue for the operator. And yet minutes of use is such a short-sighted way to view a subscriber.
Consider wired VoIP. AT&T has embraced VoIP knowing full well that it will eat away at its long-distance business. AT&T wisely figures that if anyone is going to cannablize AT&T's business, it might as well be AT&T. I recently signed up to AT&T's CallVantage service and have been very pleased so far. The interesting thing in my mind is that now that long distance is unlimited as part of my plan, I find my minutes of use are a great deal higher than when I paid by the minute. We are quickly headed toward a flat-rate communications world whether mobile operators like it or not.
I'm not surprised to see mobile carriers resist supporting VoIP over Wi-Fi devices. In the US, however, I'm quite confident that even though most operators will resist supporting VoIP, one bold operator will push ahead and leave the rest behind. My prediction is that T-Mobile will be the first carrier to support VoIP (with limitations) followed by Verizon Wireless and Nextel
As for NTT DoCoMo. This new phone will make a great walkie talkie for corporate campuses, but will ultimately prove too limiting to users who actually go on a business trip or two. Motorola and Nokia will also be releasing phones that support Wi-Fi - perhaps they will find an operator willing to take more than a baby step.
Russell Shaw is a specialist in mobile computing, telephony, networking and covers these fields regularly for numerous print and online publications. Russ writes the popular IP Telephony blog on ZDNet and contributes regularly to The Industry Standard blog as well. Author of seven books, Russ' latest book is Wireless Networking Made Easy.
John Yunker is president of 
