<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
   <channel>
      <title>Blog: John Myers</title>
      <link>http://www.b-eye-network.com/blogs/myers/</link>
      <description>Hey all-

Welcome to my blog.  The fine folks at the Business Intelligence Network™ 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 &quot;team sport&quot;...) will explore other tangents that intersect the concepts of telecom and BAM.

In this world of &quot;Crossfire&quot; 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&apos;s.  I ask that people who post to this blog follow in my lead.

Let the games begin....</description>
      <language>en</language>
      <copyright>Copyright 2008</copyright>
      <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Aug 2008 08:00:00 -0700</lastBuildDate>
      <generator>http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/?v=3.33</generator>
      <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs> 

<item>
<title>Interesting new experience....</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>So today I joined "iPhone Nation" (btw I hate the phrase <anything> nation).</p>

<p>Not that having an iPhone is anything special these days, but iPhone sits at the convergence of so many things; it is hard to deny the fact that iPhone is a catayst (or at least one of the cataylsts) for telecommunications.</p>

<p>As I make my journey from "smartphone" (nokia e61) to iPhone; I will provide insights on where I think this interesting little device will direct the near and long term aspects of telecom.</p>

<p>First, I will start with the fact that ATT has failed to learn from history.... What was the major failings of AOL's $19.95 "experiment"? So many people were trying to connect that no one could connect.... What is the first thing that the Apple Genius told me?  "Don't try to connect to 3G... You'll never get on... Use the 2G until further "notice" ...."</p>

<p>Gee thanks.... One area where telecoms often fail is to properly imagine the demand for their products/services. Because when they hit, they hit big and the network(s) fail to meet the demand.  Hopefully ATT will straighten out their issues .... or maybe I just need to stay within range of free wifi for the time being.... ;)</p>

<p>Note - this blog was posted using my iPhone.... I am still learning my new typing skills.... :D</p>]]><![CDATA[<img src="http://stats.b-eye-network.com/b/ss/powmbeyenetwork/1/H.12-Pdvu-2/123456?pageName=subscribe:rss:blogs:myers&amp;v16=subscribe:rss:blogs:myers&amp;hier1=subscribe,rss,blogs,myers&amp;c5=blog&amp;c6=subscribe&amp;c7=subscribe:rss&amp;c8=subscribe:rss:blogs&amp;c9=subscribe:rss:blogs:myers" width="1" height="1" alt="" border="0" />]]></description>
<link>http://www.b-eye-network.com/blogs/myers/archives/2008/08/interesting_new.php?ua=</link>
<guid>http://www.b-eye-network.com/blogs/myers/archives/2008/08/interesting_new.php</guid>
<category>Wireless</category>
<pubDate>Wed, 06 Aug 2008 08:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>The other guy...</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>While everyone is focusing on Steve Jobs and his announcement about the new iPhone,  I found a <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121305706681259335.html">Amol Sharma's article</a> about Ralph de la Vega, head of AT&T's wireless division.</p>

<p>I found the interview to be better than most in regards to the AT&T and Apple relationship because it didn't bemoan what the iPhone didn't have.  Also, de la Vega focused on how the iPhone would drive long-term revenues and not just those revenues in the next couple of quarters.</p>

<p>NOTE - Steve Jobs finally got me... iPhone here I come... Tap me on the shoulder if you find me in line on July 11 at my local Apple store. :)</p>

<p>Technorati Tags:  <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/telecommunications" rel="tag">Telecommunications</a>, <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/telecom" rel="tag">Telecom</a>, <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/ralph+de+la+vega" rel="tag" >Ralph de la Vega</a>, <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/amol+sharma" rel="tag" >Amol Sharma</a>, <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/ATT" rel="tag" >AT&T</a>, <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/apple" rel="tag" >Apple</a>, <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/iphone" rel="tag" >iPhone</a></p>]]></description>
<link>http://www.b-eye-network.com/blogs/myers/archives/2008/06/the_other_guy.php?ua=</link>
<guid>http://www.b-eye-network.com/blogs/myers/archives/2008/06/the_other_guy.php</guid>
<category>Wireless</category>
<pubDate>Wed, 11 Jun 2008 08:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Biggest hurdle to IPTV:  Last mile or Internet</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Tom Burton had a <a href="http://www.fierceiptv.com/story/top-european-iptv-drivers/2008-03-11">recent article</a> that looked at IPTV adoption in the EU.  It appears that many implementations are struggling to find the adoption numbers that make investors happy.</p>

<p>I'm not saying that IPTV won't come.  However, it is possible that IPTV might come in a form that most established telecoms won't enjoy.  It might just be that Internet based, Google-esqe video offerings will dominate the IPTV landscape rather than the HDTV, cable-esqe offerings that have lots of value-add and high ARPU.</p>

<p>It makes <a href="http://www.b-eye-network.com/blogs/myers/archives/2008/05/if_it_walks_lik.php">Tim McElligott's take from TMF-Nice</a> all the more poignant.</p>

<p>Technorati Tags:  <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/telecommunications" rel="tag">Telecommunications</a>, <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/telecom" rel="tag">Telecom</a>, <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/tim+mcelligott" rel="tag">Tim McElligott</a>, <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/IPTV" rel="tag">IPTV</a>, <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/EU" rel="tag">EU</a>, <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/tom+burton" rel="tag">Tom Burton</a></p>]]></description>
<link>http://www.b-eye-network.com/blogs/myers/archives/2008/06/biggest_hurdle.php?ua=</link>
<guid>http://www.b-eye-network.com/blogs/myers/archives/2008/06/biggest_hurdle.php</guid>
<category>IP Based</category>
<pubDate>Mon, 09 Jun 2008 08:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Is the biggest yacht worth it?</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>My brother and I have always enjoyed the exploits of Larry Ellison.  He has been quasi-battle with Paul Allen of Microsoft fame for the largest yacht in all of IT.  However, exactly how big a yacht can you have before you have to dock with the Navy's aircraft carriers instead of the "beautiful people".</p>

<p>Ellison has also been in battles with various CEOs over the biggest IT company.  My brother and I chuckled at the "victory" over Tom Siebel with Ellison's $5.85b purchase of Siebel Systems.  We both guess that Tom (<em> ... like we can call him tom...</em> ) was cordial, said thanks and cashed that "check" with a smile on his face and was probably thinking "have fun docking Oracle 'somewhere'...".</p>

<p>This week's news of a <a href="http://www.telecommagazine.com/article.asp?HH_ID=AR_4246">Verizon Wireless/Vodaphone - Alltel merger</a> made me think of Larry Ellison.  Yep.  Verizon Wireless is now bigger than AT&T Wireless.  Great.  I'm not sure that makes Verizon Wireless better or worse than AT&T, but I'm guessing that AT&T will try to make their "yacht" bigger just to say that they can.</p>

<p>Technorati Tags:  <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/telecommunications" rel="tag">Telecommunications</a>, <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/telecom" rel="tag">Telecom</a>, <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/larry+ellison" rel="tag">Larry Ellison</a>, <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/vodafone" rel="tag">Vodafone</a>, <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/verizon+wireless" rel="tag">Verizon Wireless</a>, <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/alltel" rel="tag">Alltel</a>, <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/ATT" rel="tag">AT&T</a>, <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/yachts" rel="tag">yachts</a>, <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/tom+siebel" rel="tag">Tom Siebel</a>, <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/jim+barthold" rel="tag">Jim Barthold</a><br />
</p>]]></description>
<link>http://www.b-eye-network.com/blogs/myers/archives/2008/06/is_the_biggest.php?ua=</link>
<guid>http://www.b-eye-network.com/blogs/myers/archives/2008/06/is_the_biggest.php</guid>
<category>Wall Street</category>
<pubDate>Fri, 06 Jun 2008 08:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>...It must be a goose.</p>

<p>While that might not make much sense, take a look at <a href="http://www.billingworld.com/blogs/boss/blogdefault.aspx?m=art&a=bss-oss-blog-tm-forum-billing-support-systems.aspx">Tim McElligott's blog</a> from the TMF-Nice show.</p>

<p>There are lots of organizations who believe that they are "every down players" ( <em>ie great defensive linemen and linebackers in American Football </em>).  However, they are really good pass rushers or good run defenders, but not both.  How do you tell the telecom service provider industry:</p>

<blockquote>"You're a good pipe provider, but not an end-to-end player...."</blockquote>

<p>Technorati Tags:  <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/telecommunications" rel="tag">Telecommunications</a>, <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/telecom" rel="tag">Telecom</a>, <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/tim+mcelligott" rel="tag">Tim McElligott</a>, <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/TMF" rel="tag">TMF</a></p>]]></description>
<link>http://www.b-eye-network.com/blogs/myers/archives/2008/05/if_it_walks_lik.php?ua=</link>
<guid>http://www.b-eye-network.com/blogs/myers/archives/2008/05/if_it_walks_lik.php</guid>
<category>Business Strategy / Model</category>
<pubDate>Fri, 23 May 2008 08:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Limited Vision for the Future of LBS</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>ABI Research has a <a href="http://www.abiresearch.com/products/market_research/Location_Based_Services">new report </a>out on location based services (LBS).  I agree with them that LBS is getting ready to blossom as a wireless technology and service offering.</p>

<p>However, I didn't like how they were assuming that most of the value would be flowing from the application developers via telecom service providers.  I believe that the Google ( <em>...and other yet to be determined "open garden" providers...</em> ) version of LBS will be a much stronger play than those offered by the established telecoms.  Google was not listed as a part of ABI's competitive landscape.  That is something to be considered when evaluating this particular piece.</p>

<p>Technorati Tags:  <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/telecommunications" rel="tag">Telecommunications</a>, <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/telecom" rel="tag">Telecom</a>, <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/location+based+services" rel="tag">Location Based Services</a>, <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/LBS" rel="tag">LBS</a>, <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/google" rel="tag">Google</a></p>]]></description>
<link>http://www.b-eye-network.com/blogs/myers/archives/2008/05/limited_vision.php?ua=</link>
<guid>http://www.b-eye-network.com/blogs/myers/archives/2008/05/limited_vision.php</guid>
<category>Location Based Services</category>
<pubDate>Fri, 02 May 2008 08:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Bleak Future for the Internet and Telecommunications?</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Yesterday, Andrea Seabrook has an <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89984940">interesting interview</a> with Jonathan Zittrain about his views on the possible future of the Internet and some of the associated telecommunications aspects:  Skype, Tivo, etc.</p>

<p>I do not agree with Zittrain's fears about Internet "censorship".  However, I do see the possibility of the telecom organizations who want walled garden content and subsidized equipment limiting the access of the Internet.  This would get around the Net Neutrality and "open Internet" aspects of FCC rules.</p>

<p>NOTE - I am not quite willing to "give up" on open devices.  In particular, I think that Zittrain misses the fact that the recent FCC auction included an open device spectrum and that the Internet has shown that there is always a way to open free distributed content (ie VoIP, Video, etc) past the guards of the walled garden.</p>

<p>Technorati Tags:  <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/telecommunications" rel="tag">Telecommunications</a>, <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/telecom" rel="tag">Telecom</a>, <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/jonathan+zittrain" rel="tag">Jonathan Zittrain</a>, <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/andrea+seabrook" rel="tag">Andrea Seabrook</a>, <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/walled+garden" rel="tag">Walled Garden</a>, <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/net+neutrality" rel="tag">Net Neutrality</a>, <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/FCC" rel="tag">FCC</a></p>]]></description>
<link>http://www.b-eye-network.com/blogs/myers/archives/2008/04/bleak_future_fo.php?ua=</link>
<guid>http://www.b-eye-network.com/blogs/myers/archives/2008/04/bleak_future_fo.php</guid>
<category>IP Based</category>
<pubDate>Mon, 28 Apr 2008 08:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Bandwidth Hogging Isn&apos;t Just For Cellular Anymore</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>I thought that iPhones were only dragging down my local cell tower.  It appears that <a href="http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/04/21/17NF-mobile-wireless-strains_1.html">iPhones are also "attacking" the LANs</a> of businesses.  Ephraim Schwartz looks at some of the non-cellular un-intended consequences relating to iPhone usage.... or rather "over usage".</p>

<ul>
<li>Are the networks of the US ready for the 'always on' iPhone?</li>
<li>Can "all you can eat" data access plans support this business model?</li>
<li>Will Americans allow a usage based data plan to come into effect if "all you can eat" doesn't work?</li>
</ul>

<p>Let me know what you think?  Send me an email (John.Myers@BlueBuffaloGroup.com) or post your comments.</p>

<p>NOTE - It appears that the only option is for higher "all you can eat" plans and not for usage plans... Or <a href="http://www.rcrnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080424/FREE/638332459">so says JD Powers</a>...</p>

<p>Technorati Tags:  <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/telecommunications" rel="tag">Telecommunications</a>, <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/telecom" rel="tag">Telecom</a>, <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/iPhone" rel="tag">iPhone</a>, <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/bandwidth+limitations" rel="tag">Bandwidth Limitations</a>, <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/jd+powers" rel="tag">JD Powers</a>, <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/billing+plans" rel="tag">Billing Plans</a>,<a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/all+you+can+eat+billing" rel="tag"> All you can eat Billing</a>, <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/usage-based+billing" rel="tag">Usage-based Billing</a></p>]]></description>
<link>http://www.b-eye-network.com/blogs/myers/archives/2008/04/bandwidth_hoggi.php?ua=</link>
<guid>http://www.b-eye-network.com/blogs/myers/archives/2008/04/bandwidth_hoggi.php</guid>
<category>Wireless</category>
<pubDate>Fri, 25 Apr 2008 08:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Mobile Marketing: What&apos;s in it for me?</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Mobile users continue to ask "what's in it for me?" when they are offered mobile advertising and coupons.  Erika Janes has a look at how the <a href="http://www.1to1media.com/Xfactor.aspx?DocID=30777&m=n">Oakland A's are using mobile coupons </a>to continue to leverage their online and mobile relationships with fans.</p>

<p>Not all organizations have the visibility and the draw of sport to encourage mobile coupons.  However, this example shows how if you are offering $5 per interaction with a customer that you can get their attention with specialized offers.  Types of interactions like this will push the development of habits that will make mobile marketing and mobile coupons more mainstream rather than simply an unwanted intrusion into a person's day.</p>

<p>Technorati Tags:  <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/telecommunications" rel="tag">Telecommunications</a>, <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/telecom" rel="tag">Telecom</a>, <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/erika+janes">Erika Janes</a>, <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/oakland+as">Oakland A's</a>, <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/mobile+coupons">mobile coupons</a>, <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/mobile+marketing">mobile marketing</a></p>]]></description>
<link>http://www.b-eye-network.com/blogs/myers/archives/2008/04/mobile_marketin.php?ua=</link>
<guid>http://www.b-eye-network.com/blogs/myers/archives/2008/04/mobile_marketin.php</guid>
<category>Mobile</category>
<pubDate>Mon, 21 Apr 2008 08:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Turnabout is Fair Play</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Most people know that I have taken to bashing Motorola for their business strategy and lack of stock performance... Well I guess not so much Motorola's lack of stock performance, but Wall Street's reaction to their lack of progress.</p>

<p>However, I am not without balance here.... Nokia <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/17/technology/nokia_earnings.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008041715">posted a less than stellar quarter </a>and their stock price suffered because of it.</p>

<p>NOTE - I agree with Scott Moritz's analysis about the lack of a current touch screen phone from Nokia.  It does show an issue with product positioning.  But, I'm not sure than anyone really wants to go "toe to toe" with iPhone for high end users.  It might make sense to go after lower price point buyers, but at the high price point Apple will hold the high ground for quite some time.</p>

<p>Technorati Tags:  <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/telecommunications" rel="tag" >Telecommunications</a>, <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/telecom" rel="tag">Telecom</a>, <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/nokia" rel="tag">Nokia</a>, <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/motorola" rel="tag">Motorola</a>, <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/scott+moritz" rel="tag">Scott Moritz</a></p>]]></description>
<link>http://www.b-eye-network.com/blogs/myers/archives/2008/04/turnabout_is_fa.php?ua=</link>
<guid>http://www.b-eye-network.com/blogs/myers/archives/2008/04/turnabout_is_fa.php</guid>
<category>Wall Street</category>
<pubDate>Fri, 18 Apr 2008 08:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Response to declining ecomony: Pre-Paid</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>While this particular information has been out for a while, I found the <a href="http://www.cellular-news.com/story/29821.php">comments</a> of Verizon CFO Doreen Toben to be interesting.</p>

<blockquote>"We see prepaid as an opportunity, we felt in the past we left some money on the table."</blockquote>

<p>The North American market has been traditionally a post-paid market.  It is "ingrained" into our habits much like "all you can eat" billing for usage.  The question is will the declining economic conditions be the motivation for both consumers and telecoms to make a significant change?  In order for that to happen, you would need a significant downturn in the economy....  Most economists don't see the economic conditions taking that path.  Then again "on the other hand..."</p>

<p>NOTE -  I tried to find that classic economist joke about "On the one hand... but then again on the other hand".  I will greatly appreciate it if anyone can find a link for that joke and/or the text of that joke.  Drop me an email at John.Myers@BlueBuffaloGroup.com or post your comments to the blog.</p>

<p>Technorati Tags:  <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/telecommunications" rel="tag" >Telecommunications</a>, <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/telecom" rel="tag">Telecom</a>, <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/doreen+toben" rel="tag">Doreen Toben</a>, <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/verizon" rel="tag">Verizon</a>, <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/pre-paid" rel="tag">Pre-Paid</a>, <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/post-paid" rel="tag">Post-Paid</a></p>]]></description>
<link>http://www.b-eye-network.com/blogs/myers/archives/2008/04/response_to_dec.php?ua=</link>
<guid>http://www.b-eye-network.com/blogs/myers/archives/2008/04/response_to_dec.php</guid>
<category>Business Strategy / Model</category>
<pubDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2008 08:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>IPTV Customer Service or Sales?</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>First it was Sprint's customer care policies.... Now, we have a great example of Verizon's. Richard Mullins <a href="http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/apr/08/na-verizon-staffers-caught-between-sales-service/">documents some of the issues </a>associated with Verizon's Tampa Call Center.</p>

<p>I believe that all of these issues exist at some call centers.  None of this information is new.  However, the interesting part, to me, is the aspects associated with the FiOS up-selling and the customer care issues associated with the new technology.  It appears that US providers of IPTV are not just having issues with truck-rolls and connecting users to the service.  It also appears that billing those services properly is also having issues.</p>

<p>Again, I believe that these are areas where US-based IPTV vendors need to standardize their policies and procedures as well as their technology to properly serve these new markets.</p>

<p>Technorati Tags:  <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/telecommunications" rel="tag">Telecommunications</a>, <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/telecom" rel="tag">Telecom</a>, <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/richard+mullins" rel="tag">Richard Mullins</a>, <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/verizon" rel="tag">Verizon</a>, <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/iptv" rel="tag">IPTV</a>, <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/customer+care" rel="tag">Customer Care</a></p>]]></description>
<link>http://www.b-eye-network.com/blogs/myers/archives/2008/04/iptv_customer_s.php?ua=</link>
<guid>http://www.b-eye-network.com/blogs/myers/archives/2008/04/iptv_customer_s.php</guid>
<category>Customer Care</category>
<pubDate>Mon, 14 Apr 2008 08:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Reverse 911 comes to Mobile</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Recently the <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/04/09/fcc.cell.phone.alert/index.html">FCC approved a new system for sending emergency text / SMS messages</a> to mobile phone users has both good and potentially damaging consequences.</p>

<p>On the positive side, I like taking the "reverse 911" concept to mobile and providing text messages to those users in the event of emergency.</p>

<p>However, I see two issues....</p>

<ol>
<li>Should too many of these messages come to mobile phone users, they could lose their impact.</li>
<li>Is it possible that established telecoms will use this as a requirement to further hinder the growth of mobile VoIP services similar to how they use 911 services as barrier to entry for wired VoIP providers?</li>
</ol>

<p>Either from a user perspective or from a barrier to entry perspective, there could be unintended consequences coming from new development.</p>

<p>Technorati Tags:  <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/telecommunications" rel="tag">Telecommunications</a>, <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/telecom" rel="tag">Telecom</a>, <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/FCC" rel="tag">FCC</a>, <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/mobile+alerts" rel="tag">Mobile Alerts</a>, <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/amber+alert" rel="tag">Amber Alert</a></p>]]></description>
<link>http://www.b-eye-network.com/blogs/myers/archives/2008/04/reverse_911_com.php?ua=</link>
<guid>http://www.b-eye-network.com/blogs/myers/archives/2008/04/reverse_911_com.php</guid>
<category>Wireless</category>
<pubDate>Fri, 11 Apr 2008 08:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Broadband Haves and Have-nots: How to solve?</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Doug Allen writes about <a href="http://www.telecommagazine.com/newsglobe/article.asp?HH_ID=AR_4070">the broadening gap </a>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).</p>

<p>The question is how to solve this situation...</p>

<p>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 (<em> ...warning! net neutrality warning!...</em> ) quality of service pipes to other consumers.</p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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.</p>

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

<p>Technorati Tags:  <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/telecommunications" rel="tag">Telecommunications</a>, <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/telecom" rel="tag">Telecom</a>, <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/doug+allen" rel="tag">Doug Allen</a>, <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/broadband" rel="tag">Broadband</a>, <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/rural+coverage" rel="tag">Rural Coverage</a><br />
</p>]]></description>
<link>http://www.b-eye-network.com/blogs/myers/archives/2008/04/broadband_haves.php?ua=</link>
<guid>http://www.b-eye-network.com/blogs/myers/archives/2008/04/broadband_haves.php</guid>
<category>Broadband</category>
<pubDate>Fri, 04 Apr 2008 08:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>The Elephant in the Room</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Sarah Reedy takes a look at the <a href="http://telephonyonline.com/iptv/news/iptv-operators-slow-0327/">installation times associated with US based IPTV</a> installations.  While the results aren't obvious, they are pretty self evident.  US IPTV providers take almost double the amount of time that their non-US based brethren do - 5.16 hours vs 3.79 hours.</p>

<p>While the topic was "danced around" in the piece, it needs to be understood that the lack of preparation that often comes with installers on truck-rolls is going to negatively impact the impression of the IPTV product.  Yes, it early in the adoption and implementation phases.  But, having 3-6 hours of face time with customers should represent confidence in a provider and not leave the impression that they are some-how lucky that there is an image on the TV.</p>

<p>I encourage the telecoms to implement the best practices discussed in Reedy's article before the DirecTv guy shows up and implements in 1-2 hours with similar or better products and services.</p>

<p>Technorati Tags:  <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/telecommunications" rel="tag">Telecommunications</a>, <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/telecom" rel="tag">Telecom</a>, <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/sarah+reedy" rel="tag">Sarah Reedy</a>, <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/iptv" rel="tag">IPTV</a>, <a href="http://www.technorati.com/tag/implementation+times" rel="tag">Implementation Times</a></p>]]></description>
<link>http://www.b-eye-network.com/blogs/myers/archives/2008/04/the_elephant_in.php?ua=</link>
<guid>http://www.b-eye-network.com/blogs/myers/archives/2008/04/the_elephant_in.php</guid>
<category>IP Based</category>
<pubDate>Wed, 02 Apr 2008 08:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
</item>


   </channel>
</rss>
