Brian Roy’s Blog

The future of the LAN

Thursday, January 31st, 2008 | IT, The Future | Comments

ComputerWorld ran an article today calling into question the future of the LAN (local area network). The article features Bob Metcalfe (Wikipedia) - one of the inventors of Ethernet.

“We are just at the point where you can talk about terabit connections without sounding like a wack job,” Germanow noted. As for market share, Ethernet now has nearly 100% of the LAN market, he said, adding that his firm stopped tracking competitive technologies years ago. “I think Ethernet will continue to play the primary role in LAN connectivity at least through my lifetime,” he added.

What is interesting about the article is that only the last 3 paragraphs deal with the LAN becoming obsolete.

Actually, when the Grim Reaper does come, he may be on a mission to collect the LAN itself, and that may happen not so long from now, said Robert Whiteley, an analyst at Forrester Research Inc. The LAN will become obsolete, he predicted, through a process he called de-perimeterization.

“We are already seeing 20 or 30 of the largest global firms doing it in isolation, and in five or 10 years it may reach critical mass,” he said. Firms are finding that they can skip cabling and adopt wireless networks. The next step is to give each machine a direct Internet connection, with appropriate security technology, skipping the LAN, he predicted.

It seems to me this opens more questions than it answers - an in no way explains how these new technologies(?) will replace and enhance the functions we currently rely on our LANs for.

It is a very interesting read…

Ah… that is why I can swear with Predicitve Text…

Friday, January 25th, 2008 | Humor | Comments

A little Friday humor…

Verizon targets Fixed VoIP Services

Thursday, January 24th, 2008 | Innovation, Regulation, VoIP | Comments

Jeff Pulver gives us his thoughts on Verizon’s continued patent assault on VoIP providers.

This case against Cox is significant because rather than seeking the same win it got from Vonage from other similarly situated companies, Verizon is now seeking to expand the breadth of its winning patent portfolio to fixed VoIP. To the extent that Verizon wins here, this could have broad implications for other fixed services using DOCSIS (as Cox and the rest of the cable industry generally use), presumably other fixed VoIP that doesn’t use DOCSIS, and depending on which if any patents are upheld – to VoIP billing systems, routing systems, network management, and other technologies. So while this is the first major suit against a fixed VoIP services, my quick read of the patents suggests that only in a few cases (like the 930 patent) are the patents limited to fixed functionality. Among analysts, there is still speculation as to why Verizon chose to go after Cox cable instead of a cable company like Comcast who presumably uses the same technology, shares a greater competition footprint, and has a larger number of customers.

Jeff’s post contains links to the suit and each disputed patent.

This activity continues to stifle adoption and investment in VoIP services in the US - with the net effect that only the legacy fixed line carriers (with their patent arsenals) are able to effectively able to offer these services. That being said - they have little or no profit motive in innovating voice communications - after all their revenue is generated from fixed PSTN service.

One of the key differences as TeleGeography points out is that in Europe, incumbent service providers have had to compete against VoIP providers and now themselves account for 26% of VoIP subscribers, while in the US incumbents have remained largely on the sidelines in terms of VoIP.

This is - in my opinion - another attempt to shield a business model using legislation. Verizon is not trying to protect their VoIP offering (business model) by enforcing these patents… they are protecting their existing fixed line business model.

Instead of embracing innovation and using their patents to develop superior offerings - and winning in the marketplace - they are using their patents as blunt instruments to blunt the effect of innovation.

The bad news is that Verizon can not - long term - win this battle. All they will do is force the innovation to locales outside the influence of the US patent system. Verizon is doing VoIP providers in Europe and Asia a huge favor and the US consumer a huge disservice.

The Entertainment Industry’s problem is NOT copyright infringement…

Wednesday, January 23rd, 2008 | Innovation | Comments

As a follow up to my earlier post on the NY Times copyright debate…

Everyone interested in this subject should take a look at Simon Napier-Bell’s The life and crimes of the music biz in the Guardian.

As I pointed out earlier… copyright (and by extension piracy) is - for the most part - a distraction from the real issues facing the music industry. The real issues surround the fact that innovation has disrupted their business model.

Artists had to pay their own recording costs yet companies ended up owning the records. ‘The bank still owns the house after the mortgage is paid,’ is how Senator Orrin Hatch described it. Could we imagine film stars having to pay the costs of the movies they starred in and then giving the rights to the company that distributed it?

Artists also had to pay a packaging deduction of around 15 per cent. This, despite the fact that packaging rarely cost more than 5 per cent. The remaining 10 per cent was enough to pay the record company’s entire cost of manufacturing the record. All in all, it meant an artist who sold 200,000 copies of a first album would still owe the record company although the record company had made a profit of a million.

Innovation has empowered the artist… production and distribution costs have dropped - thanks to technology like GarageBand and Amazon’s MP3 Downloads.

Copyright’s are not our problem as consumers - they simply protect the right of the artist to do as he or she sees fit with his or her creation. The problem with the music industry was that it was always based on the artist having no choice. If you want to make any money in the music industry you have to sign with a major.

‘People are so anxious to record, they’ll sign anything …’ said singer Tom Waits, ‘ …like going across the river on the back of an alligator.’

They flocked to the majors asking for a chance. The failure rate was still the same. Count the names of every artist who appeared in the Top 100 from 1980 to 1990 - 1,000 perhaps? Multiply by nine and that’s the number who signed to majors and were never heard of again.

Today artists have a choice - and that is what really scares the music industry. When the artist no longer needs the record label for production, distribution and promotion what role is left for the label? If the industry was really interested in protecting copyright - and the artist’s rights to control their work - they would embrace the innovations and celebrate the liberation of artists from the unpleasant needs of the label’s business model - leaving the artist free to set the price at which her or she is willing to sell his or her product. They would assume a consultative role in which they provide services and assistance to the artist in promoting themselves. In short - artists would contract out services to the label - not the other way around.

Again - it is the business model that is broken - the ability to produce, promote and distribute was (and for the most part still attempts to be) the scarce resource in the music industry. The changing reality - with the innovation technology has brought to the industry - is that it is now the artist that is the scarce resource.

The only way for any business to survive such a radical change to the fundamental business dynamics is through innovation. The ability to re-think and re-imagine without the constraints of what has always been done.

That skill is more important and scarce than ever - given the rate at which technology and globalization are making business model innovation occur.

Standard Platform vs. Competiton - Which is better for innovation?

Tuesday, January 22nd, 2008 | Innovation | Comments

Mike Masnick wrote a nice article today for techdirt exploring the question:

Which is more important for innovation: A standard platform or competition?

The question is evaluated in terms of gaming systems (i.e., platforms) but the arguments for each side can easily be used for any system - for example, one OS vs. OS diversity, ATT vs many Telcos, etc.

I think Mike hits on the heart of the issue here:

… where the biggest economic contribution comes from: the platform or the applications on top of the platform. If it’s the platform, then competition makes sense. If it’s really the applications on top of the platform then it’s going to make sense for there to be a standard to let the competition occur on top of the standardized platform.

We need to understand that the platform vs. competition question is cyclical. A standard platform is great as long as it enables the business models that consumers are willing to pay (and pay a premium) for. The natural tendency is that once the platform becomes dominant - the platform maker(s) begin dictating terms, not enabling those business models. Why? because there is no profit motive in doing so.

That shift in the mindset of the platform makers inevitably drives the creation of competing platforms - again triggering platform competition. That competition will - eventually - create a market winner and dominant platform.

And so on…

Since innovation is about making money (my avatar doesn’t know how to do that) what is best for innovation is understanding the cycle, where we are in the cycle, and where best to concentrate effort and investment.