Wednesday, September 29, 2010
That's right. Shocking news indeed. And when I heard it, I too had the same shocked reaction that you have right now: "OMG! AOL is still in business?!?!?!"

When this news blip hit my RSS reader, it was definitely a productivity killer for me. I had to stop what I was doing and find out what AOL does in the age of broadband to make money? I mean, they're not a broadband provider (that I know of) and like most Americans, the only recollection I have of this company is the incessant CD's in the mail with software that would dial-up to the internet -- a utility that ceased being useful a decade ago.

So, on my quest to uncover just how AOL makes money these days -- enough money, in fact, to buy one of the most popular technology blogs on the web -- where did I turn? To Google of course. It would take me about 30 minutes of research to finally discover the irony in that.

AOL, it would seem, suffers from a great brand confusion which is, oddly enough, also it's saving grace. The confusion is that many people still equate AOL with one of two services: dial-up internet, complete with a suite of services that accompanied the dial-up connection; or, their famous AIM (AOL Instant Messenger) which dominated dorm rooms for much of the past decade. And, as the onslaught of broadband has killed the former, the latter is slowly losing ground to social media platforms which offer the same capability and more. So, how has such a legacy saved AOL?

Today, my best estimation is that AOL's revenue streams lean primarily on advertising to the users of their many free services, and to the readers of their many content channels (enter: TechCrunch acquisition). The revenue from paid subscriptions to their services certainly exists, but the acquisition of TechCrunch signals a strategic direction for AOL.

But how has their early-days legacy of THE dial-up provider set the stage for their success today? Simple. They were providing internet services before internet services existed. Before Google, when 30 million Americans connected to the Internet each day via the AOL software on their computer, AOL was the search engine. And, AOL was the go-to email option. Today, many of those same customers remain AOL users.

But if that was the pattern historically, then why has Time Warner, one of the largest TCom companies in the world, released ownership of AOL as of last year? Aren't today's broadband services going to go the way of AOL someday?

Answer: just the opposite. Yahoo was one of the first to move the opposite direction. Yahoo, which began as an internet portal offering search, mail,and content once partnered with SBC to provide broadband. And, most recently, Google has begun to indicate their desire to toe-dip in the broadband market. It would seem that AOL's pattern of moving from ISP to search and content provider may be a step backwards in evolution.

Did AOL miss the boat by not entering the broadband market? Or, did Time Warner hop the boat with their ticket?

Labels: AOL, Broadband, Google, TechCrunch, Time Warner, Yahoo

posted by Unknown at 8:56 AM Link to this Article  0 Comments

Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Almost any business-related technology on the market--broadband services, IT infrastructure, office productivity software, accounting software, CRM software , etc.--was originally designed with enterprise-level business in mind. This is not because of some unrighteous bias against mom-and-pops and the small business backbone of America. It's a simple matter of economics. As businesses form around technology innovations, the earliest adopters will be those with the budget to buy, and those are most commonly large business.

So what's the net result? When technology vendors enter the marketplace gunning for big business--looking to land a whale or two, not a thousand tiny bluegill--they inevitably tailor their solutions to attract this level of macro-enterprise. But eventually, and more rapidly of recent, technologies become affordable for micro-enterprise. The only question is: when they do, does the shoe fit?

PC's, for example, existed for decades in a business environment where most customers had an IT staff that could handle patches, upgrades, and bugs. But, as the technology became more and more affordable for small business and in-home use, the paradigm which once demanded a buyer have on-site technicians and support no longer fit. I still firmly believe that Mac's are less powerful and less adaptable in a large network environment. But, they key to their success has been the introduction of a newly re-designed solution that accommodates the unique needs of the emerging small-business and SOHO market.

Broadband is no different. As high-speed internet came available, those that could afford T1 and T3 connections made no beef about the extreme difficulty with which WAN networks could be integrated and secured. The PCI-DSS came along and really added a heavy burden, but enterprise-level buyers relied on a wealth of in-house technical resource. Today, however, broadband needs to be available to the small chains, the small businesses, and the rural offices. Accel Networks' fixed wireless broadband solution is a managed solution. From provisioning to plugging it in, Accel can manage the entire system for end-users. And, with our easy-to-use management tools, even small business owners aren't afraid to call themselves the "network admin."

The trend from big to small, from whale hunting to netting schools of small business, has happened in nearly every market since the industrial revolution. Today, small business computing, small business account software, small business crm software, small business this and that technology are all growing wildly. What will be the next emerging technology to become affordable and usable to the small business market?

Labels: Broadband, Small Business

posted by Unknown at 4:09 AM Link to this Article  0 Comments

Wednesday, September 15, 2010
OK, I have to be the first to admit it. After all this talk about privatization, capitalism, and the ingenuity of profit-driven enterprise: government beats the private sector in the race to the 1 Gbps broadband. Google had everyone clamoring to get access to their ultra-fast broadband speeds with the launch of their Google Fiber for Communities initiative. And, it's not as though the demand has ended. But, the intriguing fact is that Google lost the race... or did they?

What was Google's ultimate goal in this initiative? To be the sole provider of a new break-through speed of broadband? I could hardly imagine that, nor could they. Of course, one goal has to be acknowledged as the shear PR traction they're getting. But, aside from that, the altruistic side of the corporate super-giant is clear: to create action. The initiative was designed to create demand--a general dissatisfaction with the status-quo--and thereby generate a new paradigm in broadband.

Guess what. They did. Chattanooga's announcement of their 1 Gbps broadband service, which will service a 600-square mile community and service ~170,000 homes, is a victory of Google's drive--not to mention the countless other voices crying for innovation. Google is not bemoaning this as a loss. If anything, they can at least cross one of the hundreds of cities off their list of candidates for their own implementation.

What we have seen in Chattanooga, we will begin to see everywhere. Accel Networks exists for the simple reason that we believe, along with countless others, that broadband doesn't have to stagnate. We can serve better, put customers first, and innovate the technology that drives our increasingly vital t-com important infrastructure. Whose next?

Labels: Broadband, Google, Google Fiber, Telecommunication

posted by Unknown at 9:54 AM Link to this Article  0 Comments

Tuesday, September 7, 2010
This is a trend that I've casually noticed over the years, but I am recently beginning to really ponder. Have you ever met someone that's head-over-heals in love with their telecom provider? I've read raving reviews of restaurants, hospitals, banks, and even lawyers (yeah, I know) but never have I heard an unsolicited and heartfelt praise of any tcom institution. Can the industry really be that universally bad? Or, is it possible that this is a business people love to hate?

I hear it all the time with wireless carriers. "I used [insert carrier here], but hated it so I switched to [insert another carrier here]." And, it's odd, but the names of the biggest carriers like AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint all get placed interchangeably into either of the two slots, depending on who you talk to. So, if everyone's getting frustrated regardless of company: could it be that the problem isn't the company after all?

For starters, a comment on human nature. We love to complain. And, for some reason, there is a mob mentality when it comes to complaining. If one person in an office hates the candy selection in the vending machines, if left unchecked, before you know it everyone is moaning about it... even Fred, the health nut who refuses to eat from vending machines. It's just human nature. Why? Because Fred wants to be like the others--so he adopts their affinities and their disdains. I have no doubt that somewhere along the way, it became trendy to be at odds with your telecom provider--the cable company, the phone company, the wireless carrier, the broadband privder--whoever it is.

"How did such a trend get started?" we must ask, if ever to resolve the issue. My theory: with generation e"X"pectancy. Oh, and don't worry, I cannot be accused of age bias--I'm an x'er myself. So, I can say it. We want it all, we want it now, and we want it free. It's a market demand that many industries have capitalized on by satisfying--hence: consumerism. But it's a bit more challenging for tcom companies to satisfy this desire in their customers. We want native-tongue support specialists (in a country with sky-rocketing health benefits and mimimum wage above $8/hr) but we want it for free. We want faster speeds, but we don't want our yard dug up nor to bear the costs of millions of miles of fiber. We want a company that's committed to our needs, but we don't want to commit to a contract.

But the problem can't be oversimplified to just a whiny generation. The reality is: the system is flawed... or at least, it's feeble.

Consider this. A waiter cannot improve your food, no matter how hard he wants to serve. The cook himself is even limited by the supplies he has. The farmer can try as he may to improve the quality of his produce and meat, but at the end of the day, he has a limited resource.

In reality, the majority of the industry that everyone loves to hate is comprised of waiters and waitresses. And, while there are more "cooks" today than ever before, that market is still somewhat limited. However, the most notable fact about our telecom industry is that all the cooks are buying primarily from one age-old farmer that has largely built this nation's telecom infrastructure for over a century.

But I'm the last person to point a finger at "THE phone company." The reality of the situation boils down to this: despite their best efforts to fill every customer's desire, our nation's telecom industry at large is trying desperately to meet an unprecedented growth in demand... and the resources simply cannot keep up.

But I'm hopeful. Why? Why am I so amicable to the industry everyone loves to hate? Because just today, my "waitress" for residential broadband sent a letter to my house saying that upgrades in my area have doubled my speeds--on the house! Can't beat that.

Labels: "Internet infrastructure", Broadband, tcom, Telecommunication, The phone company

posted by Unknown at 9:17 AM Link to this Article  0 Comments

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 Unknown at 11:08 AM Link to this Article  1 Comments