The F.C.C. has finally handed in its homework. It submitted The National Broadband Plan to Congress yesterday.

 Weighing in at 376 pages, The Plan is a treatise asserting that the broadband Internet is becoming the common communications medium of the United States, eventually displacing the telephone and broadcast television.

The Chairman of the F.C.C. called The Plan “a 21st-century roadmap to spur economic growth and investment, create jobs, educate our children, protect our citizens and engage in our democracy.”

He went on to comment that The Plan would be largely paid for by the auctioning of unused or under-utilized wireless spectrum. The Plan calls for reallocation of 120 MHz of broadcast TV spectrum. In other words, The Plan would auction off the equivalent of about 20 television channels of wireless spectrum that are currently occupied by broadcast television companies.

These companies are represented by the National Association of Broadcasters. Here is what NAB Executive Vice President Dennis Wharton had to say about The Plan.

“We were pleased by initial indications from the F.C.C. that any spectrum reallocation would be voluntary, and were therefore prepared to move forward in a constructive fashion on that basis. However, we are concerned by reports today that suggest many aspects of the plan may in fact not be as voluntary as originally promised.”

 Back in February I addressed this subject and concluded that the F.C.C. will either have to negotiate with the incumbent broadcasters or seize the spectrum under eminent domain.  Apparently the F.C.C. isn’t interested in making a deal, but is instead proposing to seize it. Maybe it’s a tactic to get the broadcasters to negotiate.  Time will tell.

The Plan also proposes that broadcasters face the prospect of paying a new government fee for use of spectrum that they currently occupy. This is new:  television station owners currently don’t pay an annual fee to the F.C.C.

Understandably, the NAB isn’t happy. “As the nation’s only communications service that is free, local and ubiquitous, we would oppose any attempt to impose onerous new spectrum fees on broadcasters.”

The NAB concluded its comments about The Plan with this:

 “We strongly support congressional efforts to conduct an inventory of all available spectrum, and believe that no reallocation plan should move forward without a complete accounting of how the airwaves are allocated, licensed and used.”

In February I commented that spectrum reallocation is going to take a long time and make a lot of lawyers wealthy.

Let the Games Begin.

Jan Linden and I had the privilege of hosting a group of students looking to learn about entrepreneurship at the GIPS office last Friday. One of the key lessons I hoped they would take away was that you should always be trying to design products which meet a real customer need. It sounds simple, but it is so easy for a company, especially one lead by super smart engineers, to launch products which sound great in theory, but which have little practical value.

I was reminded of my lesson the following night when I witnessed the most ridiculous infomercial since the Snuggie was unleashed upon an unsuspecting public. The ShoeDini- it’s a shoehorn…on a stick!

Not only did this commercial completely mesmerize all the patrons of bar I was in at the time, but it made me reconsider my statement from the day before. Sometimes products fit into a second category in which limitations are overcome when good (or just outrageous) marketing creates a need where none exists. I had no idea I was endangering my back every time I put on or removed my shoes! For my whole life I have been bending over like a sucker. But no longer!

Sunday night, the lesson was taken one step further. Since I refuse to support any endeavor which recognizes the acting accomplishments of Sandra Bullock, I did not have the privilege of seeing the new iPad commercial during the Academy Awards ceremony.

As I see it, the iPad fits into a third or fourth possible category. Category 3, as I have discussed before, is when a product doesn’t pretend to solve a problem, nor create one that never existed. Sometimes it can get by just because it is “cool”. When I ask people what I would do with the iPad, and they tell me I would be doing things I already do, just on a neater device, I start to believe the iPad fits in this “ain’t it cool” category. However, it is possible the iPad will attain a status rarely achieved by a consumer product. Once in a while, a product totally transcends market boundaries and definitions by making us reconsider our very habits and assumptions. Like prisoners emerging from the Platonic cave, we are confronted with a new reality in which the old way of doing things is completely obsolete, and we are presented with seemingly endless possibilities. I am willing to admit there is a small chance the iPad will fit into this fourth category. There is a chance that I am incredibly shortsighted, and Apple is not just trying to ram an oversized iPod Touch down consumers’ throats. For now, though, I am willing to stick to my belief that we are expected to buy it just because it is cool.

I think the larger lesson here is that reaching for the fourth category takes guts, and is what every business or entrepreneur should strive for. However, it is probably a wise bet to focus on the first option. Category 2 might work, but you run the risk of being a late night infomercial joke. And only once you have built up enough cache with the right kind of audience (café sitting, fixed-gear bike owners, I am looking at you) can you even hope to be included in Category 3.

Perhaps this has been something simmering under my skin for a number of years – but when I saw this news headline, “Apple admits using child labour” I had a repeat vision of an old peddled story that is indicative of trash reporting at its worst. First off – child labour seems to imply (to me at least) a 7-year-old anemic, malnourished child not the 11 instances Apple reported themselves of 15-year-olds working in a factory manufacturing parts for the iPhone in China.

I’m not here to defend Apple but rather provide a personal alternative view based on personal experience – so yes this is a disclaimer that this is a personal point of view – not one necessarily shared by the Company.

10 years ago I worked in Phnom Penh, Cambodia for a well-respected English newspaper, The Cambodia Daily. One Sunday, a small band of high-profile investigative reporters from the Big Smoke descended upon the little capital of Cambodia hot on the tale of a hard story: Child labour at clothing factories. As a result of the “investigation” both Gap and Nike suspended their activities in the country, which meant they also suspended the wages of thousands of people, with tens of thousands of family members dependent on the best honest wage in town.  Should Nike and GAP have pulled out? No but that’s another story. Thousands of families who relied on the clothing factory wage of $40 per month (nearly four times the wage paid to civil servants at the time) were laid-off. Families who lived on this lifeline were left with scant alternatives – perhaps other factory work but prostitution and begging were also high among those alternatives

The right of journalists and pressure groups to investigate should always be defended whether it’s to verify that strict codes of conduct are followed by large corporations or the factory conditions in developing countries that manufacturer for multinational corporations. However, journalists also have a responsibility to provide the full story – not just headlines aimed to grab attention and point the finger for the sake of readership or a personal career notch on the belt. The incident in Cambodia was a disaster for many families.

So with this latest headline trotted out, I see the danger in repeating the same bad journalistic mistake. The question of why were 15-year-olds working in these factories should be asked and what is going to be done to resolve the issue?  Child labour does happen (and no I’m not condoning child labour) and will continue to happen, sometimes because families need to survive. However, the alternatives can be much worse. To Apple’s credit they published the report that identified the instances of child labour. It’s a good example of corporate responsibility – it’s not perfect but the Company is striving for improvements:

“Apple discovered three facilities that had previously hired 15-year-old workers in countries where the minimum age for employment is 16. Across the three facilities, our auditors found records of 11 workers who had been hired prior to reaching the legal age, although the workers were no longer underage or no longer in active employment at the time of our audit.”

A rising tide lifts all boats and with improved corporate social responsibility from multinational companies, the standards in developing countries can rise.

In an article released yesterday in BusinessWeek, it was disclosed that the Federal Communications Commission is considering paying broadcasters to vacate wireless spectrum, which the agency would use to alleviate network congestion caused by the growing popularity of devices like smartphones.

It was a slow day for news. This isn’t exactly an earth-shattering revelation. The reallocation of under-utilized spectrum has been considered a logical step for use by rapidly growing wireless networks for a long time. With the steady rise of smartphones and their demand for data services, it is clear that wireless service providers will need more than 4G equipment upgrades to deal with the swarm of new subscribers.

The problem is the plan. You see the U.S. government would buy back spectrum from broadcasters, and then turn around and auction the newly acquired spectrum to companies that desperately need more to augment their networks. Networks that are already straining to support the growth of data-intensive devices like the iPhone. Companies like AT&T and Verizon, who will pay dearly for access to more wireless spectrum.

In a recent study submitted to the FCC by The Brattle Group, one likely scenario suggested that the government could acquire wireless spectrum from incumbent broadcasters for $6 billion and auction that spectrum for $48 billion. That’s a tidy $42 billion profit.

Why would broadcasters agree to sell their spectrum assets to the government, only to have the government turn around and auction those assets to the highest bidder?

Considering these sums of money, the FCC will need to sharpen its pencil or prepare for a lengthy legal battle. It will either have to sweeten the deal for the incumbent broadcasters, or claim eminent domain and seize the spectrum.

Either way it will take a lot of time and a lot of lawyers to sort this one out.

With the holiday season in full swing, leave it to the Onion to hammer home the absurdity of mass consumerism and the fickle attitude with which we approach technological innovation.

Yes, I realize the irony and apparent hypocrisy of writing that statement 2 posts after my gushing review of the Droid, let alone that my job description necessitates regular commentary on consumer electronics. Yet, I find it amazing (sometimes to the point of comedy) how quickly people can become enamored with a product, make it a reflection of themselves, then have it fall out of favor as soon as something new comes around.

For instance, I have recently marveled at the growth of the flat screen TV market, despite what I think are ridiculously high costs. Sure, when plasma TVs were first introduced, they were 4 times as expensive as they are now. But I if you told an average person 10 years ago that they would spend $1000 on a television, they would have thought you were nuts. Now, it is expected. I don’t think you can even find a rear projection TV at most stores. So the story goes- what was once considered a luxury is now a necessity.

There are obviously huge tangible benefits to technological progress, but at what point does the marginal utility we gain from new technology need to be justified through the coercive use of marketing? If Playstation is so fun, why does Sony have to tell me through a multimillion dollar ad campaign that never actually shows people using their product?

I enjoy using my phone, and think there are plenty of practical and fulfilling applications for a device that has the potential to connect me to other human beings. It is when the desire for human interaction is usurped by the desire for status, or whatever else Motorola, Google, Apple and the like are selling, that we begin to lose our way. I know it is cliché to ask that we focus  on the “real meaning” of the holidays, but I can’t help but think that our society would be better off if we invested less of ourselves in objects we will just replace as soon as the next cool gadget comes along, and more in each other. I think that should be the major challenge to our industry: to develop technology that enables more sustainable and sensible lifestyles (while still providing jobs for people like yours truly).

In a recent speech, John Donovan, the CTO of AT&T commented that “3G data traffic on the company’s wireless network has risen nearly 5000% in the past 12 quarters”. This statistic coincides nicely with the wildly successful release of the iPhone and the App Store. There are now nearly 15 Million iPhones running exclusively on the AT&T network in the U.S.

He went on the say that “This growth has required extensive rethinking of wireless networks as we know them, as well as significant advances in the supporting IP backbone and other infrastructure.”

Clearly Mr. Donovan is responding to complaints about the less-than-perfect performance of the AT&T wireless network, especially in metropolitan areas. It’s no secret that the AT&T network has been taxed by the widespread success of the iPhone and the App Store.

I don’t think AT&T needs me to rush to its defense, but I think we can all agree that 5000% growth in data traffic is staggering. It is likely that any single wireless carrier would struggle with the network congestion problems that 15,000,000 iPhone users bring to the party.

It might be time to change the game. If the network infrastructure cannot grow fast enough to support the continued success of the iPhone, then it might be time for Apple to reconsider its exclusive relationship with AT&T. Apple should spread the wealth, and data consumption, to other deserving carriers. All of us, as consumers, would be grateful.

I’m trying to find a study rather than anecdotal evidence that web meetings/web conferencing is on the rise. I know it is because I see more companies entering the realm but also because in my daily life I use it more frequently for meetings.  Plus in all fair disclosure we have a number of customers using GIPS’ technology to support web meetings, such as WebEx and Citrix. I never did understand the concept of dialing in via the telephone and logging online to participate in a web meeting – especially as you can utilize HD voice via your PC.

There is one issue that does come to mind though on the topic of web meetings and that is etiquette.

There has been no guide book written on web meeting etiquette but I feel I should propose a few common sense guidelines – especially as a few of my meetings have caused some annoyance.

No Typing!

For one simple reason – everyone else can hear your typing and it is very distracting to all parties. If you really need to type – put yourself on mute.

No children or animals.

While it’s a well-worn quote, ‘Don’t work with children or animals’… in the background at least. It’s worthy advice, especially during a business call. I had the pleasure recently of listening to dogs barking (incessantly), parrots squawking and two little children taking lumps out of each other. Rather funny, but not ideal for a conference call.

Avoid Being a Conference Hog

OK, we’ve all been there. We’re sitting in a conference room meeting and someone is a conference hog and seems to loves the sound of their own voice (and it’s just not that loved by others!) While you’re in a room it’s much easier to get the conference hogs attention but on a call it’s much more difficult. With HD Voice there aren’t the scrambled confused voices overlaying each other – so give time to everyone to speak.

To Mute or Not to Mute

One recent conference call, I heard a background conversation of one of the participants. Whether you are using a headset or your computer’s microphone beware that the technology really does pick up side conversations. For one it’s distracting but you also don’t want an embarrassing episode either.  Just think when video comes along what could happen!

I recently traveled to Europe and always trying to be mindful of mobile phone costs – I used Wi-Fi connections wherever I could to make outbound calls. I use a number of different VoIP providers depending on whom I need to connect with, if they are on instant messenger I can connect via Nimbuzz because Nimbuzz connects a number of social and instant messenger clients.

When I need to connect with a landline or mobile phone I have a number of other VoIP clients. The quality of the experience is important and while I’m a believer in VoIP it’s easy to see why VoIP can, and has in some cases, got a bad name. My experience with some applications is less than good (none of them GIPS’ customers I might add.) When a free call is placed, people may a tolerance for inferior quality – that is until a better application or client comes along. Bad voice quality drives away customers and it’s a great way to push new customers over to your competitor.

However, when a customer is paying there is little tolerance for substandard calls – it becomes frustrating and annoying – it’s like going to a restaurant and ordering filet mignon but ending up with overdone rump steak. It’s easy to see that such a place of business will see customers go elsewhere.

Thankfully, I like to tinker with different VoIP clients on my iPhone – try them all out for yourself and see which one suits you

While the blogosphere is abuzz with the big news regarding a certain App Store denying access to Google Voice, as well as the ensuing FCC investigation and Eric Schmidt’s resignation from that company’s board, I have vowed to not write about said company (if you are looking for more information, our own Michael Graham has some background on the FCC’s new antitrust push, and Andy Abramson has links to all the letters from the FCC to the parties in this particular case). Instead, I would like to mention an incredibly important topic that looks like it is getting some long overdue attention.

In what is the deadliest conflict since the Second World War, a civil war and associated violence have killed more than 5 million people in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) in the last 12 years. At the heart of the conflict lie some of the most valuable mineral resources in the world. Various militia groups currently control DRC mines, which produce vital material for many consumer electronics goods, such as cell phones and laptops. Despite the scale of these atrocities and their economic significance, Western media have barely uttered a peep until recently.  However, this appears to be changing as major news outlets are beginning to increase their coverage.  Most importantly, the centrality to the conflict of multinational corporations’ desire for these minerals seems to also be getting attention. I have yet to see a report which indicts specific electronics companies, but given the extent of the situation, it can be assumed that there are probably millions of devices in use which rely upon materials from DRC.

To ensure that your dollars are not going to fund the atrocities in East Congo, and that your phone or laptop does not run on minerals from that region, you can endorse the Conflict Minerals Pledge , urging companies to verify that they are not using minerals from DRC in their products, as well as email the largest manufactures asking them to sign the pledge.

You see, UC is a buzz term now. If it’s not the University of California (UC) system grabbing the headlines it’s the other UC – Unified Communications. Thankfully it was a positive note from Infonetics research that showed growth in the industry albeit with the deeply affected global economy. “”The unified communication market did well in 2008, growing 16 percent sequentially… While reduced enterprise spending will be a drag on the market, revenue in the communicator segment, the most important measure of the overall unified communication market, is expected to nearly double in 2009,” said Matthias Machowinski, Infonetics Research’s directing analyst for enterprise voice and data.

I hope he’s right.

Machowinski puts the growth down to the “ability to enable workers to communicate more effectively with mobile and geographically dispersed colleagues, and to integrate multi-modal communication services to help increase productivity.”

According to the bi-annual report Cisco rose in the communicator market from the number 5 spot in revenue market share to number one in 2008, followed by Siemens and Avaya.

On a related note, another survey showed that companies are not slashing their voice communications budget (well at least those surveyed).  Purchase-decision makers at companies using enterprise telephony equipment were asked whether they plan to increase, maintain or decrease 2009 expenditures.

“Ultimately, companies do want to decrease or slow the growth of their overall voice communications expenditures. One item they’re looking at cutting is communication services (long distance, trunking, conferencing, etc.), which takes up the largest portion of the budget. Meanwhile, they’re willing to invest in new infrastructure and applications if it contains or reduces communication services,” stated Machowinski.