Blog: John Myers Subscribe to this blog's RSS feed!

John Myers

Hey all-

Welcome to my blog. The fine folks at the BeyeNETWORK™ have provided me with this forum to offer opinion and insight into the worlds of telcommunications (telecom) and business activity monitoring (BAM). But as with any blog, I am sure that we (yes we... since blogging is a "team sport"...) will explore other tangents that intersect the concepts of telecom and BAM.

In this world of "Crossfire" intellectual engagement (i.e. I yell louder therefore I win the argument), I will try to offer my opinion in a constructive manner. If I truly dislike a concept, I will do my best to offer an alternative as opposed to simply attempting to prove my point by disproving someone else's. I ask that people who post to this blog follow in my lead.

Let the games begin....

About the author >

John Myers, a senior analyst in the business intelligence (BI) practice at  Enterprise Management Associates (EMA). In this role, John delivers comprehensive coverage of the business intelligence and data warehouse industry with a focus on database management, data integration, data visualization, and process management solutions. Prior to joining EMA, John spent over ten years working with business analytics implementations associated with the telecommunications industry.

John may be contacted by email at JMyers@enterprisemanagement.com.

Editor's note: More telecom articles, resources, news and events are available in the BeyeNETWORK's Telecom Channel. Be sure to visit today!

Recently in Broadband Category

Infotainment… Infotainment… Personally, I thought that David Letterman made that word up… I guess I am late to the party…

David-letterman

But in all seriousness, an infotainment system is a fancy term for mobile video and the other informational aspects available on a smartphone.  Specifically IVI or “in-vehicle” infotainment systems are those that reside in cars. Instat estimates Dollar-sign-thumbnail that 35 million in-vehicle infotainment (IVI) systems are expected to ship in 2015.

This is the continuing push of content from the desktop to the mobile platform.  Wireless carriers will find this situation both an opportunity and a challenge.  There are dollar signs attached with the wonderful world of infotainment.  Just like IPTV and other content delivery avenues.

However, as mobile connectivity and general video quality issues associated with the infotainment concept, wireless carriers will be more and more responsible for the customer care aspects of that content delivery, but with less control.  Also, wireless providers will have cost issues with the delivered content.  As I have said before, Warner Brothers, Disney, etc will want their cut of the revenues to provide that premium content.

Are your telecom organization executives ready for marketing and customer care aspects of deploying in-vehicle infotainment systems?

Post your comments below or email (John.Myers@BlueBuffaloGroup.com) / twitter (@BlueBuffaloGrp) me directly.


Posted March 3, 2011 3:14 PM
Permalink | No Comments |

Ahhh yet another partnership for content…. This one is between Comcast and Blockbuster for DVDs by mail ala Netflix.

ComcastBlockbusterDVD

Jeff Baumgartner’s analysis shows many of the aspects of the partnership including the available tiers of service between the two content providers.

However, I have questions about how Comcast and Blockbuster are going to ensure that the revenues of this relationship can be properly assured.  Linking the proper account information will be key to this situation to match the proper information between the two organizations.

NOTE – Comcast is clearly in the driver seat with this partnership.  However, Comcast will still have the obligation to make sure that their customers are properly billed.  If the revenue assurance, in particular billing assurance, has issues; customer experience and satisfaction may suffer and/or the partnership may cost more than the ‘promised’ value to Comcast provides.

How do you view the situation with Blockbuster’s partnership? And the associated assurance of the revenues?

Post your comments below or email (John.Myers@BlueBuffaloGroup.com) / twitter (@BlueBuffaloGrp) me directly.


Posted August 11, 2010 3:58 PM
Permalink | No Comments |

This week Verizon and Google put together a proposal on Net Neutrality.  Many in the “free as free beer as opposed to free speech” Net Neutrality crowd found the announcement to be a little less than they expected from Google.

Grant Gross’ analysis was excellent in terms of laying out the FCC role ( or more to the point, lack of a role… ) in the proposal. My favorite quote from the piece was/is:

"The agreement is even worse than previously thought, as it would remove rulemaking authority from the FCC and force them to give deference to a technical body," said Gigi Sohn, president of digital rights group Public Knowledge. "To have Google give in like this at the 11th hour is hugely disappointing."

Verizon’s position is not surprising to me.  They want to provide the backbone that makes companies competitive ( they also want to charge for it… ).  Google surprised me a bit just as they did other groups.  However, I think this shows that Google is seeing where the US stands in terms of broadband access speeds.

I believe the issue that for “free as free beer” Net Neutrality groups like Public Knowledge is that Google is starting the view Internet access as something that can be a competitive advantage rather than just a given.  Telecom carriers aren’t purposefully NOT implementing bandwidth… They are just looking for the business model that makes viable.

How do you view Google’s “change”/adjustment in Net Neutrality position?

Post your comments below or email (John.Myers@BlueBuffaloGroup.com) / twitter (@BlueBuffaloGrp) me directly.


Posted August 10, 2010 8:34 AM
Permalink | No Comments |

Doug Allen writes about the broadening gap between those with broadband and those without. The gap appears to be more based on location than on other aspects (ie rural vs urban/suburban).

The question is how to solve this situation...

I agree that there is probably a government based solution. However, I don't believe that the government should not be setting technology or bandwidth regulation to achieve this solution similar to the USF. And, I believe that the FCC and the local PUCs should use the spread of rural broadband access as the cost of providing certain aspects of higher speeds and potentially ( ...warning! net neutrality warning!... ) quality of service pipes to other consumers.

It is obvious that the current business plan for broadband doesn't make rural based broadband an attractive option. However, for the greater good, government agencies should make a trade off to ensure that this broadband gap doesn't widen AND handicap the growth of other broadband access.

What do you think? Government regulation on bandwidth to rural homes? Or government encouragement to get all Americans broadband covered? Send me an email (John.Myers@BlueBuffaloGroup.com) or post your comments.

NOTE - Wow... that sounded a lot like a "stump speech".... I need to stop watching CNN....

Technorati Tags: , , , ,


Posted April 4, 2008 8:00 AM
Permalink | No Comments |


Search this blog
Categories ›
Archives ›
Recent Entries ›