I came across some very kind passages regarding my book, Switching to VoIP.  This first one contrasts my book with the VoIP for Dummies book. He also mentions “Asterisk: The Future of Telephony”, for which I provided O’Reilly a technical review. That’s an awesome book, too.

This book is focused on the key elements of telephony and the migration to VOIP – primarily as a cost saving measure. The first 2/3 of the book deal with the VOIP technology – as an adjunct to and eventual replacement for traditional (legacy) telephony. By the 2/3 point, the author is talking about cost analysis, benefits and justification.

I would more likely title this book “VOIP for management”. This is not a put-down or insult, as the book’s primary objective is to educate the mostly non-technical person on what VOIP is, and how it might best fit into an existing picture, and one moving forward.

Being primarily technical myself, this book was good as a preliminary introduction to a subject that I wasn’t familiar with – but I immediately moved on to the O’Reilly books on the subject – “Switching to VOIP” by Ted Wallingford and “Asterisk” (Leif Madsen, et al). Someone who is responsible for managing such a transition would find it much more useful than I did.

Also, Tech PRose was kind enough to add Signal Noise as a favorite telecom blog.

(Or, ten folks whose blogs I should’ve post more comments on in 2008.)

10. Darla Mack.  If you’re a Nokia nut, there’s no better destination.  The self-proclaimed “mobile diva”, Darla tries just about everything with her Nokia phones.

9. Rich Tehrani. The brawn and brains of TMC, Rich has been in the industry as long as any of us, and his blog is a great mix of gadget news and insider industry info.

8. Alec Saunders.  Alec’s in the trenches daily as a VoIP visionary (he declared VoIP dead this morning) and application developer, so he’s usually weeks or months ahead of trends.

7. Om Malik and his band of creative cohorts. It’s pretty hard to ignore the guy that breaks just about every telecom industry rumor 24 hours before it turns into news.  Some of his underling’s stories are habitually wacky (obsessed with all this overstated carbon economy BS, for example), but generally,
Om’s is one of the best blogs around.

6. Ken Camp and Sheryl Breuker.  I’ve been in the Ken Camp camp for years now. Now that Sheryl’s on board with Mr. Camp, they’ve begun leading the way in a movement I expect will become the norm in 2009: VoIP people concentrating on social applications instead of VoIP.  That’s my plan anyway, so I’ll be keeping tabs on Ken and Sheryl.

5. Esme Vos.  No longer the lone female in my list (thanks to Darla and Sheryl), Esme is primarily known as a event/expo organizer who concentrates on municipal WiFi, having founded the MuniWireless expos. But she’s got something to say about software, Apple, Nokia, publishing, and a bunch of other stuff I care about.

4. Andy Abramson. A keen observer and predicter, and a new media relations specialist by day, Andy has more contacts than any two other people.

3. Phone Boy.  Dameon “Phone Boy” Welch-Abernathy: the only guy I know with a name longer than my own.  His blogging habit is better than mine, too.   He mainly blogs about gadgets, Nokia stuff, and social networking.

2. Jeff Pulver. Like Camp, Breuker, and others, Pulver is leading the retreat from VoIP charge to social media through video and social web applications.  I love reading Jeff’s blog. He posts a ton of photos and track logs.

1. Martin Geddes.  He doesn’t post often, but it’s always worth the read.  Also, this guy pulls no punches. Just as I aspire never to do, Martin Geddes never sets off the the bullshit detector.

Well, it’s the time of year again.  Time to look back, and forward.

2008: the harbinger year for a revolution in the telecom industry?  No, not exactly.  Nor was 2008 the year of action of for end-to-end VoIP.  But 2008 was a good year for me.   I more or less quit consulting on VoIP, as the majority of clients who need help with VoIP are too small for my firm, and the top 5% of clients available in the field are too big for it.  The in-betweeners are dominated by a group of recruiters who beat each other up and submit VoIP candidates to internal employment positions I can’t be interested in.

Twitter was an interesting subject, retrospectively, in 2008.  On one hand it’s dying at the hands of Facebook. On the other hand, it’s got so much vigor and a following, too.  Twitter is one of those things that, even as an objectively expert witness on the subject of social media, I still struggle to grasp.  I wonder what the sex appeal is, minus all the fluff of a LinkedIn or a Facebook, of Twitter.

Sony launched a social network for the PS3.  The world essentially yawned, already beaten to death with the concept as previously implemented by things like Second Life, Sims Online, and World of Warcraft.  Now, if Nintendo had launched a social network along the lines of Animal Crossing–now that might be cool.

I received a pool table and air hockey table for Christmas and have nowhere to put either of them. At the moment my basement is full.  My son wants me to move the foozball table to the living room. A-hem. Kids take a while to develop decorating taste, I guess. Maybe in 2009.

As pal Om Malik writes this weekend about the layoff woes at Alcatel-Lucent and the delisting danger at Nortel, many of us in the industry are experience what I call the “Heartburn Chuckle”.  Or, as I try to put an ironic spin on Jeff Pulver’s famous Purple Minutes expression by calling negative achievements in the telecom industry as “Brown Minutes”, I can’t help but laugh at how empty the promise of unified communications has turned out to be.

This is Brown Minutes and the Heartburn Chuckle all wrapped together. But I can tell you why this telecom crash is occuring. Remember, once an industry is scaled to its max, like the telecom industry, the only way to succeed is to generate profit through new innovations. Merely recycling established ideas with different pricing and bundles may be good for short-term cash grabs but has little to do with the sustainability of long-term profit.  Just ask Yahoo. They’re dying because of that axiom right now.

The Manufacturers

Companies like Cisco and Nortel have done too little to move the VoIP revolution beyond the customer’s demarc, while tradeshow talks about SIP trunking and a spirit of cooperation in using the Internet to replace the PSTN have all been hollow talk designed to please the audience of the day.  True, end-to-end VoIP still isn’t reality unless you’re willing to sit in front of your PC and run Skype.   To say Skype carried out the VoIP vision more successfully than Cisco and Nortel ought to be greatly humbing to those companies, but it’s really true.  Skype got it.  Cisco, Nortel, and Avaya didn’t.

The big manufacturers continue to be the only powers with enough leverage to move the carrier giants away from circuit-switched technology, yet the manufacturer’s own uncertainties about recooping licensing fees and retaining customer-base (through lock-in rather than innovation) have scared them away from issuing the carriers a real challenge: build an all-IP global voice network or we will.

The Carriers

The carriers are firms like AT&T, Windstream, Verizon, BT, and so on.  Their obsession with the billing unit (the almighty minute) has made them helpless to see the possibilities of a software-rich, application-based global ecosystem.  Consequently, the most successful apps to arrive on the carriers’ networks, the ones most embraced by the public, overwhelmingly have one purpose: to steal billable minutes from the carriers. The innovation disappeared and the scrappy new players in the market, the ones with the power to transform the public’s thinking about telecom, instead got stuck doing the same old thing the big telecoms do to put bread on the table: bill minutes.

The Government

In the United States, deregulation under President Clinton in the Telecom Act of 1996 went in all the wrong directions and didn’t do enough to create entrepreneurial freedom in telecom. It failed to recognize that the Internet was going to eclipse the PSTN in terms of consumer participation, and as a result, it positioned the carriers to remain in their highly subsidized comfort zone.

Further mistakes were made when the FCC became distracted by lobbying for Network Neutrality legislation. As with many things, the passage of time revealed that Netnoot was a solution in search of a problem, more often than not.  Apparently nobody at the FCC realized that the free market would provide for the needs of consumers who didn’t want to participate in a 93-octane Internet.  So the FCC spent a lot of time looking at issues that were overstated and geared to bolster the chances of a few admittedly excellent Silicon Valley content startups who didn’t want to get choked out by the carriers.

Shame on us for not recognizing that the carriers are too inept to succeed in the content business anyway. And shame on the FCC for wasting all that energy when they should’ve been looking at ways to encourage greater adoption of end-to-end IP technology.

The Conclusion

So, when you have three willing participants in a massacre, you get a massacre.  The three power players in our industry–boxmakers, regulators, and networkers–are playing the same tune.  Protect revenue by doing nothing. The fruits of that labor are now obvious.  Like the automotive industry, which has a frighteningly similar situation on its hands, the answer now is the same as ten years ago: innovation.  Put on those thinking caps, MIT grads and garage tinkerers. We’ve got an even bigger hole to think our way out of now.

Not a big surprise, here.  This move is definitely in keeping with Google’s other maneuvres, like essentially manipulating the recent federal spectrum auctions and keeping carriers out of unilateral distribution agreements for phones with the Android license.  All moves designed to keep access open, and to keep Google at the helm of web services.

But I’ve grappled with the open-sourcing of Android for a couple of reasons.  When you open source something, it’s either because you’re absolutely desperate to maintain a foothold or create one (like when Netscape Corp. spun off the Mozilla project), because the intellectual property being open-sourced is already stale (the Quake engines, etc.), or because the chances of achieving marketplace competitiveness are actually improved by going open source.  It’s one of the three, in my mind.

Sure, people say the Open Source community provides more abundant creative contribution and discourse, but I don’t necessarily buy that argument.  Don’t confuse Open Source advocacy with volunteerism.   Volunteer programmers get stuff done only when there’s something in it for them.  But real volunteers get stuff done because there’s something in it for somebody ELSE. Any contributions brought to Android by the outside world that are worth assimilation into the project are going to create project management expenses for Google, and the big G has always been an innovation leader (as opposed to a leech), so sucking the community’s cheap or free “cool new ideas” into Android is NOT what Google is up to.

They’re also not desperate for a market share grab.  Android is so far beyond anything Microsoft and RIM have brought to the table that perhaps only Apple’s iPhone is the only valid comparison.  And Apple isn’t running away with the mobile market. There’s just too much entrenchment in the wireless industry, what with all the lock-in contracts and vendor exclusivity and so on.  So Google’s open sourcing is not likely to have an effect on market share, not in the short term anyway.  And it’s clear that the Android technology isn’t what you would call “stale”.

So Google’s move to open up Android has all the appearances of a tactical error.  To figure out the “why”, it’s important to look at the “when”.   The timing of this move is peculiarly unlike previous “big open source” announcements.   Since Android has a ton of buzz and is clearly on the way up, not down, the convential wisdom that only desperate companies open source their stuff does not apply.   Android will be successful in Google’s mind, whether or not it were to become an open source project.

So why? Why now?

According to the official Google posting on the matter, which rightly accuses the iPhone of having a limited, closed distribution channel, the reason for the open-sourcing is to make the platform accessible and free it from the bonds of one hardware vendor or the next.  Open sourcing isn’t necessary to make the platform accessible, of course, but if you’re going to pull out a stop or two, pull ‘em all out.  It’s Google, after all, not Microsoft.

Google sees a future where the carriers and hardware vendors cannot collude because platform choices are going to be made by consumers.   That’s the answer to the “why”.   By giving the consumers at large access to a very compelling (free) platform choice, the carriers and phonemakers have one less competitive advantage in being tied at the hip.  And that is a very good thing.

  • Viagra ordre
  • Cialis en ligne
  • Levitra en ligne
  • Propecia acheter
  • Viagra acheter
  • Acheter cialis
  • Ordre levitra
  • Ordre propecia
  • En ligne viagra
  • Vente cialis
  • Levitra bon marche
  • Propecia en ligne
  • Viagra online
  • Buy cialis
  • Order Levitra
  • Buy propecia
  • Buy viagra
  • Cheap cialis
  • Cheap Levitra
  • propecia online
  • Viagra prescription
  • Cialis online
  • Buy Levitra
  • Order propecia