Cellular Networks – or lack of

In terms of coverage and availability, it seems like most users don’t really know, or care about the differences in networks that each carrier provides. That has recently started changing as competitive ads have target network type and network coverage. A good example is the lawsuit AT&T filed against Verizon over the “map” ads.

Recent news indicates that cellular companies, particularly AT&T are now struggling to catch up with society. Let’s take a more in-depth look at what is really out there over what cellular companies would like you to think is out there.

in 2007, Apple released it’s first iPhone. Before this release there were many “smartphones” on the market providing much of what the iPhone did at the time, linking to many online services to provide more content. But it wasn’t until the release of the iPhone that cell networks exploded by consumer frenzies. Users were consuming all forms of media on the iPhone at a staggering rate and AT&T’s 3g network choked. Why? Was it not enough towers? was AT&T just not prepared for the Apple invasion?

I can’t say I fault AT&T for being ill-equipped to handle the data usage the iPhone produced. At least not in the beginning. I do remember the lines of people standing hours at the store waiting to get their first iPhone. I’m not a fan of Apple, or any of their products, but I have to hand it to them. Their fanboy appeal seems to alter lifestyles of consumers. The trend of apple seems to sell despite their failed innovations. They don’t provide anything really new, or produce quality above any other company. It’s their logo and status appeal that gets the money.

Anyway, enough of my tangent, back to AT&T. To better understand what really happened. let’s look at the network as a whole. a Cellular networks mainframe is hooked into a channel, usually a T1 copper line that runs to their cell towers. On the towers is a transmitter that functions in the same similar fashion that a wireless router or wireless phone base unit does. Obviously without many towers in the area a device connecting to them is going to have a harder time getting a good signal, so in essence, yes AT&T failed on the iPhone release with lack of towers, but what about urban areas with good tower ratios and good connections? That boils down to the “backhaul”. As stated earlier most of AT&T’s backhaul was comprised (and still is in most areas) of T1 lines. T1 lines were not originally intended to support large amounts of data traffic that the iPhone was so obviously being used for. A t1 provides roughly 1.5Mbps (about a 1/4 – 1/2 an mp3 per second), when congested with hundreds or even thousands of users that network real estate is eaten pretty quickly and the network chokes.

Onto the problem. AT&T received exclusive rights, and still maintains those right, to the iPhone. However, they have done very little to actually resolve the problem caused by mass data use. Some cellular providers have already recognized this problem and started using fiber channels for their backhaul, which raises the bar from 1.5Mbps to anywhere from 2.5Gbps - 10+Gbps (depending on channels used). AT&T (and many others) reserved their hand and estimated they a few years before the upgrade must be in place. It wasn’t until 2009, and the release of the 3rd generation iPhone, that AT&T started to cough up some change to improve their networks backhaul with a plan to revise starting in 2009 and expected to end in 2015. Verizon, while also committing to upgrade their backhaul, took a different route and purchased all the unused 700MHz TV traffic that now lay dormant with the HDTV mandate in 2008. Sprint poured about 5 Billion into it’s 4g network AKA WiMax, and allowed Clearwire access.

This year AT&T expects to place 2 billion into their network to stay in terms with upgrading their network. Unfortunately it seems like they have waited too long. With the major E-Readers (nook and Kindle among them) using AT&T’s 3g network for updates and data traffic. A new iPhone slated for release in later this year, and the iPad using only AT&T’s 3g network. AT&T stands to take a MAJOR hit to data traffic only a year into their upgrade attempts. However, AT&T is still hiding in the closet with regards to a quickly changing social norm saying, “We believe, though, the device, based on where we believe it will be used in homes, in offices, coffee shops, bookstores, airports, so on and so forth will be used a substantial amount of time in a Wi-Fi environment.”

Hopefully the relationship between Apple and AT&T holds firm when their network chokes after the launch of the new devices coming out. I personally enjoy not having Apple Fanboys tying up my cell network.

Do you think AT&T will be able to handle the anticipated iPad and new iPhone? Will Apple’s trend start to fail with the iPad, or will they be forced to open their devices up to all networks? Leave your feedback.

What’s in a name?

iPad – The joke of the week. Whether or not the product is any good seems to no longer be the point of discussion.

Now I wasn’t even going to bother writing about the iPad because of the hundreds of articles on the web already discussing it’s qualities, or lack thereof in some cases. However I’ve noticed the trend go from it’s ability to simply remarks about it’s name. I recently stumbled across this article stating that apple may just end up being at the end of a lawsuit over rights to the name “iPad”.

Above the blatant disregard for trademarked names apple obviously cared little about. I can see the need for some companies, like Fujitsu, to defend the name it’s already released a product under. The question I have after this epic failure in brand naming, why would anyone want to retain a products name that even resembles the joke line that has followed this launch? There are times when any press is NOT good press, especially when it results in consumers opinion of a product to be associated with toiletries or hygiene products (unless of course that is your line of business).

I pose this question, why spend thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours of wasted man power to fight for a name that has, within days, become a huge public joke? Someone that knows nothing about the product will now start with a poor first impression that has to then be overcome just to reach a neutral stance before they can be sold.

All companies associated with this name should likely second guess their brand name, entertain the idea of simply settling in court to avoid further “comments from the peanut gallery”. Making a public mess over it will bring press around, but that’s not necessarily a name any of these companies should want being tweeted about. Except loss, take or give credits and hold a board meeting about changing the name.

Stephen Hutcheon of the Sydney Morning Herald stated "Slate is a little bit 'Flintstones,' " referring to the buzz that the iPad may have been called iSlate. Well, Flinstones is far better then Max-iPad. Australia is already commenting on the iPad name. World Wide joke it seems, and that’s good? Apple seems to already hold the license for iSlate, why not put it to better use?

What is your take? Do you think apple should fight to hold the title of iPad? Do you think the joke will just “fade away” as Hutcheon suggests, or is internet buzz still driven by high school like jokes?

Blippy – Why?

Blippy, a new social networking site designed to display personal credit card transactions automatically after purchase. Here we have a great example of peoples complete lack of interest in personal safety and security. Publicly posting up to every transaction, location, price, item, and frequency of use goes in direct violation against what we’ve come to know about personal identity protection.

Imagine, for a moment, that you were the criminal who is attempting to steal someone’s identity. One common known security practice put in place by credit card companies is flagging purchases made that exceed certain limits or go against a purchasing patterns that a customer generally follows. I know my card has been deactivated before because of unusual activity, be it several purchases in a day that don’t match my typical shops, or frequent use in another state. Blippy has made overcoming this security measure effortless. Simply steal a card, check Blippy, follow purchasing patterns.

Let us also take into consideration location tracking. This is already a problem among frequent social network trend like facebook and twitter. Users will frequently update their status via mobile phone or other device on what they are doing and where they are doing it. Aside from being extremely annoying to some, this allows other to track the exact location of an individual. In a more criminal state of mind, the mix of all these networks could allow them to track a target to a bar, wait until they have a few drinks, use social engineering to get close to their intent and lift a purse or card. Then they have free reign for the next several hours or possibly days to buy items following a trend from Blippy before they need to ditch the identity and seek a new one.

Obviously this is an extreme case scenario, but it’s also a case that would be virtually eliminated without constant updates to free and open social networks. Now I’m not against social networks, I use them, however I don’t constantly update them allowing people to track my movements. Most of these technologies help us all stay connected to the world around us and make it easier to pass information along. However we also have a great need arising to be more aware of the adverse effects these outlets could potentially have. 

Blippy is a prime example of social networking going too far. The negative effects present behind this idea far out-weight to positive advertising and social connection it might provide. If you would like to keep your friends up-to-date on shops or items of interest, feel free to post them. Not everything needs to be public and most certainly doesn’t need to be available instantly and automatically. I feel it’s only a matter of time until we see a headline involving theft or even death due to blippy’s publications.

How do you feel about this social networking idea, is it something you would use or feel is a good product? Leave your feedback and opinion.

Google vs. China

Recently, a good friend and I have entered into a bet involving the Google – China fiasco.

My side - likely scenario, Google will likely leave China. However I also entertain, and hope for, the idea that China may be backed into a corner and lift it’s skirt a bit.

My friends side - Google will absolutely not leave China and China will certainly not modify it’s laws.

The Story:

For those of you that are unaware or vague on the details of this issue, allow me to present the back story. Earlier this month Google announced it, and up to 30 other silicon valley based companies, had been victims of a cyber-attack aimed at obtaining intellectual property.  Google quickly made this a very public matter, and urged many of the other 30 companies to also go public with this information. Several Gmail accounts, mostly Chinese Human Rights activists, were compromised although reports indicated that the contents of the accounts were had not been infiltrated.

During this announcement, Google also expressed concern about the Chinese laws centered around government censorship and stated that it would no longer censor it’s searches. Google rolled back it’s self-censored filters and sent most of it’s China HQ staff on paid leave to investigate the recent hack attempts.

The issue has now risen beyond business ethics straight into the world of politics. Last Thursday, Hillary Clinton made a public speech about  internet freedom, which seemingly stemmed directly from Google’s decision to stand up to China and those who would censor internet freedom. Obviously, China was not very happy with her remarks and their mouth piece blasted the U.S. for being hypocritical.

Opinion:

Google, being a business that is ran on the foundation of it’s reputation and ethics, would be shooting itself in the foot to make a stance against such a blatant crime against internet freedom without any kind of follow through. While I fully understand that it has dumped a lot of money into launching and operating in China, I don’t believe they would have made the issue so completely public and continue to draw attention to it without being prepared to follow through.

Google has also been hit with bad press about opening and censoring themselves in China to begin with. Since their launch in 2006 Google has only managed to take a small share of the search market in China. Their slim hold in China may also be a deciding factor in Google being so willing to pull out as it may not be such a lucrative investment after all. What better way to bring in more business and attract more clients, as well as brush of a directed attack and infiltration, then to make someone else out to be the bad guy and protest them publicly.

Whether it’s a PR stunt, or a true ethical issue driving their decision, I really don’t see Google as a company willing to make idol threats of this caliber.

Leave some feedback, what do you think of the situation?

(and yes I realize the irony of using a Google owned blogging service to post this.)