Friday, December 18, 2009
I was at a client's site recently talking with the technical staff about features they hadn't been utilizing and some of the new features coming out soon. As we were talking, a gentleman with graying hair and weathered skin walked into the room looking quite disheveled. At a glance, you might pick him for the mail man, or perhaps a janitor. After introducing himself, he looked me square in the eye and said, "you know, I invented the Internet."

I thought he was doing his best Al Gore impression. After a chuckle, I realized he was still staring at me quite seriously, and our hand-shake had turned into a static firm grip. "Back in the 80's, we had our first computers, and I wrote a program so we could pass floppies around the office and collaborate on projects with a single point of data."

Floppies? He thought a floppy-disc sharing method was tantamount to the Internet?

I graciously congratulated him and quickly changed the subject. But, it's not an experience I will quickly forget. And, it all makes me wonder: what is the "wonder" of the Internet. This guy had one thing right--Berners-Lee and Cailliau weren't the first people to imagine how computers could expedite collaboration. But, is that the Internet?

In truth, what the man could probably had made a better case for was that he invented the World Wide Web, which is often used interchangably with the term Internet, but actually describes a separate solution. Of course, the floppy-sharing system is more of an "Office-Wide-Web", the principal was nonetheless advanced for its time. In either case, office-wide or world-wide, this web is the sharing of documents, ideas, data, etc. via some dispersed network.

The Internet, then, is actually that network--not the sharing itself. And, to answer the question, "what is the wonder of the internet," for my money you can't find a better wonder than the ubiquitous availability of the network.

The floppy-disc sharing program that made this man so proud lacked one thing that the Internet offers: a true network. People carrying discs down the hall does not qualify. The Internet connects billions of terminals onto one network simultaneously. And, lest that sound too impressive, don't forget that we have been transmitting data across oceans and continents for nearly a century now. It's not connecting the continents that's such a wonder, it's connecting the terminals.

Yes, the end-user computers, company servers, PDA's, ATM machines and slushy machines--getting to these locations is more impressive, I would argue, than the laying of the first telegraph cable across the Atlantic. Why? because of the endless unique switching that must occur.

It's called the "last mile" - and it is this last mile which the aforementioned floppy-disc system would have struggled to complete effectively. Just as it is easy to run a cable from London to New York, so it would be to carry a diskette that distance. It's getting replicas of that diskette to all 12 Million people in the region that would impress me. And, even with countless miles of copper cable, fiber optic, and GSM towers sprawling across the globe, the feat still blows my mind.

Hat's off to people like Paul Baran and Leonard Kleinrock. As for the other self-proclaimed inventors of the Internet, thanks for your ingenuity however grandiose it may have been.

Labels: "Internet infrastructure", I Invented the Internet, Internet, Last Mile, World Wide Web

posted by Nick Carter at 6:12 AM Link to this Article  0 Comments

Monday, December 7, 2009
I opened my first office when I was 19 years old. Fresh out of the dorms, all I knew about the internet was that the data jack was bigger than the phone jack. After that, you just plug in and it worked, right? I had grown up in a time when there was one phone company-- "The" phone company. So, naturally, I picked up the phone (my cell, that is) and called to get the landlines installed.

It was a new office. I could smell the paint and the carpet. I felt like I had arrived. There were jacks on the walls, and where there's jacks there's data, right? Wrong. I learned a lesson about the way the world works that day: Buying new is never cheap. You see, whereas "The" phone company had invested their own capital in getting DSL service available to my area, getting it into the building was my cost--and what a cost it was, too.

From the core network to the access network may entail hundreds and thousands of miles of fiber-optic and copper cable. That cost is reflected in the service rates we all pay. But it was the last mile, from the D-Box to my shiny little jacks in my crisp-smelling new office, that caught me off-guard.

Today, there's a better option. Accel Networks proprietary technology puts businesses online in just 3-days. By providing a managed wireless local loop, Accel uses fixed wireless broadband to deliver last-mile connectivity with less headaches, better SLA's, and often times lower cost than wireline solutions. If you can talk on your cell phone from your place of business, then the infrastructure is already there. All you need is Accel's uniquely engineered wireless hardware and your last mile connectivity is established.

Labels: "Internet infrastructure", Fixed Wireless Broadband, Last Mile, Local Loop

posted by Nick Carter at 6:42 AM Link to this Article  0 Comments

Tuesday, November 10, 2009
There's been plenty of talk on Capital Hill and all throughout the blogosphere about the economy, the stimulus, and broadband. But a recent survey coming from the UK revealed a totally different side to this debate than I had ever seen before. Could you imagine real estate sales being affected by broadband infrastructure? I can.

According to a survey from ISPreview.co.uk, broadband speeds could help or hinder home sales. According to the article, "from 721 respondents to our latest monthly survey reveal that 75% of readers would not buy a house, even a lovely one, if the best broadband ISP speed it could achieve was just 1Mbps." This presents a not-so-obvious connection among seemingly unrelated economic trends.

Now, although these are largely UK respondents, a sampling of US buyers would likely show similar trends. Working from that assumption, there are a few alarming insights to be gained. First, the simple fact that this trait of a home is not something the seller can fix. Thanks to HGTV and the like, we're all becoming familiar with concepts like home-staging, flipping, fix-ups, etc. But if you're in a rural area with no broadband access, or even an urban area with poor access, your options for making your house more marketable are slim in this area.

Second, and perhaps more alarming, is the standards which we in the U.S. hold. Note that 75% of readers in the UK would NOT buy the house with 1 Mbps. That's nearly 250 Kbps faster than our current "standard" for broadband in the U.S. But, to the UK consumer, that is an unacceptable downstream speed. Now, there are a lot of factors to consider in setting the bar for what constitutes broadband speed, but the fact remains, other nations have set the bar considerably higher than the U.S. How far away are we from catching up?

As we consider the future of broadband infrastructure in the U.S., we have to think of the ripple effects that a lack of broadband can have on a community. Businesses cannot compete. Education is hindered. And, homes can't sell. And, without question the technology that can most quickly deliver broadband to rural communities is fixed wireless.

Labels: "Internet infrastructure", Broadband Speed, Economy, Fixed Wireless Broadband, Rural Broadband, Stimulus

posted by Nick Carter at 7:27 AM Link to this Article  1 Comments

Tuesday, October 27, 2009
After the digital switch, that grand fiasco that forced the upgrade of every household in America to a digital television signal, Verizon snatched up the 700mz spectrum in an FCC auction to beef up their coverage on the wireless broadband scene. Now, the FCC is talking about reclaiming even more of the spectrum currently devoted to television broadcast and dedicating it to wireless broadband (see FCC Considers Shifting Some TV Airwaves to Broadband).

What's the motivation? Well, it's two-fold -- and I'm not sure which is more important. First, there's money to be made. By reclaiming licenses on certain ranges of the spectrum (currently offered to free broadcast networks) and then reselling those to the more lucrative broadband industry, it's estimated that our government could add over $60 million to their coffers.

Second, however, is the infrastructure that it would augment. As a nation, we still lag behind other developed countries in our ability to provide fast, reliable broadband to everyone everywhere. There's no doubt, especially for rural areas, fixed wireless broadband is the answer. In catching up, the projection is that our businesses will be more competitive. Our small business markets will be strengthened (underpinning a strong economy all around). And, our dear old friends like Verizon and AT&T will have more goodies to hock.

What are the costs to you? Well, there are few drawbacks to the idea of being more efficient and more targeted with our airwaves. There's only so much of a spectrum that can be used, so it makes sense to put those waves to good use in the most needed area: broadband. After all, you can watch tv on the internet now! In the WSJ's article (cited above) there is some talk about converting all free broadcast television to paid subscription. It will be a shock for some at first, but when you think about it, on par with most other forms of modern communication.

What do you think? Would you pay for TV (if you don't already) in the interest of seeing more of America reached with broadband connectivity?

Labels: "Internet infrastructure", FCC, Federal Communications Commission, Fixed Wireless Broadband, Rural Broadband, Rural Broadband Access, Verizon

posted by Nick Carter at 2:33 PM Link to this Article  0 Comments

Tuesday, September 29, 2009
I remember talking with a programmer one time about a simple web app I had created with my limited, self-taught knowledge. "Not bad," he said, "But all your logic is in the application layer." I nodded as if I knew what the heck he was talking about. Why should I care? It worked.

What I didn't know then was that back in 1977, some geeks, perhaps even bigger geeks than this guy who droned on about my application layer, got together and defined not one, not two, but seven layers to a computer network. Today, the work of this group, the Open System Interconnection (OSI) initiative, is the standard for network architect. The OSI Seven Layer Model describes, you guessed it, seven layers that any network must have: Application, Presentation, Session, Transport, Network, Data-Link, and Physical Layers.

So, what is layer 2? Layer 2 refers to the Data-Link layer. This is the layer of the network where data is transferred across the "Physical Layer"--cables, airwaves, routers, and LAN cards--from node to node in a Wide Area Network (WAN). So what, you might ask. I can send data from my computer to my sister's computer via email. What's the difference?

The difference is that, as you'll notice, the layer above Layer 2 is the Network itself. And, a subset of that network is something we all know and love: the Internet. WAN transmissions that remain on layer 2 never go to the internet. That email you sent your sister, however, did (provided you're not also office-mates with an Exchange server). If your data was a letter, Layer 2 describes your inter-office mail--no stamp, no postal worker, and it never leaves the building.

Finally, why do I care? Wireless broadband may seem like old hat to many of us. With a smart phone, tethering, and hot spots all over the city, we might not think twice about what layer our laptop is on when surfing the web on a layover at the airport. But what if instead of your laptop, it was a retail store's server... and instead of surfing the web, it was sending daily transaction reports or even credit card data for payment processing. Still think the layer is irrelevant? A layer 2 network means that cardholder data never hits the internet (a big no-no for PCI Compliance).

Accel Networks fixed wireless broadband services deliver broadband connection to your remote locations, not just for internet browsing, but for Layer 2 network purposes such as point-of-sale and other sensitive company data. Proving once again, "this ain't your average air card."

Labels: "Internet infrastructure", Fixed Wireless Broadband, Layer 2, OSI, PCI Compliance, PCI Compliant Broadband, PCI-DSS, WAN

posted by Nick Carter at 5:12 AM Link to this Article  0 Comments

Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Throughout the nineties, this phenomenon of the Internet grew in unimaginable ways. From the first successful ping, to "billboards" to the first browser software your local ISP probably sold you. Today, we download browsers for free and comb unthinkable measures of web-content at broadband speeds 100x or more the first dial-up modems of yesteryear.

And then it happened. Someone realized: hey, if our phones were once used to connect our homes to Internet, can cell phone's do the same thing? Genius. Monumental. And pitifully implemented... at least at first.

As the Internet had evolved to multimedia and broadband-reliant content, the first crack at mobile broadband was based on regression. The devices couldn't handle it. The network couldn't connect it. So, let's go back. let's simplify. Let's reminisce of days gone by when functional limitations confined us to little more than plain text and a few GIF's, if you dared.

The faux pax of the telecom industry was in leaving such an indelible mark on the Internet and web development. Even as fixed wireless broadband has reached 3G and 4G speeds and mobile devices browse with virtually the same capability as desktop machines, the concept of Mobile Web hangs on. I find it most frustrating when I access sites like Amazon, Facebook, or Twitter that assume without question the device in my hand cannot handle their best content. The device, mind you, that cost almost the same as the laptop on my desk. The device, mind you, which can support cookies, as in, a cookie that says "no, take me to the good stuff in the future."

But alas, we still endure the legacy of the Mobile Web. It's a wonder they didn't start selling small picture frames to accompany the low DPI of the first camera phones.

Labels: "Internet infrastructure", Broadband, Fixed Wireless Broadband, Mobile Web

posted by Nick Carter at 7:44 AM Link to this Article  0 Comments

Tuesday, June 30, 2009
When Nick Carter ask me to blog occasionally for Accel-Networks, I was thrilled! I'm a proponent of ubiquitous Internet access and it's ability to bring about change in the world-- just look at the difference it's made in Iran! Blogging for a company that provides fixed wireless broadband would give me an excuse to keep up with the public policy issues surrounding connectivity.

I read through some of Nick's posts and I particularly liked the blog describing Internet access as vital services on par with water and gas. I also enjoyed Nick's blog about countries leapfrogging over our hard-wired infrastructure and why wireless is the better option for the broadband stimulus monies. I agree with most of Nick's blogs, but it dawned on me that my blogging style would be vastly different than his - I border on the evangelical about ubiquitous connectivity. I've been referred to as a "Social Media Architect," a "Viral Marketing Guru" and a "Twitter Ninja" but I consider myself to be an Internet Infrastructure Geek. Isaac Asimov once said, "I don't fear computers, I fear the lack of them" and I fear the lack of connectivity for those devices.

As a twitter ninja it's been fascinating to follow the election debacle in Iran on twitter and other social media platforms. The ability to communicate globally from the grassroots level is making it difficult for Iran's repressive regime to dictate the flow of information. As I watched this six minute video chronicling the protests on YouTube, I noticed a recurring image => cell phones.

Out of the dozen or so cell phone images in the video only 1 person was using it as a telephone, all others were using it as a video-camera or a text messaging device and it was apparent that all the images were taken with, you guessed it, a cell phone. Communication hardware - e.g. cell-phones and computers - that connect to the global Internet infrastructure are evolutionary game changers, and according to Dr. Thomas Ho (Professor of Emerging Technologies at Purdue University) there are currently 3 BILLION devices out there.

I hope readers of this blog will be patient with me as I learn more about Accel-Networks, the connectivity options they provide, and their layer two security options. I welcome comments which encourage healthy debate on public policy issues surrounding connectivity and its potential to change the world. So thanks, Nick, for the opportunity to don my infrastructure geek hat once again.

Amy Stark, Founder and CLO for Stark ReAlity, Inc.

Labels: "Internet infrastructure", Internet "fixed wireless broadband"

posted by Amy Stark at 4:17 PM Link to this Article  0 Comments