Cell Phone, meet Social Network. Social Network, meet Cell Phone.

My thesis is of the moment is this: Cell phones are going to become the dominant means of social networking. They’re already the best tool for it and the only reason PCs are dominant in the social net arena is because PCs have always been OPEN ENOUGH to participate social nets in a meaningful way. Cell phones haven’t been.
Today I’m thinking about the nexus of mobility, identity management, and social networking.
Identity management is the art of controlling your appearance on or more networking environments and social networking is using multimedia content to facilitate human communication using a network. And the ultimate meeting point of these two concepts–identity management and socialization–is the mobile device. Ie. your cell phone. Why? Because you carry it with you at all times and because it’s powerful enough to handle common video and audio content swiftly and easily.

Problem is, cell phones have never been conducive to identity management because they’ve always been controlled by the unimaginary bureaucracy of the big carriers. Same with social networking: it just don’t happen on cell phones. It’s just too hard to manage identity and share in the great social experiment with a personal wireless phone–this despite them being the best tool for the job.

But this is about to change, bigtime. Keep reading.

New services leverage IP comms to converge your identity, social media, and mobility (startups are doing it because your cell phone company refuses to).

With identity management, you’ve got presentation-related features like Caller ID and can perform mobility tricks like hiding your location (a la TalkPlus) in order to make your cell phone appear as though it’s your home phone, and so on. Identity also consists of features that have to do with reachability–how reachable are you? Where? When? These of course are facilitated by companies like Grand Central’s flexible call-handling service and Iotum’s TalkNow product for Blackberry users. So that’s identity. Verizon and AT&T won’t do this stuff and don’t talk about ever doing it. But it’s valuable stuff. Reachability and identity are valuable to consumers, but it’s not going to get capitalized by the “big boys”, because they aren’t good at it and may even see this stuff as a threat to their business. The main end-user control point for next-generation services like this is, you guessed it, the CELL PHONE.

Social networking is a broader concept than identity. It is going to become very hot on cell phones, too. Today with social networking, you have large communities of users (the Internet itself is a huge social networking experiment) sharing content, democratizing cultural opinion, rewarding the good things in the social network while punishing the bad ones, and sharing freely of their own social media. Examples include YouTube, MySpace, Second Life, and to a lesser extent, Skype. The whole point of social networking is to deconstruct the app cloud, reducing its complexity to the extent that human interaction just occurs naturally and easily within a framework that isn’t distracting or even visible to the participating humans. That is to say, the actions we want to accomplish while socializing–sharing media and voting with our feet–can happen unhindered by the infrastructure underneath it all. MySpace has had a ton of success with this (they’ve become the single most trafficked site on the Net). Cell carriers have not–because they’re not about reducing complexity or making the cloud invisible.
You’d think that your cell phone carriers would realize how much stands to be gained by embracing social networking through their infrastructure, allowing users to generate and consume content using the smarts on the endpoint device to make it all easy. Instead, the old guard of media giants (Sony, BMG, etc.) have convinced the cell carriers that paying fees to download crummy 30-second VCAST streams is a better use of their 3G infrastructure than actually empowering their subscribers to do what they want to do. So, the cell players’ whole system is kind of like a gimpy, retarded social network that’s hard to use. Hence, nobody uses their cell phone for social networking above and beyond pay-per-use SMS messages and (crummy) photo e-mailing (which by the way doesn’t always work quite right when sending media messages between carriers). Come on AT&T (and Verizon), you know these offerings SUCK, and your customers are going to know it very soon too.

Because the new kids on the block are waiting in the wings to empower YOUR customers using their CELL PHONES.

So the Cell Phone is the NEXUS of mobility, identity, and social networking.

The guys who’ve arrived at the wireless phone nexus already are Grand Central, Vringo, and TalkPlus.

I was talking to Craig Walker, CEO of Grand Central, a service which increases reachability and identity management capabilities for its users. Craig’s service is largely geared around telephony features for controlling identity characteristics (caller ID, disposable numbers, etc.) and reachability (find me / follow me across multiple transports, etc.). But despite GC’s roots in telephony, these guys still GET and EMBRACE mobile social networking and media-sharing concepts. Perhaps that’s why Grand Central lets you CREATE and UPLOAD your own ringback tones from your iTunes library. How cool is THAT? That’s a baby step towards mature social networking on your mobile device. The next step is to use the cell phone, and not the PC, as the control point for on-demand media sharing.

And that’s an important step. Right now, people take lots of pictures with their camera phones, but it’s a pain to get that photographic content out of the cell phone and into a social networking environment, because the cellphone itself isn’t connected to a social network. Instead, you have to download the stuff from your phone to your PC, log into MySpace or YouTube, upload it, etc. It’s a big pain, and that’s why the majority of people just let their cell phone snapshots and home videos pile up on their camera phone and gather virtual dust. But this is going to change soon. Enter Vringo.

Vringo is a company that makes a piece of software that lets you create visual ringtones (videos that appear during the ring period of an incoming call) and then share them using a social networking apparatus not unlike Mynumo–except that Vringo has implemented the social network directly on the phone itself. Very cool. You can shoot your videos and share them as ring tones WITHOUT ever sitting down in front of a PC. Benjamin from Vringo explained to me how the system works.

I shoot a video (or download one to my phone from Vringo) and then set it as a ring tone. I can have specific ring tones for specific callers–for example a Switchfoot video for my kids, a Toby Keith video for my mom, and maybe a Nirvana video for the significant other. I can also establish a default video ring tone. Again these are on outgoing calls and the videos play on the RECIPIENT’s phone, not mine. 2.0. Social media. All on the endpoint device. Very cool. So with Vringo, now I have a customizable video avatar just like I do on a more traditional computer-endpoint social network. Only now, the social network is more relevant to me because it’s in my pocket wherever I go. It’s also more usable because I don’t have to sit in front of my Mac or PC to access the social cloud.

To take that concept a step further, if we integrate other existing social media and identity concepts–like avatars, user-supplied content, “hot or not” democratization, and screen names–and put them into the world of SMS and cell phone media sharing, we can really empower users and social nets will explode, making today’s MySpace look like a relatively tame experiment. Mobility makes it easer to use social networks, and necessitates the need for identity tools. The result? A new market is born out of need: with mobility, a content-driven social net market appears, and a need-driven identity market appears. So these new players are WAY ahead of the big carriers’ thinking on this stuff.

But why didn’t social nets appear on phones BEFORE they appeared on PCs?

None of this stuff has ever come from the big carriers because they can’t figure out how to monetize it. AT&T’s monolithic “feature belligerence” has created a gaping niche that guys like Craig from Grand Central, Benjamin from Vringo, and John Todd of TalkPlus are jumping headfirst into. Where the big boys see a profit gap, the new guys see an opportunity.

And it’s a huge opportunity. The cell phone/personal media device is the last stop for social networks–the last frontier for media-driven leisure networking. And the reason it’s the last stop, not the first (that was the PC), is two fold: cell infrastructure has only recently been able to support media-rich applications, and cell infrastructure has always been closed to third parties who didn’t have names like Sony and Disney. With the IP transport, that has changed dramatically. With Windows Mobile, Symbian, and Linux-based phones gaining in popularity, the availability of down-to-earth development tools opens the door to the cell cloud to people with good ideas–folks like Craig, John, and Benjamin–instead of those people who long ago abandoned innovation and consumer value creation: folks like the big media blue chippers and cell phone carriers.

The identity problem goes way beyond presence, and way beyond telephony even. I define identity as the trust of another node’s credentials, be they human or machine. I am who I say am. And WHY? Because I am trusted. As trust can only be established by an authority, we have a real problem on our hands.

But it’s not a problem that’s new.

Take DNS. The fact that we, as thought leaders, haven’t solved the dilemma of securing the identity of domain wielders is a shame. This is why e-mail spam is consuming a pathetic amount of bandwidth, and also why old friends like Carl Sassenrath and even Tom Keating have been forced to “privatize” their e-mail.

Comment spam on blogs would also be eradicated if we all subscribed to a common trust authority for domain-wielding credentials. And prosecuting abusers would simplified. Everybody wins, right? You would think Google would be on this concept like white on rice. (How much Goobandwidth is sucked up by spiders crawling splogs and spam comments designed to enrich page rank for such nefarious keywords as ‘pissing’, ‘ugg boots’, and ‘hillary duff naked’?)
Of course, creating a centralized authority for granting domain-wielding identity might not be easy. There IS that painful little issue of privacy. And of course, the entire industries that have sprung up to counter the abuse of software aren’t lobbying really hard for a central identity authority. Plus, you’d be hardpressed to push this through as law without some knuckleheaded buttnut Ivy League professor labeling it as some “unilateral move” designed to disenfranchise SOMEBODY.

But I digress. There is good news, however. My Strep is almost gone.

OK, this is a blatant self-promotion. Here are my favorite posts from Signal to Noise over the past year:

- Another Clevelander hyping Net Noot.

- Very happy the United Nations didn’t gain control of the top level domains.

- Regarding the word “colloquial“. (may not be safe for sensitive British readers)

- Skype sucks wind.

- Heard of purple minutes? How about brown ones.

- A real, live, air-guitar contest. No joke.

- Pictures and anecdotes from Fall VON. Drink up, voIPnerds!

- I can hear you breathing heavy, Dave. Adjust your headset or cease inhaling.

- It seems I’m actually Alec Saunders. Which VoIP Blogger are you?

- Apple’s iTV will get 802.11n.
- Amiga: 19 years ahead of its time.

- PILE ON!
- A few of my favorite splog comments.

- GooTube. So the name didn’t stick.

- Bryan Martin is wrong about Net Noot.

- The biggest news item of 2006: Macbook Random Shutdown.

- AIM’s Web API is an anti-Adobe Flash move, in my opinion.

- Amusing fiction from undertrained Comcast Support Folks.

- TalkPlus is cool.

- As if I don’t use the word “sucks” enough: Ten Reasons Why MySpace SUCKS.

- Elitists still don’t GET the Internet.

- Yahoo/Linksys: Your Y! Messenger phone sucks.

- Systemax’s dorky “VoIP PCs“.

- The problem of gold farming.

- I went to Second Life, and there was nothing there.

- Ever wonder how to sync that shiny new N73 with your Mac?

2006 was a turbulent year for the world of IP Communications. As if it’s any indicator, the word VoIP itself became less of a buzzword and more of a technical term. The cable companies are avoiding the word VoIP and even the word Internet to describe their VoIP offerings, while Vonage continues to plow ahead using the phrase “broadband phone” instead of VoIP. Is this about concealing from consumers the nature of voice over IP on the untamed internet, or is it about making the services more easy for them to understand? Not sure yet, but the sinking popularity of the word VoIP was certainly one trend I noticed in the past year.

Another was the emergence of user-democratized video. Of course, there’s YouTube, Google Video, MySpace Videos, and others. But now, with 2007 in the crosshairs, we’re seeing businesses in the late minority phase begin to pop-up. Most notably, Network2, Jeff Pulver’s latest creation, seeks to unify and legitimize user-generated video content in a fashion that borrows ideas from YouTube, Digg, and even TV Guide. Of course, earlier in the year, iTunes began to really turn up the notch on delivery of video content, albeit in a highly 1.0 fashion.

Those of us watching the SIP/WiFi-vs-telco landscape unfold were frustrated again this year, as little progress was made in blanketing the world with WiFi as a means of increasing customer choice and undoing the price-fixed stranglehold the baby bells have on the US last-mile market. I mean, we got help agains the bells, but it came from somebody we really didn’t want it from–the cable operators. So, the WiFi struggle will continue in 2007. Municipal WiFi is one answer, but perhaps not THE answer, as the word municipal also means politics.

As for WiFi SIP phones, though, the picture got better. Linksys, UTStarcom, D-Link, and others all finally got their G-generation products out of the vapor stage and into the marketplace, which is a good thing. The bad thing is, they basically suck. It may take a usability powerhouse like Nokia to solve this problem–or Apple. 2007 will be the year when GSM gets blended into the same hardware.
2006 was the year of the Macbook, and also the year of the Random Shutdown. How Apple avoided a class-action lawsuit is beyond my comprehension. Let’s just say my Macbook stays running now, despite carrying a battery that will no longer charge.

And despite the rumors to the contrary, we did not end up with an Apple store on the west side of Cleveland in 2006. (Although my sources have confirmed that a store will be opening at Crocker Park in Westlake in Q1 2007.)

‘06 was also the year we finally got a new console out of Sony and Nintendo. Still very little in the way of useful VoIP. Microsoft seems to be leading that charge with XBox Live. And, oh, good luck getting one of these new plastic boxes before the year is over. The plentiful supply alluded to in the press just didn’t materialize, for the Nintendo Wii anyway.

I watched two episodes of Cranky Geeks this year, and I really admire what Dvorak is attempting with his video program. However, I much prefer the 5-minutes-in-length trappings of Rocketboom, which gives me a laugh and doesn’t tie me up with talking heads for a half hour. Does this attitude make me a cranky geek?
2006 also appears to have been the year in which “Merry Christmas” cards finally outsold “Happy Holidays” cards. Not sure why, but in my neck of the woods, there’s definitely a “reaction” to people who say Happy Holidays. In response to this salutation, you might hear a snappy response like, “which holiday?” or “happy Thanksgiving yourself.”

This year I got to attend two VON events, both of which were excellent. The first was Fall VON, in Boston. My wife and I actually drove from Cleveland (she won’t get on a plane), enjoyed a few prime steaks and Boston Clam Chowder, and visited some notable places from revolutionary American history for the first time. I met many people I’d been communicating with over the Net, and this was highly rewarding. Putting a face and a handshake next to a name is my idea of unified communication. VON Enterprise was also very productive for me–although not everybody appreciated my response. In fact, an executive from InGate called me on my SitoFono link this morning to defend his position on SIP URI directory services, and asked me to clarify. He got the impression I was bashing InGate after a firey debate ensued at one of the VON Enterprise panel sessions. But I guess that’s further proof that click-to-call was one of the more significant VoIP developments of 2006. And, since it was just a matter of me placing my SitoFono link on my web site, the old addage, “if you build it, they will come” certainly still applies as we enter 2007.

For the first time, I am CEO of a profitable company. In late April, I started Best Technology Strategy LLC with my business partner and former boss, Bill. We got fired together from a consulting company that was “exiting” the networking business. Since our former employer didn’t bother to negotiate an exit strategy with its networking clients ahead of time, Bill and I jumped in to fill the void, and the rest is history. In 2007, I hope to add a few smart people to my staff and help to stem the brain drain that’s going on in the midwest. It pleases me greatly that our company now has over two dozen clients, and that many of them do business as far away as Florida, Toronto, and Silicon Valley. Our expertise is in unified business communications and next-generation communication technology. It’s interesting–my most innovative work has come only since I’ve been involved in my own firm, plowing my own pathway.

2006 was the first year in three years’ time that I wasn’t working on a book, and man, what a relief. But I’ve got the itch again. Not letting the cat out of the bag just yet, but expect some news on a new book before long.

This year we also got a peek at what happens when overly vague patents go awry and munny-hungry entrepreneurs go to court. Case in point, Blackberry. Alas, Blackberry’s still in business, just with new ownership.

Well, with 2006 behind us, I’m looking forward with greater enthusiasm than ever towards 2007. This is going to be a great year! So Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkuh, and Happy New Year, a little early.

It’s odd, it seems, to live in a world where the balance of my social interaction occurs in an electronic form. Yes–I communicate with more people by e-mail, IM, and telephone than I do by handshake and face-to-face conversation. Am I a tech-geek? Absolutely. Am I a sought-after tech-geek? Yeah, probably.

But it still seems odd.

After all, people are people, not outgrowths of the global networks. We didn’t build the global network so we could service it. We built it so that it could service us. And when I look retrospectively at many of my experiences online, I think that the network has, to one degree or another, become rather self-serving indeed.

We see this in the social constructs that exist on the network. Myspace, World of Warcraft, Second Life, and other much-ballyhooed 2.0 social platforms all suffer from the same basic flaw: they connect people, but they don’t CONNECT people. Do you get what I’m saying? Now, did these gifted software developers set out to replace the skin-to-skin handshake, the pat on the back, the bear hug, or the French kiss? Of course not. But, as evidenced by the life-like female robot that came across Wired from Japan about a month ago, people may be trying to up the ante on these real-world treasures of human contact.

And even in the metaverse, especially Second Life, there seems to be an obsession with replicate the audiovisual experience of real-life social events, everything from eating to dancing to sex. But the Second Life experiment is so primitive right now because of its fundamental limitation: it’s not real. None of it is real. And so, you either engage in some element of fantasy–for entertainment purposes, or you fool yourself by putting too much weight on the social interaction. Nerds used to go to the library to play Dungeons and Dragons. Now, they go to Second Life to type chat messages, build “sex balls”, and listen to concerts that would arguably sound and feel a lot better in person. Meanwhile, in Second Life, there’s this sort of altruistic hippy backdrop to the entire experience. Everybody gets tips in 2L. Here’s a tip: live music sounds better LIVE.

Look, it’s not that I’m saying this stuff isn’t cool. But like I said, is Second Life really the killer application for streaming audio, 3d visualization, and instant messaging? Of course it’s not. It’s just fun.

World of Warcraft is a similar beast. This fantasy role-playing game is probably the deepest piece of computer entertainment software ever created. But how much dragon-slaying and night-elf cybering does your typical preoccupied human with a life have to do before he or she realizes there’s very little lasting human value in the experience of WoW? Again, it’s all very beautiful; it’s all very engaging and entertaining. But what’s the sum total at the end of the day (or year). What does one really gain socially or personally by investing large amounts of valuable time into the metaverse?

I would argue: nothing.

Yes, I’m going to get flamed about this. But before you flame away, let me tell you my story about WoW. My wife and I used to spend a lot of time together playing Diablo, and later WoW. We had our computers set up side by side in our office, and, after the kids went to bed, we’d be slaying dragons and finding treasure chests and all that. And it was a blast.

But WHY was it a blast? Because we were doing it together–in person, in the same room.

Later, my wife got into a “uber guild” where she started doing Warcraft raids that took three, four, sometimes six hours to complete. Her WoW habits changed, became much more strenuous and dedicated, and I didn’t have the time nor the inclination to keep up with her much more ambitious involvement in the system. And eventually, she didn’t want to play with me and my “lowbie” character any more.

So I quit playing. WHY did I quit playing? Because the human involvement reward was now gone. Which brings me back to my original point.

People mislabel folks they’ve never met in person, but have chatted with or IMed for years, as friends. They make the mistake of refering to people as friends when they’ve never invested a face-to-face minute with them.

This is why, instead of merely blogging and emailng with my contemporaries and peers, I actually make every effort to MEET them in person, at tradeshows, when they’re traveling through town, why I’m traveling through their towns.  Because there’s a certain accountability in relationships that I prefer. It’s the thing that “makes it real”.  Call me old-fashioned, I guess. I just prefer my human relationships to matter.

Before formulating an opinion about it, I went to Second Life with an open mind. And I logged maybe twenty hours over the course of a month or so.  I came away with an empty feeling, as if I’d be better off investing that time in a venue where people actually are–physically.  Like my kids’ play room.  Or my mom’s apartment. Or church. Or the rock and roll bar.  Or my neighbor’s front porch.  Important things and people exist in these places, and it’s important–in my life anyway–not to allow these in-the-flesh experiences to be replaced or offset by the metaverse.  The metaverse should not encroach upon these things for one simple reason: they are real, and it is not.

So, in all honesty, I can say, I went to Second Life, and nothing was there.

This article isn’t so much postulating that Web 2.0 is a “bad thing”, but rather grappling with the various definitions of Web 2.0.  Have a peek:

If Web 2.0 is the answer then we are clearly asking the wrong question, and we must not be fooled by the cool sites and apparently open APIs. Most of the effort is – literally – window dressing, designed to attract venture capitalists to poorly-considered startups and get hold of enough first-round funding to build either a respectable user base or enough barely runnable alpha code to provide Google or Yahoo! with yet another tasty snack. We need to take a wider view of what is going on.

I’ll say that my definition of Web 2.0 is “what we’re doing today to connect people in a way that is free of monolithic information architectures and which caters to the individual needs of individual users”.  My definition is, of course,  very broad one.  But The Register guy who wrote this piece seems to think that Ajax plays a central role in Web 2.0, not just from an engineering standpoint, but from a philosophical one. And I definitely don’t agree with that.

To me, Web 2.0 has never really been about coding or the preferences of the developer. It’s always been about the preferences of the user: creating states and modes of operation for each user that permit the most effective communication to and from that user, or the most effective data recall on that user’s behalf. And to diss Google, arguably the first wide-scale implementor of the 2.0 philosophy, on account of not adhering to open standards, is probably not giving Google the credit they deserve.  Look at all the standards support Google is pushing: Jabber, XML, you name it.  Google isn’t in business to create standards; they’re in business to use them.  And, last time I looked, Ajax was a highly-accessible standard, not some entrapping web API, a la Microsoft.
I’m also a little put off by the comparison between the evolution of the web and the Marxist definition of the rise of socialism.  In my mind, Web 2.0 is more about the empowerment of individuals, or the democratization of the web, as opposed to the suppression of individual ideas and freedoms.  Perhaps this is why user-generated content figures so heavily into the 2.0 concept.

And there are also some fundamental differences between the meteoric rise and fall of 1.0 and the way businesses are approaching 2.0 ventures.  For one, there’s a breed of successful, cash-wealthy corporations that survived and thrived through the 1.0 bust.  These guys are careful how they spend their dough (though arguably, some bold, high-profile moves of dough have been made: Ebay/Skype and Google/Youtube come to mind).  Secondly, there’s not nearly the amount of exuberant venture capital flowing into 2.0 companies as there was during the 1.0 heyday.

So, to pronounce 2.0 dead on account of irrational exuberance is also, I think, very premature.  Go read the guy’s article, and you tell me if you agree that it sounds like sour grapes from somebody who holds some very religious ideas about software engineering.

I am recruiting an enterprise VoIP professional for a six-month to one-year contract in Prague. Top contacts will bring at least a few years of VoIP integration experience and at least a cursory understanding of Avaya IP telephony equipment. In this position, you’ll have the chance to do some very exciting work and really enhance your resume. You’ll be working for a global, English-speaking firm while residing in or near Prague.  Your will be up to USD $135k annually. If you’re interested, contact me at ted [a t] macvoip.com.  Good luck.

I was reading a piece today at New Scientist, which advocates for the use of deep packet packet inspection as a means of thwarting denial of service attacks. Who would be responsible for the deep packet inspection? Why data carriers, of course. Folks like your ISP.

This is flawed thinking. For example, forcing deep packet inspection would give rise to ISPs taking liberties with certain types of content–accelerating some while penalizing others. And while this sounds an awful lot like the net neutrality argument, I’m only making this point because I don’t think ISPs should be badgered into submission for regulatory reason, especially not with the dangling carrot of, “well, if we can recognize and penalize DOS, look at all the other stuff we could recognize and penalize.”

Another reason I don’t like the idea is because it just plain misses the point. DOS instigators take advantage of software exploits in systems like Windows and Linux. Penalizing ISPs and forcing them to pay for these exploitable shortcomings is like making the bus driver pay for a transmission-repair on the city-owned bus.

  • Viagra online
  • Order cheap cialis
  • Buy viagra no prescription
  • Cialis online
  • Buy generic cialis
  • Order propecia no prescription
  • Cheap propecia online
  • Propecia online pharmacy
  • Order levitra online
  • Cheap price cialis
  • Online pharmacy levitra
  • Buy viagra online
  • Buy discount levitra
  • Cheap cialis online
  • Propecia hair loss