Thursday, September 2, 2010
One topic that periodically hits the news headlines, and thereby the blogosphere, is the issue of truthful advertising of broadband speeds. The question, really, is whether the statement "up to" a certain speed can actually be substantiated, trusted, and regulated by the FCC and FTC. Virgin Media took the lead on this issue recently by voluntarily opting to change their messaging strategy in an attempt to remain above reproach (and probably spur their competitors to do the same). But is a wide-scale change, specifically a regulated and mandated change, in messaging really called for?

First, let's start with defining the grievance. What's the beef? The problem, as most consumers have identified, lies in the fact that advertised speeds for broadband services most commonly boast the highest allowable speed using "up to" phrasing. However, such messaging falls under criticism when the broadband customers cannot achieve said rate. Now, of course, nobody ever promised consistent and guaranteed speed, but the supposition is that if the advert says "up to" that I would periodically and not-so-rarely get up to that speed. In many cases, however, the customers do not.

And so it is concluded, the broadband provider must have been dubiously planning this deceit. Now, that is possible, and certainly does take place. But, as one in the industry, I'd like to offer a pause for some objective criticism of the critics, shall we?

First, consider all of the factors that contribute to the connection speed of a network terminal--how many of those are within the Broadband Provider's control? When connection speeds were low at my office, the problem was eventually traced to an issue from the punch panel to my desk. Second, don't be so quick to presume the promise of speed was so dubiously presented. Many broadband providers are starting to offer simple speed calculators on their sites to allow customers to test their connection speeds.

Ultimately, however, as a one not only in the industry, but specifically involved in marketing, I'd like to explore this topic of "published rates." It is often not the contract rates that are in question, it's the advertised rates. Virgin Media has decided to publish their average speed in lieu of their optimal speed. But, do we expect that to be the norm in advertising? Mortgage rates are often advertised "as low as" what a good borrower could qualify for. C-Stores advertise the price of regular unleaded, not premium, on their signs. Airlines publish the anticipated arrival times, not considering the potential for disaster, technical failure, weather, etc. Are these deceitful--intentionally trying to mislead the buyer? I don't believe so.

Most importantly, "up to" rates are no more misleading than an "average" published speed. Average means that still 50% of subscribers will fail to reach even that par. Among those who do fall within the average, they will certainly not do so consistently -- they will enjoy spikes of speed during low-traffic times and dip well below average during peak usage hours. It remains a select few customers who could count on a consistently average speed.

Should the lying stop? Absolutely. Is it as easy to regulate as you might think? Not really. Are the broadband providers as universally unscrupulous as accused? Hardly. In fact, as is common with categorical prosecution, many are blamed for the sins of few.

Labels: Broadband Speed, C-store, Published Rates, Virgin Media

posted by Nick Carter at 11:08 AM Link to this Article  0 Comments

Wednesday, August 25, 2010
At the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, a broadband summit to address the service-level divide for rural households was standing room only yesterday. Organized by U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, the summit was to address the lagging availability of high-speed broadband connections in rural areas. The summit featured FCC chairman Julius Genachowski as a presenter.

Genachowski challenged that the greatest casualties of the lagging broadband are education, health care, and job creation. Calling it a "national crisis", Genachowski re-iterated the need for his National Broadband Plan, unveiled back in march, continuing to argue that regulations are needed for ISP's in the best interest of the country.

But, the statistics that Klobuchar and Genachowski presented at this summit seem weak in making their case. First, whereas only 6% of households in rural areas had high-speed internet access in 2000, that number is over 60% today. It seems that Minnesota, sans Broadband Plan, has made some incredible strides on it's own.

Moreover, Genachowski's plea that job creation and education will suffer don't seem to coincide with the demographics of this under-served rural market that still remains. Less than 20% of the households still without high-speed broadband are of retirement age. Only a fraction of those households even own a home computer. Which leads to the question: what job creation is Genachowski talking about, precisely?

Of course, the b2b side of things must also be considered--namely Genachowski's health care position. The doctors offices servicing these rural communities also suffer from similar lack of service, and health information available via the Internet is unattainable for the aging demographic identified earlier.

I cannot say that I disagree with the Broadband Plan's premise, nor Genachowski's agenda. However, it is apparent that they could use some better data in building their argument. The bottom line is: will there be enough of a benefit to our nation to warrant the cost of bringing broadband to Small Town, USA?

Labels: Broadband Plan, Rural Broadband, Rural Broadband Access

posted by Nick Carter at 4:51 AM Link to this Article  0 Comments

Tuesday, August 17, 2010
There's a change stirring in the wireless world. Telecom companies are looking at the prospect of seeing their pipes get clogged. When the offer of unlimited data came out, over 5 years ago, nobody imagined that they would have a problem keeping up with data demands. After all, mobile web stripped most of the images and bandwidth heavy content out of websites, right? Little did they know, mobile web would change.

I don't mean to pick on any one product, nor to promote any one product, but it cannot be denied that Apple changed the wireless world. The iPhone came complete with it's fully capable browser and HTML email client, an App Store where entire software programs are downloaded, not to mention the explosion of social media--sharing thoughts, pictures, and even full videos. The result: the traffic is flooding the highway, and traffic is starting to make the owners of that highway very nervous.

So much so, in fact, that before the problem arises, steps are being taken to make sure the all-out gridlock doesn't happen. AT&T is making some sweeping changes to their data plans, most notably, the elimination of "unlimited." Nobody could ever have imagined just how high that limit would be. Is this a trend that will take shape across the industry?

CNET reported in June that, at least for now, Verizon is going to keep unlimited data on the table for their droid users. As the CNET author states, this is undoubtedly a measure to continue taking market share from iPhone users. But the doubt looms: will they be able to hold out long?

As bandwidth usage increases, that means that demand increases. Marketing 101 tells us that when demand is high but supply is low, the cost climbs and climbs. Until our wireless infrastructure grows to meet the demands, we need to become comfortable with paying for the services we demand. As broadband users, we demand streaming video, VoIP, conferencing, CDP, mirroring, file sharing, and the list goes on. A fair price is only fair, and quite honestly, may help some mobile users to begin thinking more conscientiously about how they use their piece of the data pie.

Labels: ATT, Unlimited Data, Verizon

posted by Nick Carter at 9:44 AM Link to this Article  0 Comments


Ok, at least I'm begin honest about it. This is out-right bragging. Every now and then, something happens that's just so cool, we have to.

Accel Networks was recently recognized by CRN Magazine among the top 75 Coolest Telecom Service Providers. That means, among the thousands of tcom companies in the U.S., Accel Networks is called one of the "coolest."

What's it mean to be "cool?" Is it that we've sold more than the others? Is it that we have won awards for customer service or have applied for the most patents? Not necessarily. "Cool" means it makes people go wow. Cool means this is unique, innovative, and changes the game for telecom.

So, just to restate the brag: we're cool now. Contact us and find out why.

And, if you already know why, we'd like to ask you to help us look even cooler. We're up for a few other "cool" awards and we need your help to win. Click below to vote Accel Networks in the following award competitions:

• Telecom Association Member’s Choice: http://www.telecomvote.com/

• Phone Plus Magazine Top Channel Program: http://marketing.phoneplusmag.com/2010/channelprogramvote/ballot.asp

Labels: bragging

posted by Nick Carter at 9:35 AM Link to this Article  0 Comments

Tuesday, August 10, 2010
A lot of talk has been taking place recently over an issue of Net Neutrality. Typically, you'll hear this term slung around in accusatory tone from one ISP to a larger, or from an advocacy group against the super-giants, Verizon and Google to name a few. It's a debate that, at it's core, echos the tradition in American spirit that empowers the "little guy" in his never-ending fight against the tyrannical "big guy."

Ok, that may be an oversimplification, but if you read from the advocate's perspective, that's the tale you'll likely hear. Of course, from the other side of the table, the non-regulated, invisible hand, free market capitalist flag is flying high. So which is it? Tyrants vs Serfs? Socialists vs Capitalists? I'm torn... I'm a capitalist, and a "little guy," where do I fall?

To understand Net Neutrality, you must first understand how the Internet works... no, not the technical side of it, the commercial side. The side the makes (and costs) money. You see, the Internet is not some public infrastructure, owned and provided by the Government to the People as a tenet of citizenship and utility for daily life. It's a product, developed at a cost, and provided for a fee.

The question, then, is whether these intrepid companies who have built, acquired, or otherwise come to own (hence: control) said infrastructure at their own expense have the right to then control and prioritize, or even censor, the traffic which it carries. Depending on your bias, you may be quick to jump to a seemingly obvious conclusion. The independent spirit says, "yes, it's theirs, they can do as they wish." But the guardian of rights begins to question, "who gets left out, and why?"

Opponents of Net Neutrality argue from a posture of territorial rights. The ISP's and telecom companies who own the assets which power this beast we call the Internet certainly should have rights to control it's use. In order to ensure the profit that they absolutely require in order to sustain this infrastructure we've come to know, love, and depend on, they need some level of control.

What control would they place, you may ask? Well, de-prioritizing certain networks or other providers, for starters--those who might be competitors. Or, it's conceivable (and has even been accused) that certain content--websites, videos, ads, etc.--which promote the competition or any cause contrary to the profit-seeking purposes of the ISP. This begins to cross into censorship, control of information, and (ironically) a threat to the notion of free market and free speech.

Enter the opposing side. Now you see how the debate swirls. What, if any, control imposed by such infrastructure-backing corporations would be too much? Where is the line? How "neutral" do we need to be in order to be "fair?" And, of course, the ultimate question is: who, then should decide and enforce such a set of rules?

As I've said, I'm torn. I can argue fervently in either camp. What do you think?

Labels: "Internet infrastructure", Google, Internet, ISP, Net Neutrality, Telecommunication, Verizon

posted by Nick Carter at 7:58 AM Link to this Article  0 Comments

Thursday, August 5, 2010
In IT best practices, it's advised to store data backups off-site. The simple logic is this: in the event of total destruction of one location, such as a fire or flood, the data is stored separately and is therefore recoverable. Sounds like a simple principal, right? But getting that data to another site has always presented a bit of a challenge.

Six years ago, while still working for a software VAR in Indianapolis, we accomplished this on a nightly schedule, and each Friday shipped tape back-ups via Fed-Ex to our corporate office in Detroit. This presented two problems. First, the backup window in the event of a minor system failure was a full day. But second, our backup window in the event of total loss was up to 1 week. That's a high risk of data loss.

How has broadband changed the back-up game?

Today, we maintain off-site backups without ever shipping a tape. With broadband availability reaching more and more businesses, off-site backup can be accomplished over the network. Even for small offices, tools like Mozy.com offer off-site backup at an affordable price. A nightly process no longer writes data to a tape, ready for storage in the morning. Today, nightly processes send many hundreds of gigabytes and even terabytes of data over the air, cables, and fibers to be safely archived at a separate location.

But can broadband keep up?

As with many things, technology is still fighting to keep up with demands. As companies began to adopt the broadband-enabled backup model, a new potential began to appear. If no hardware is required, why not backup more often? Why not twice a day? Why not hourly? Why not continuously?

Continuous Data Protection, or CDP, arose as IT professionals realized there was no longer a need to backup data in frozen points-in-time, but rather continuously as changes are made. Real-time edits are saved off-site as well as locally, creating a continuous stream of data flowing out of any connected office. But, can broadband keep up with this demand?

But this capability doesn't come without a cost. In a true CDP environment, whenever large files are saved -- images, audio, video, CAD or 3D models -- the data is transmitted over the same broadband connection that feeds users' email and internet, not to mention back-end business-critical processes. Moreover, these transmissions rely on the scarcer of the two channels, the upstream channel. The result for many companies is an erratic broadband performance, and even server slow-down.

So, how can you avoid crippling your daily productivity with CDP? Consider a few tips:

1. Consider whether CDP really is a necessity. For many companies, 4-hour or 2-hour backup windows are perfectly acceptable risk levels, and the bandwidth crunch is dramatically reduced.
   
2. Implement a CDP, or any backup solution, that allows throttling -- an automated process that diminishes file transfer while other network usage is high, prioritizing business-critical functions over that of data backup.
3. If multiple machines are being backed up, stagger their schedules so that they don't each begin their file transfers simultaneously.
   

Labels: backup, Bandwidth, Broadband, CDP, Upstream

posted by Nick Carter at 4:36 AM Link to this Article  0 Comments

Tuesday, July 27, 2010
In a small Welsh town called Crumlin, broadband consumers are about to become test subjects for an incredibly fast fiber network courtesy of Virgin Media. It's going to be free to consumers and serve as a beta, or proof-of-concept, for Virgin. Now, before you get too excited at this novel idea and wonderful display of philanthropy on Virgin's behalf, ask yourself: doesn't this sound vaguely familiar?

In February of this year, Google announced something similar: Google Fiber. The promise was about the same--unheard-of broadband speeds for a deserving community. The difference was this: nobody knew which community... yet. So, of course, the PR mileage that Google (intentionally or unintentionally) drew from this announcement was far-reaching.

But when Virgin Media announced their venture, it barely blipped the media's radar. Why? What's different? First of all, it's the 2nd time around. Copy cats never do as well as the original. However, I want to be careful to state something: I'm not so sure Virgin Media is copying anything.

Whereas Google's underlying premise of their venture was to bring broadband to more communities, Virgin really is testing some new technology. In the interest of deployment cost and speed, they have opted to route fiber on the above-ground utility poles instead of the traditional underground method.

Virgin hopes to discover whether the fiber can endure the exposure to elements and, when elements cause failure, if the long-term cost to maintain the above-ground route is justifiable in lieu of the upfront costs to install buried fiber. Both scenarios serve as proof of one simple fact: the last mile is the most costly. Virgin Media is using an above-ground method in order to avoid alleviate some of the costs associated with going the last mile--the local loop from cable to computer.

The fact remains, however, that the easiest and most cost-effective way to connect the last mile avoids cable and fiber altogether--regardless of which side of the turf you're talking about. A managed wireless local loop, such as Accel Networks provides, can take the same broadband--which no doubt reaches the area on the back of a terrestrial workhorse--and put it into any business in a matter of days.

So Virgin, Google, and the many others who dare to bring broadband to the masses: we love that you're connecting our community, but could there be a better way to connect each consumer?

Labels: Google Fiber, Local Loop, Virgin Media

posted by Nick Carter at 6:02 AM Link to this Article  0 Comments