Ofcom report on wireless in the last mile

I'm back in business after getting the "powder flu" (see this for causes of this disease ... it looks like I may get a relapse!).

One of the discussion points in the literature is whether wireless (eg. municipal wireless systems) can serve as an effective "third pipe" to help reduce the concerns about implicit collusion between service providers. This report from the UK regulator Ofcom sheds light on this question. The report's author notes:

One obvious question then arises - can wireless address the needs of Broadband 2.0? It would have to do so at a competitive cost, which means preferring self install indoor systems and minimising base station numbers, perhaps by working at the lower frequencies of the UHF band. But before evaluating specific wireless technology approaches, benchmarking against access technologies in other countries was performed, with the following results

1. It was quickly apparent that countries leading on bandwidth to the home are all using some form of fibre system. Whilst Japan/Korea are doing this with government sponsorship, Verizon and AT&T in the US have recently begun fibre roll-outs on a purely commercial basis. This is a watershed development for fibre in the local loop.
   
2. Interest in fibre is high in the EU too, but some operators have halted their roll-out plans due to the absence of an FCC-style forbearance on fibre unbundling within the EU.
   
3. Benchmarking against upcoming wireless standards showed these were biased towards
   small screen mobile content delivery, i.e. they are not attempting to address the challenge of the Broadband 2.0 requirements for delivery of HD services to the home.
   

Transition to digital radio

In the US, we are most likely to read about the transition to digital television. Indeed, I have referred to this several times on this blog (see this, for example). What is also happening, though much more quietly, is digital radio. In the past few months, I have begun hearing advertisements in the local market for "HD Radio" (which is how this is being branded in the US). To gain perspective on this, you might find this article from Wired interesting. Here is part of what they have to say:

But in the United States? Not so much. Slightly more than 1,000 U.S. stations now broadcast in HD Radio, according to iBiquity Digital, the company that created the technology behind digital radio in the United States. But none yet offer the features available in the United Kingdom. Instead, they use the additional frequencies HD Radio technology provides to offer new channels of content called "multicasts." Top 40 station WNKS, for example, simulcasts its main analog signal on one of its HD Radio frequencies, and multicasts a Christian format on the other.

"Multicasting is HD Radio's initial value proposition, but it's just a first step," says iBiquity CEO Bob Struble.

Struble envisions HD Radio eventually delivering scrolling-text news and traffic updates, integrating with car navigation systems, and offering on-demand song downloads. And the new partnership between Clear Channel and Microsoft will create a national data service called MSN Direct HD that delivers localized, personalized content to home and car HD Radio receivers.

Just as in television, what is required is an equipment investment on the part of consumers. Right now, the choices are fairly limited. Do you think that the transition is likely? There is not a government push behind it (at least that I am aware of) as is the case with HDTV

Predictions from Deloitte and Touche

The consultancy Deloitte and Touche recently issued its 2007 predictions (free subscription required). A sampling of their predictions:

One of the key possibilities for 2007 is that the Internet could be approaching its capacity.

The debates around the world over net neutrality look likely to continue through 2007.

2007 should see many launches of IPTV services around the world.

Telecommunications operators may well continue to focus on applications that generate large files and high data rates in 2007.
In 2007, the connectivity chasm may become as well known as the digital divide.

2007 may well see telecommunications services being given away.

Cost of FLOSS

Yes, you can get floss for under $3.00 at your local market. The cost of FLOSS, or Free/Libre Open Source Software has been a discussion item in the press for some years. Some (often sponsored by Microsoft) have asserted that the total cost of ownership of FLOSS-based systems is, in fact, higher than proprietary alternatives. This article, published at Silicon.com, points to this EU sponsored study, which asserts otherwise. Thurston writes:

According to the report, which was authored by academics at the United Nations University in Maastricht, Netherlands: "Our findings show that, in almost all cases, a transition towards open source [produces] savings in the long-term cost of ownership."

Microsoft has attempted to persuade IT professionals and businesses that Windows can be cheaper than Linux, through its Get The Facts campaign. Get The Facts cited examples where Redmond's software offered a cost advantage over open source.

The EC report also issued encouragement for organisations considering the free Open Office applications suite. "Open Office has all the functionalities that public offices need to create documents, spreadsheets and presentations," the report said. "Open Office is free and extremely stable." It added that users were equally as productive with Open Office as they were with proprietary software.

But the report issued two notes of caution. Firstly, it said that short term costs would be higher for organisations migrating, even partially, to open source, largely because of the initial cost of training. Secondly it said some workers may feel undervalued if they are required to work with free software.

I will be looking forward to studying this report in more detail.

Technorati Tags:
Open source, Linux, Microsoft, EU, economics

"Net Neut*" again ...

It should not come as a surprise to learn of more legislative interest in the somewhat vague idea of "network neutrality" in light of the recent legislative change and in light of the AT&T/BellSouth merger. Indeed, there have been numerous actions that have been reported lately. See this from the NY Times and this, for example. Do you think the chances of legislation are better? Do you think that regulating the Internet in this way is a good idea (or meaningful, for that matter)?

Separately, you might find this report interesting, in which the authors argue that municipal ownership is the answer to network neutrality problem. Do you agree? Why or why not? Is this a first step to nationalization, ala Chavez in Venezuela?

Technorati Tags:
Network neutrality, municipal networks