Streamyx

By now everyone has seen those silly commercials on TV for Vonage phone service and their 'unlimited' long-distance calling feature. They display the proverbial shiny red bicycle that us kids just want to buy instantly. But what is behind this immaculate exterior? When something looks to good to be true, is it? To answer these questions and make an intelligent decision we must look into the advantages, disadvantages, and the dirty little details surrounding voip.

Voip is short for voice over internet protocol. In plain English this means making a phone call through the internet using a phone adapter or voip telephone. This datacom meets telecom technology began coalescing in 1996 and has grown into the voip service industry headed up by such giants as Vonage and Verizon. With the emergence of a whole new genre of communication, there are many advantages. The number one selling point is the cost advantage. It is cheap in comparison to telephone utilities' hefty costs for long-distance calls. The business model is based on the fact that voip is inexpensive. With voip you can get rid of your landline, thus eliminating the cost of having a traditional phoneline in your home or business. With certain software you can also talk to many people at once and swap documents and video back and forth. The web cam capability is also a plus, uniting people and business from any location globally. If you need another impetus to buy in then you can follow along in Ford's footsteps because they have just converted to voip service for its cost effectiveness.

So you save a bunch of cash. In some ways you pay for what you get. So what does your discount deprive you of? There are a plethora of disadvantages of voip. First, to use your new 'phone' the computer and software must be on. Forget the olden days of just picking up the phone, now you have to boot up. That spells trouble if you have a serious emergency.The service provider (ie. Vonage) provides you with the actual phone service, leaving you with the task of providing the broadband internet access. After that you get to install the telephone adapter which is often problematic. If you opt out of doing this you can buy an expensive voip phone. Once you get your voip going you are confronted with a whole new set of problems. The sound quality is what most people complain about off-hand. There are 3 elements to this; the clarity (fidelity), delay (overlapping of voices), and echo (the Grand Canyon effect). Perhaps the most disturbing disadvantage id the IP address problem. Calling from a computer you can not trace the exact roots of a call, except maybe to a neighborhood. Ip addresses are not as specific as old-fashioned telephone calls. What does this mean besides less accountability? This means you are out of luck if you call 911. They will not be able to locate where you are calling from. When you call people, their caller ID will not know what to say either. For instance, when someone calls from a Vonage phone the ID on the other end says 'Vonage'.

The latest gripe is about privacy. Voip is still highly unregulated by the government.. There are not many industry standards put into place yet. CALEA (Communications Assistance for Law Enforcements Act) and the 1964 Wiretap Laws keep the government in control of all communications period. So any new kind of communication would be under government scrutiny by default. Because of the IP address issue the FBI would have a hard time tracing calls. They have a general umbrella solution for this. Instead of monitoring one phone line for a police investigation, they can and will, monitor thousands of calls. If they are monitoring thousands of calls they cannot trace, it is almost random selection and could be you! As far as privacy goes, there have been other recent activities by service providers which has also been questionable. Pudding Media's voip service is free. It is paid for by the advertisers. These advertisers work much like google's gmail ads, finding keywords in the content to match the ads to. So if you are talking about visiting Fiji, travel options to Fiji would pop up as you talk.

You knew that there would be a catch to that pretty shiny exterior. Still though, a savings is a savings. So what is the smart alternative to voip? You could get a free software program like Skype, which allows you to call people that have it for free. Other than that option you will have to pick the lesser of two evils, problematic service versus expensive long-distance calling.

Adrienne Markovic | Marketing
Appeal Media Interactive Studios, LLC.
http://www.appealmedia.com
In the Heart of the Gaslamp!
311 4th Av. Suite 310
San Diego, CA 92101
(619)615.0707

As we all know by now, the FCC plans to auction off large swathes of the 700 MHz spectrum for exclusive use in wireless broadband deployment. 700 MHz has been the traditional bastion of UHF TV broadcast. This auction is a clear indication of where public discourse is likely to be played out in the near future and odds are it's not over broadcast TV.

The cellular, wireless broadband, cable TV and the satellite establishment are all girdling up for the auction but at the end, this may once again become a fight defined by the cellular guys.

Regulators, cellular operators and nervous ISPs the world over have their eyes on the FCC as it prepares to referee this possibly defining battle between the wireless broadband and cellular establishments more so because 700 Mhz's propagation characteristics are unmatched giving it marquee space.

If chunks of the 700 MHz band are actually used to deploy ubiquitous wireless broadband the range and mobility issues plaguing wireless broadband today vanish in a felled swoop. This however wont happen soon if the frequency falls substantially in the hands of the cellular establishment at the upcoming FCC auction.

Their massive investment in legacy networks reasonably ensures the cellular establishment shall continue buck trends positing that not only are the majority of us going to spend more time on the Internet but we shall do it over fatter bandwidth and wireless connectivity.

Doing the math, fatter bandwidth translates into at least 3 to 4 Mbits/second of ubiquitous wireless broadband speed to the handset if we are to go beyond SMS messaging or Blackberry and into the realm of true mobile internet access to our mail servers, to YouTube, Videoblogs, interactive gaming, and movies.

Given that the fastest 3G speeds available to a mobile phone today are around 500 to 700 kbits/sec, the disparity between demand and supply becomes worryingly apparent.

But hold on. Your new mobile phone probably has WiFi and that means an easy 2-5Mbits/sec of broadband to the handset. So when was the last time you used its WiFi capability? Its a safe bet this true wireless broadband highway into your mobile phone lies unused while you pay the cellular provider to check email over Blackberry and to download music files. As far as easy online access to YouTube or interactive TV & gaming go, forget about it because 3G or no 3G, cellular technology has no answers. The cellular establishment has circumscribed the user and in a way we are all culpable for allowing this to happen.

The reason why the wireless broadband highway connected to your mobile phone has no traffic while you continue using 3Gs narrow side lanes like HSDPA is largely because of mobility. If WiFi was allowed mobility ?and I purposely use the word allowed??youd be happily using its true broadband capabilities instead of buying expensive airtime on souped-up cellular air interfaces poorly suited for data downloads and to thumb away on band-aids like Blackberry.

The interesting twist to all of this is that the technology is available but possibly kept out of the consumers reach until investment in existing air interfaces is recouped. The matter would anyway be moot if a truly ubiquitous nationwide network is deployed over 700 MHz.

Why is the cellular establishment with deep enough pockets not encouraging the firming up of Wireless broadband standards that allow mobility and instead forcing us to use 3Gs low speeds? The answer also makes it clear why while theyd go ahead and acquire chunks of 700 GHz at the upcoming auction, it would be a very cold day deep down under before theyd actually use it to deploy true ubiquitous wireless broadband. A few bullets make the point:

?Right from the early days after its grand opening at the European auctions 3G /WCDMA consistently failed to compete effectively with OFDMA air interface technologies like WiFi when it came to data download speeds.

?During this period WiFi caught on massively at the grass-root level and moved past critical mass even though hobbled by what we now realizes are rectifiable mobility issues.
?It is easier to resolve wireless broad bands mobility related shortcomings than attempt an increase in speeds on the thin pipe associated with 3G.

?The reason why these simple changes to enable wireless broadband mobility have dragged on and on is more due to the cellular establishments intransigence that due to any intrinsic shortcomings in technology. The cellular establishment spent more than US$150Bworldwide on 3G licenses and similar loose change on its deployment so the reluctance is understandable. But that shouldnt make it acceptable.

?Ergo, any spectrum available for true wireless broadband (2.4 GHz, 2.5 GHz or 700 MHz) is least likely to be used by the cellular establishment to speedily engender mobile access.

Needless to say the cellular establishment goes to incredible lengths to protects legacy investment and eschew air interfaces that lend themselves more naturally to Internet access. There is no reason to think they will do anything other than prevaricate thus until legacy costs are fully amortized and beyond. They want consumers to pay for cellular airtime until their books cease demanding tithe. Until that happens, no video, YouTube or VoIP access is going to be efficiently allowed on to your mobile phone.

Again, the technology to enable mobility & handover between WiFi base stations exists as does what is needed to integrate WiFi, WiMax and cellular networks. "Unlicensed Mobile Access" (UMA) and such have existed unused for years allowing WiFi-cellular patches. Patching Wifi footprints to WiMAX is a lot easier. Such 4G networks will take advantage of the millions of WiFi clients already out there and be able to allow user to smoothly move between WiFi and WiMax footprints as long as the client-side device has 2.5-2.5Ghz chipsets. I foresee multi- band handheld devices with ability to access networks running on 2.4-2.5 GHz as well as 700 MHz and for good measure 2.5-3G related frequencies primarily to ensure roaming.

If such true ubiquitous wireless broadband does get deployed allowing you to watch video-blogs, and YouTube online on your mobile handset, it shall likely be by an ISP or someone like Google not beholden to legacy investments in air interfaces that are on the wrong side of the IP divide.

But while the cellular establishment may well be on the wrong side of history on the matter of easy and ubiquitous Internet access, they sit pretty when it comes to regular cash flows from incumbent networks.

Such preponderance of advantage enjoyed by an incumbent means a regulator like the FCC fails if he only remains neutral. Be it the EU, North America, Australia, India or in Malaysia we see definitive change only happen through rulings that give an edge to the newcomer. In a recent auction of the 2.3Ghz band, the Malaysian Regulator MCMC disallowed the reigning cellular establishment from participating. He had good reason for his ruling as the establishment has absolutely nothing to show for their 2.5 GHz holdings of the past so many years. The FCC needs to factor for such precedence while setting the rules for the upcoming auction.

Following Malaysias example and possibly blocking the existing cellular establishment from participating in the 700 MHz auction while making it easier for non-beholden parties like Google makes sense from a national and consumer perspective. Why? Because in its own selfish interest Google is very likely to do as its publicly declared and assist the generally penurious ISP community deploy a truly ubiquitous wireless broadband footprint in the face of a combative cellular establishment.

The customer after all has a right to ubiquitous true broadband especially when technology exists to make it happen. He should not have to depend on WCDMA/HSPDA powered thin pipes simply because the cellular establishment, with the possibly exception of Sprint, is not willing to cast aside a bad legacy investment.

I am convinced Google is a better bet to deliver a ubiquitous mobile access over wireless broadband than the cellular establishment just by virtue of its own selfish interests and not because its more enlightened or a better corporation. At this point in time Google simply appears to be better aligned with consumer interests. The corporate world being what it is, all this could change tomorrow but today someone like Google is the consumers best bet.

Besides impacting American consumers the FCCs 700 GHz auction could very likely establish what happens elsewhere in the world on the matter of ubiquitous true wireless broadband. A radical departure from legacy could do wonders for the industry and that includes the cellular establishment whose own long term interests are ill-served by their present approach. One can only hope the FCC does what is best for the American consumer and for this wonderful technology that allows us so much magic over the ether.