blogs.the-organization.com

What they're not telling you

Things move fast in the telecoms industry. So fast that the next big thing can easily become old hat before it has even reached customers, and so quickly that companies with their assets tied into heavy infrastructure can be top of the pile one day and scrabbling in fear of being left behind the next.
I first heard about WiMax about a year ago. At the time widespread excitement amongst businesses was just beginning, as the fantastic range of possibilities WiFi's standardised and certified version of wireless networking could offer was slowly being realised and standardised high capability broadband wireless was merely being whispered about by a few as a distant dream being slowly built towards.
What was surprising to me at the time was the fact that a lot of the larger telecoms operators seemed to be keeping a very low profile on the wireless front, despite some of them being quietly involved somewhere in the background. This is hardly surprising when you consider the threat that wireless poses to most telecoms companies. Combine wireless networking with VoIP and you've just removed the average customer's need for a landline or a GSM/3G phone. As such it is understandable that many companies would seek to hide this new technology. They hardly want to come out saying "Here's this new fantastic way of doing things which has the potential to be cheaper and more versatile than what we're offering you now", certainly not when all their revenue is tied up in precisely those technologies wireless networks potentially aim to replace. So instead some companies enter into a far more covert version of support and development, while others are left behind altogether, unsure what to do next.
BT is a fantastic example of this. In the UK a significant portion of their assets are tied up in local loop, so they hardly want to be seen to be promoting the future wireless home. Infact I'd imagine there have been a lot of frightening board meetings for BT's managers, where they've had to discuss just how an operator with very little research or investment in wireless based services is going to continue to remain afloat in the new wireless age. Out of fear it appears that BT essentially stuck they're head in the sand. On the surface of it BT had done very little research and development in wireless up until very recently, the Traffimatics and Fastnet projects being two of only a handful of serious wireless based projects BT had come out with, presumably unsure of where to jump. This decision was probably made worse by (or was possibly even the result of) the fact that they appear to have been simultaneously trying to downsize, or at least limit expenditure on, they're research arm BT Exact, presumably instead trying to re-shift they're focus toward technology management and consultancy and promotion of they're existing services in the hope that they would survive the wireless avalanche about to hit them.
One can only assume that this tactic was eventually deemed unsuccessful as they are now furiously trying to backtrack in the hope of establishing themselves in the wireless market.
In one recent talk I saw presented by a BT executive, he described WiMax practically as though it'd been they're project that they had been developing all along, rather than the bandwagon they had just jumped on, realising they better move before it was too late.

The lesson here, stay on top of research, know when to make the step into something new and most seriously of all don't try and hide from threats ahead, as you will only look like the carpet bagger you are when you have to turn round and endorse it with your tail between your legs.

3g vs 4G and wireless

Of course BT is not the only example of technologists trying to hide both themselves and their customers from the next big thing. 3G is another fantastic example of such reactionary business practice. A lot of companies were pretty much hoodwinked by governments into spending a lot of money on 3G licenses just before the telecoms bubble finally truly burst, and they are damned if they're going to let they're customers move onto new and more useful technologies until they've at least made some of that money back. This is despite the fact that the 3G launch process took so long that 4G was already well under way in design by the time 3G phones were actually available to anyone, and that the complete 3G roll-out process is taking so long that 4G could feasibly be approaching completion by the time it happens. It is still the case that most 3G phones spend a significant amount of their time having to rely of GSM and GPRS for their connectivity and that'll probably be the case for some time to come yet. The sad thing is that the telecoms industry's efforts to gag the development of future technologies may just work. Once again, behind the scenes a lot of mobile operators are involved in the 4G development process, making sure that they at least have they're hand in for when it all finally comes together, but they're keeping VERY quiet about it, not wishing to let anyone that something better than what they have to offer is already well into development. Simultaneously they are pouring tremendous amounts of money and resources into the promotion of 3G services in the vain hope that if they sling enough shit against the wall eventually some of it will stick. And to be honest its pretty much working. Media production and services provision companies don't have to worry too much which technology they are providing media for as their assets aren't tied into its infrastructure, if 3G fails they can just port their media over to whatever comes up trumps as the next new buzz market and move on. As such they are more than happy to work with 3G providers in developing content. This then makes 3G more attractive to customers and investors alike. Add to this a quiet policy of keeping 4G out of the limelight whilst channelling funds and resources into promoting 3G rather than undertaking development, and you can see how the industry players might just actually manage to slow down or even stifle 4G's development for some years to come.
All of this is of course not even taking account of the capabilities of wireless networks to replace both of these systems. At a smart phone trade show I attended this week almost all the new handset models on show include wi-fi capability. Who's going to want to pay for expensive voice calls or data transfers over 3G when cheap VoIP and IP data transfer over wireless networks begin to reach widespread availability. The limitation on that of course is infrastructure, but once again if funds were being put into more future proof technologies and infrastructures rather than into what are essentially less upgradeable, more proprietary systems then this probably wouldn't be an issue.
Lesson here: If a deal looks bad then it probably is. It seemed that everyone except for the telcos involved could see that 3G licenses were a bad deal, and now potentially technology development and customer services are going to be held up just because of some companies’ poor business decisions. Also, think about the proprietary nature of the technology your investing in. The market is just too big and fragmented now to assume you're investing in the next GSM, or into the system everyone everywhere will use for years to come, so instead you have to look at technologies upgradeability, its ability to inter-operate with other systems (such as the internet) and how you will be able to provide more through it in the future (higher bandwidth).

Zigbee vs. UWB

Of Course you can't always predict what will happen next. Bluetooth had and to some extent still has a bright future. I remember when Bluetooth was first reported by the media, "A bluetooth connection in every device, a whole world of interconnectivity where every piece of technology can communicate with every other without the need for wires" was they were predicting. It probably could have happened as well, but with many companies being distracted by the completion of the zigbee standard, and with both Wi-FI and ultra wide band suddenly appearing on the scene as a far better possibility with much greater bandwidth, I think that anyone's dreams of a wireless future based mainly bluetooth have been pretty much scuppered.
Lesson: Always look at where technology could progress to, don't just jump on the first bandwagon that comes along. Although bluetooth has had a good run, and I'm sure plenty of companies have made money on bluetooth related products, its days are numbered. In retrospect it seems obvious that higher bandwidth short range radio based technologies were going to be developed and that it wouldn't be all that long before those kind of new ideas emerged and became possible. UWB has its problems, it’s no where near standardisation, and there are still legal wrangles to be ironed out with it in some countries, but the chances are something similar, with very high bandwidths and the capability to inter-connect a broad range of media over short distances, is not far off.

DVB-H vs. WiMax
In all cases what customers and investors alike must remember is that a primary concern of all businesses is marketing. Of course a company or organisation that has a vested interest in a product will tell you it’s the best thing yet, it’s the future, and that everyone will be using it. What they might not mention is that it isn't actually complete yet, that high infrastructure costs might be associated with its roll-out or that it’s based on already redundant, entirely proprietary or non-upgradeable technology. DVB-H is a fantastic example of this. For DVB-H to function for mobile users tremendous infrastructure will be required. Masts, repeaters you name it, DVB-H will need, and on a grand scale. What people seem to forget or (or simply have not yet learned from the likes of 3G) is that radio based networks require radio coverage to operate, and when you're talking about mobile receivers that’s no mean feat. Do people really think that GSM phones function using a few big aerials dotted like T.V. masts around the country? Are they really unaware of the fact that to give people continuous reception even just in cities requires hundreds of cell sites? Or are they just trying desperately to ignore these factors? To top this is of course is the fact that DVB-H is based around hardware receivers that have been purposely built around operating using specific video codecs. Where's the upgradeability, the future proofing for the time when people want higher quality video on the move? How are manufacturers going to tackle the cost and resources required in upgrading thousands of hardware based systems when the V.O.D sector moves forward to the next step? Or is this another one-shot solution, another piece of technology that companies are confidently telling their customers is the next big thing, when infact they know full well its only a stop-gap, and are using it as a method to raise the funds for the REAL next big thing, whilst simultaneously keeping their hand in the video market.
Personally I believe that more generally design all IP network based broadband wireless technologies such as WiMax have far more potential so far as mobile video delivery goes anyway. Although even the hallowed WiMax has its shortcomings. Too many chefs spoil the broth is a saying that applies to many things in the world, not least the technology standardisation process. 802.16 has been slow to move forward. There have been internal wrangles, legal arguments over what belongs to who, companies trying to second guess each other by going to market early with their own (entirely proprietary) versions of the standard and plenty else besides that have held things up. The net result is that WiMax, despite much hype, is still not here, it has still not reached the point where manufacturers can really reliably produce WiMax hardware and guarantee that it will work with other 'WiMAx' hardware or any future 'WiMax' hardware that is made. And no wonder! Have you ever actually tried to read an IEEE Standard paper? They don't tell you how the whole thing works and exactly how to put one together with useful step by step diagrams and a picture of what your finished product will look like when you're done making it. There is a tremendous amount of interpretation involved in using them, which is precisely why they have to be accompanied by such stringent certification. This of course is deliberate to some extent to allow the manufacturers creative license to construct their own unique products, but it also means that the design process is far more lengthy and getting it right easily first time is much less likely.
Once again though that fact seems to be being rather underplayed by the companies backing it who are falling over themselves to try and sell customers WiMax based systems.
Lesson: Know what you are buying into, and make sure its not just hype that you are purchasing.

Overall lesson: synergy and convergence are the only real way forward. It is clear that all IP based systems are the way forward and will most likely eventually win out. Companies must work together more to develop inter-operable systems, or they will continually fall fowl of the over the top investments they have made in what are essentially shared proprietary systems such as 3G.