If you're a global thinker or a world traveler, you have already taken objection to the title. Just like our World Series of baseball, the World Champions of the Superbowl, and all our other national titles that we over-inflate as world titles, the same is true for this title. The world didn't go wired. America did. In fact, other parts of the world totally skipped the wired revolution. So, why then did America go wired?
In parts of the world where the communication boom came post-wireless revolution, nobody even thought to go through the trouble of laying cable or fiber. Why even waste the time. Just build transmitters and antennas. But in the U.S., arguably the more advanced and faster-growing technology markets on the planet, we exist today in a state of dependency on wired local connections.
Local connections -- key point here, we all know that wires support wireless. But what I'm calling into question is our dependence on wires for local loop. From the hub to the handheld. From dbox to d-link router. Why?
My theory: it started with consumer, not business, demand. Namely, telephone and television. In the 60's and 70's, as such luxuries were becoming more necessity than nicety, the efficiencies of airwaves was still quite low. Digital broadcast was only developed in the last decade and mandated just last year. Analog signal on the spectrum simply couldn't deliver the hundreds of channels and multiple phone lines that we were all demanding.
The result: by the 80's copper cable traversed most of the developed areas. As cellular and other wireless technology matured in the 90's there existed a sense in which the cable was there, why not use it. Aside from that, 3G and 4G speeds still hadn't arrived yet and wires still severely out-performed wireless.
So, why this history lesson now? Why think about it today? Two reasons: (1) wireless is catching up, and (2) wires aren't everywhere that people are anymore.
Development has out-paced the grid. Neighborhoods pop up in corn fields every day, and with neighborhoods come stores. More and more, new development (both commercial and residential) is realizing the costs to keep the grid up with the demand.
Meanwhile, the alternative local loop, wireless signal, is catching up. The wireless "pipe" is getting bigger through optimization of signal (i.e. digital) and the release of more spectrum (a la FCC auctions).
Will TV antennas once again be a regular scene on the rooftops? Will T-Com super-giants like Time Warner Cable change with the times and begin delivering on the air once again? Or, will we (unlike the rest of the world) keep up the illusion that every terminal, house, c-store, and business needs to be tethered with copper strands no matter the cost?
Wireless broadband, from wi-fi to 3G and now even 4G network availability, has made mobilized more than just communication. Mobile phones equip more than phone calls. Many mobile devices today are powerful and useful hand-held computers. But the question is: are they secured like one?
First, let's begin by understanding the risk. A few months ago, I downloaded an inexpensive app to my iPhone phone called "FTP On The Go." Within minutes, I had bookmarked my company's FTP server, complete with a saved username and password. Moreover, I have been using QuickOffice to access my company docs, emails, spreadsheets, quotes, etc. while traveling or just stuck in traffic. So, what happens when my iPhone gets stolen or lost? Sure, a thug on the subway probably has little interest in our company data, but what if I accidentally left this tiny little data gateway lying on a table at an industry conference?
Of course, even acknowledging the risk, most of us aren't stricken with fear because we've been down this road before. When laptops entered the scene, IT departments everywhere were in a fit to figure out how to secure the devices. Fortunately, Microsoft's user-level security features were actually quite useful. Laptops were password protected and everyone rested easy. So, can't these mobile devils be controlled with the same means?
Let's take the iPhone, and it's cousin the iPad, as examples. The PCI-DSS demands password security with a minimum of 6 characters. Ever type in the password on an iPhone? It's 4-characters max and numerical only. That is assuming, of course, that users have activated the password security on their iPhones. Mine, for example, is privately owned and my IT staff has never even seen it, let alone mandated it's secure use. With nothing more than the usernames and passwords that I have been granted for access to my company's systems, I have downloaded the applications I need to create a mobile workplace for myself--or perhaps a mobile security breach for my company.
And, physical security aside, what level of data security can mobile devices ensure? Whereas Accel Networks' fixed wireless broadband can be provisioned with Layer 2 security, what of the mobile broadband devices?
Here are some policies to consider as the mobile broadband users in your company will, undoubtedly, continue to grow:
If any company data is to be retrieved, including simple pop3 email, the phone's password security--albeit lacking PCI-DSS requirements--should be employed.
Saving of passwords on the phone's applications for accessing any secure sites, including FTP, remote desktop, or similar applications should be prohibited.
When accessing secure data, 3G networks or security-enabled wi-fi should be required.
What are some other policies your company has instituted in order to protect itself from the unmitigated risk of mobile broadband?
In our nation's largest city, it is no surprise to find that AT&T has been battling with an overwhelmed network. The increased popularity of 3G-enabled wireless devices has finally pushed their infrastructure to the limit. The AT&T cell towers in New York city face problems ahead if they cannot keep up with 3G demand.
So, what's the answer? Get the users to stop relying on 3G. To reduce the load on the cell towers in and around the city, AT&T plans to offer free wireless hot-spots where AT&T customers can get Wi-Fi at no charge rather than relying on the standard data network.
To pilot the program, seeing what real affect it will have on network load, the first free wireless hot-spot has been set up and is now live in Time Square. For a range of 2000 feet from the city's famed landmark, AT&T customers can enjoy Wi-Fi speeds--even faster than 3G--at no extra charge.
So, will it work? I have my doubts for one simple, and seemingly insignificant reason. Laziness...
As an avid iPhone user, I am prompted constantly to join networks. In the city, there are dozens of wireless networks available to join at any given point. The problem is, historically, these have all been security-enabled networks. So, while I'm on the go and in a hurry, I rarely bother to sort through the networks available to find a free one, after all, why bother? The 3G works just fine.
So, the challenge for AT&T is going to be making it as easy as possible for its customers to connect to this new Wi-Fi network instead of the already-available 3G. My suggestion: create a unique name for the network, then push an OS update that automatically switches to the AT&T-provided wi-fi if it's available without the user having to do anything.
What do you think? Any New Yorkers out there excited for this new offer, or do you fear it will never gain popularity?
In early November, AT&T took legal action against Verizon for what they call misleading advertising which allegedly made false claims about AT&T coverage. You have probably seen the ads in question (an example shown below). In a recent ad campaign, Verizon has taken their longstanding emphasis on network coverage to a level of direct comparison. The popular "can you hear me now" campaigns implied Verizon's general advantage over their competitors. But, the "there's a map for that" campaign directly references AT&T coverage maps, and the slogan cannot be mistook as anything but a spoof on recent iPhone advertising--a popular product of the AT&T network. But did they go too far?
First, let's understand what is at the heart of this issue. Is Verizon posting inaccurate or false claims about AT&T? Not exactly. And AT&T doesn't claim that they are. The injunctions sought are on the basis, not of technical accuracy, but of a misleading presentation. The maps displayed only depict 3G coverage, not overall coverage. The map of AT&T coverage has notably less color than Verizon's. "Through the use of a coverage map in [Verizon] ads, they suggest through all white or blank space, not only that AT&T doesn't offer 3G coverage but no coverage at all," spokesman Mark Siegel said in an interview. "That's misleading and that's why we filed the lawsuit."
Misleading. That is the root issue. After Wilt Chamberlain's famed 100-point game in 1962, a no-name teammate reportedly said in an interview, "Wilt and I teamed up to score 101 points that game." The teammate had hit a free-throw. Accurate? Yes. Misleading? Indeed. Now, AT&T must now show a federal judge that Verizon misled in much the same manner--by not presenting all the facts. My mother taught me that a partial truth is not necessarily truth.
But, the other questions is the question of intent. Wilt's teammate intended to mislead. But what Verizon will try to demonstrate (or should, in my non-expert legal opinion) is that they did not launch this campaign with the intent to mislead. In Verizon's ads the company does clearly mark the maps as "AT&T 3G Coverage" and "Verizon Wireless 3G Coverage." The courts will have to answer the question: could the viewing audience surmise by these maps that AT&T has no coverage outside the colored regions?
With both companies having invested heavily in their market share, advertising, and in their respective network infrastructures, there is no doubt that much is at stake. Truthfully, I'm pleased to see the improvements that such fierce competition has spurred in our nation's Tcom markets, as well as the due process by which any party can be assured of "fair play" in business competition. I'm anxious to see the decision (and as split as I am on the issue, glad it's not mine to make).
