Am I burping when a friend sends me an article and I reply with a single observation.

I got a note about the NYC Big Apps competition. It was aimed at providing e-government solutions.

Apps are all the rage right now and it is going to continue. The big questions are not are people making apps, it how are they finding them. Is a contest the only way to highlight an application. If almost all the apps are free? Doesn’t free start to lose its viral nature?

As you know, I don’t think the technology of LTE vs. WiMAX is half as
important as the issues of applications. I had the benefit of meeting
with the Axxcelera folks and we got on the subject of government
applications. Video Surveillance specifically, and I was not allowed
to say more.

Which of course prompted me to do this video.

What I enjoyed about the full duplex nature of the system is that it
enables some very interactive camera movement and who knows what else
big brother would want to do. Ignoring the paranoia, the overall
effect of having such a system is pretty compelling to me.

Here are some of the other characteristics. While it is WiMAX it’s
designed more for some private solutions operating between 3.3-3.8 GHz
spectrum and supports a Full Duplex FDD (Frequency Division Duplex)
architecture. It does not need line of sight and supports error
checking and other quality management characteristics.

It could also be used for voice (VoIP) services given its full duplex nature.

Mark’s history mirrors the wireless industry closely and includes being the CTO of Leap and leading developments at Nextwave and Qualcomm. Today, he is doing some consulting and thinking about new opportunities in the market.
With all this history the discussion takes us to in-depth analysis. He blogs about various aspects of the industry and his life at http://spassmeister.com/ .

On this call, we discussed.
The History of GSM and CDMA and why we are at where we are.
The role of WiMAX in the market.
How it relates to wireless backhaul.
The issues of spectrum.
The smartphones impact on the carriers.
Demand and Costs are converging on the carriers roll out of wireless backhaul.
What business models are making sense right now?
What the opportunity for White Space in the market?

You can find Mark’s website at http://markkelleyonline.com/index.html

 

 Mark Kelley Online [33:34m]: Play Now | | Download

President Obama, went to China and gave a speech on Internet Freedom.

The President was asked if Chinese people should be allowed to use Twitter. It was an interesting that the Blackberry man admitted he does not tweet. In China, Skype is a partnership with TOM, a company that complies with government requirements.

The interesting issue about the Internet is that it was designed to be a transnational standard without being part of the ISC or any of the traditional rules. Now we are faced with government requirements from every country on the Internet. The Great Firewall of China, has its equivalents almost everywhere these days.

So the question has to be asked is will Internet Freedoms be the same everywhere, and if not, is there a core requirement we should aspire to worldwide.

The W3C, keeps expanding the abilities of the web to the point where the backbone of the Internet has shifted. Should we expect the web to be a baseline for these freedoms?

I will send some notes around to key players and would like your feedback of relevant people to ask these questions.

Should we expect Internet Freedoms to be applied world wide?

Is the a baseline of service beyond best effort we should expect?

What issues do we face if government and carriers regulate the Internet?

What technical issues are of concern to your these days?

I am never quite sure how come the world is so segmented. The realities of the market are far more ecclectic to me then the industry terms such as FMC, IMS, UC.

And in reality, I think that is exemplified by the UC event going on in TelAviv on November 17th that is worth your while.

Given there use of SVC for Video, integrations on IMS and their history in SIP it should be a great experience.

A friend writes about Ian’s article Nice article. Still not convinced that P2P is really necessary other than punching holes through access routers, but …

Now — if I had a shiny toy that worked for all my customers, and the cult was offering a system that plain didn’t work through everyone’s home firewalls without serious tweaks, I would hope I acted with as much dignity (or disinterest) as did Niklaus. The height difference may have helped.

These battles are so irrelevant to the real story, one again I will say that I expect that any IPR that maybe outstanding is little more than a process patent on top of Paradial, which combined with the GIPS codec made Skype what it was.

Now Skype of course is becoming something more. The Mood Messages are putting into a social network motif and at least these are people I normally chat with and not just faces in the crowd.

If anyone wants my advice, I have a killer app that should be added to these tweets of wisdom.

Telling taies out of school let me say that I think alot of the discussion about GoogleVoice is way off track.

Here are some of the per minute rates for the same call based on the rules.
As a result of Apple and Google debate, the discussion of GoogleVoice got ATT in a strange position. That of being the only one in the battle the FCC had the ability to really petition about the issue.

That lead to ATT pointing out that GoogleVoice was in an interesting position, while neglecting to mention they were truly a secondary service and not a primary solution, we also ended up with interesting issues of when does an enhanced service start stop or apply.

But none of this is what is on ATT’s mind. They are focused on the right issue. Intercarrier compensation. They are pointing out the blocked calls not to point at Google, but to point at the craziness that the commission needs to address.

This does get complicated because entwined are the issues of high cost providers, phantom traffic and traffic pumping, but if Google can choose to avoid the cost for a free service, the question that should be asked is what is the harm?

The harm may be to the consumer behind the high cost carrier and therefore competitiion is the answer.

The time is right given the BTOP process to stare down the advocates of the status quo and make a decision.

I want to apologize to my friends at Calliflower for pushing the overload on their system. We have been using it for years and it has enabled us to have a rich media discussion unlike any other. Fortunately the recording function worked.

Here is the podcast. It’s been edited to allow the content to be the focus. I also want to make you aware that the team of Rick Whitt from Google, Hank Hultquist from ATT, Todd Daubert from Kelley Drye and Glenn Richards from Pillsbury Law have all agreed to participate in this session in Miami January 20th.

Special thanks goes to Dave Erickson for FreeConferencecall.com for participating in the call. The issues he brought up we will also be discussing in a separate session at 4G Wireless Evolution.

 

 Net Neutrality Hank Hultquist and Todd Daubert [66:10m]: Play Now | | Download

If the FCC is going to put Wireless in the same bucket as cable and wireline, should we expect that the Enhanced Service Provider exemption still applies?

On the Google Policy Blog Rick Whitt responds to the FCC letter from ATT regarding Google Voice. It is very pertinent to the discussion we are having on the Calliflower call tomorrow about Net Neutrality.

We could say the carriers are suffering from a little enhanced services envy, given the fact that Verizon wanted to be compared to Google at the last wall street conference they attended. In this case ATT wants to point out that GoogleVoice admits that because of tariff anomalies, it is not servicing the rural markets, but does not consider this their battle.

So Let’s see if we come to a common ground tomorrow, about what exactly the FCC is trying to accomplish.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has expanded from four to six the principles of freedom associated with Net Neutrality. Now however these principles are now going to be codified into regulatory rules. So the question has to be asked can the concept of “open” be governed. Join us as we look at how these principles will be incorporated into policy. What companies, services and devices will be subject to these rules. And discuss if the jurisdiction of the FCC has to be modified to enable these principles.

Participants include: Todd Daubert of Kelley Drye, Hank Hultquist of AT&T and Rick Whitt of Google.
Join us on Tuesday October 6th, 2009 at 12:30 EST to 1:30 EST as we see if Open can be Governed (http://apps.calliflower.com/conf/show/58623)