Google Power

In my last post I mentioned that I would be following Google’s plans for world domination very closely, and I have done just that. Google has been all over the news recently for various reasons, including their failed attempt at their social network “Buzz”.

Through all the mess of Google Media (I should pitch that idea), I finally found something worth being concerned over. The FERC, or Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, has granted Google Energy the right to buy and sell energy at bulk cost, essentially giving Google Energy the right to not only cut their cost of paying for energy down to at cost rates (wish I could do that), but also granting them the ability to sell consumers energy as if a utility company. On the surface, and without much in the way of research, I originally thought it was simply a ploy to reduce company cost of operation, seems like a perfectly capitalist thing to do right? As it turns out I am sadly mistaken, a recent article from Cnet paints a pretty telling story.

2007: Google dedicated more money than Michael Jackson acquired after he died, towards scientists in attempts to create a platform that can generate 1 Jigglywatt of clean energy and make it cheaper than, well technically carbon dirt. 1 Gigawatt-hour (meaning a platform capable of generating 1GW and maintaining that power for an hour) could power roughly 750,000 to 1,000,000 homes for an hour.

2008: Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google and former board member of Apple, presented a plan to save the US billions to trillions of dollars on energy cost by switching to clean energy, and could eventually get to 100% clean energy use from renewable energy sources.

Google has invested in everything from Wind to Hybrids in the energy market and doesn’t show any signs of slowing that attempt, Google has been “going green” for a long period of time now, something I could consider commendable, they have also released software to help consumers track their energy use.

Google has also been gobbling up start-up energy companies and started running a few tests of it’s own. eSolar, a company that google funded from IdeaLabs, has already created a few “energy plants” producing clean energy.

All of this clean energy talk makes me want to frolic in sun flowers and daisy fields. Don’t get me wrong, clean energy and going green is nothing to take lightly, it’s something we can all benefit from. However, do you want to pay your monthly utility bill to google? Maybe they will create a universal billing software so all your bills will be lumped into one sum and sent to you via text and email. Or maybe it would just be easier for them to already own every company you may be billed from.

Recent Google activities are starting to all clip together in one giant eWorld capitalist companies version of communism. Google is currently in court for Google’s book scanning venture, with attempts being made to monetize the entire project by using Orphan Works, works that the author is unknown, or MIA. Google is still going forward with it’s ISP idea, as well as laying it’s own fiber trails. Google is still working with the NSA, which is starting to frighten others a bit (good!), but that has yet to have a real impact on anything.

Overall our Google eWorld (another good one I should take to Google) is looking like it may just come to fruition. They widely control the interwebs, are going to control Power, and our ISP (which it’s looking like telecom companies are considering switching to data only and using VoIP services instead of phone lines, this includes cell phone companies). Next they will be selling us hybrid cars, planes, boats, and anything else they can place a hybrid engine in. Why go to sears when you have google?

I’ll provide more on our eWorld as it starts to unfold later.

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?