Archive for Internet

Link: Get Ready For ‘Super Wi-Fi’ To Be A Big Thing In 2013

Quote:

… it’s a new kind of wireless network running on unused or underused spectrum known as “white spaces.” It’s championed by the likes of Google and Microsoft.

Get Ready For ‘Super Wi-Fi’ To Be A Big Thing In 2013 (Business Insider)

Comments off

DynDNS (mostly) discontinues free DNS service

This article has been moved. Please click here to read it.

Comments (3)

Before you even think of signing up for Frontier DSL service you might want to read this (link)

Volcanic material thrust high into the atmosph...

Image via Wikipedia

From Stop the Cap!:

Exclusive: Frontier’s California Confuse-o-rama: Residents Victimized by Frontier’s Changing Stories

And when I read something like that, my thought is, if they are willing to pull this shit in California today, what’s to say they won’t try it in other states in the near future? If it were me, until they come to their senses and stop doing this, I’d avoid Frontier like a village infested with bubonic plague on the side of a hill next to an active volcano with an active nuclear waste dump at the center. But, that’s just me and my personal opinion — what you do is up to you.

Comments off

Seven tips for making your VoIP service work

Nerd Moment

Image by hc.saustrup via Flickr

The following is based on my experiences with VoIP over the past few years.  Some people can buy a VoIP adapter, or obtain one from a VoIP provider, and make it work the first try.  Others have all manner of issues, and they may not be due to the actions of your VoIP service provider.  This is not intended to be a comprehensive installation guide, but rather a list of pitfalls you may encounter and tips on avoiding them.

1. Cable Internet works better than DSL. The problem here is generally the DSL modems and they way they are configured. Telephone companies tend to buy the cheapest DSL modems they can get, but typically these DSL modems contain a really crappy router that is enabled by default (you don’t realize it because there’s typically only one output port, but often there really is a very basic router in there).  Then the customer plugs in their own router and presto, you have a situation known as “Double-NAT” (NAT=Network Address Translation).   That is NOT good for VoIP.  I’ve seen situations where a VoIP adapter won’t work at all unless it’s plugged into the DSL router directly (which typically leaves no place to plug in a computer) and situations where with a dual-line adapter, it’s impossible to get both lines to work simultaneously.  One possible way to resolve the problem is to put the DSL modem into what’s called “bridge mode”, which in effect disables its internal router, but most phone companies don’t tell people how to do that, and it’s a process that scares some users (“But what if my Internet stops working altogether?”  And that definitely can happen if you do it wrong!).  One other problem with DSL: While many cable providers tend to let you keep the same IP address for months if not years, DSL providers seem to change users’ IP addresses much more frequently, and that can cause firewall issues (see point #4).

2. Some routers are VoIP friendly and some are decidedly not. So your old router either bites the dust, or won’t keep up with the latest speed upgrade from your broadband provider, and you head online or to a store for a new one.  Chances are it doesn’t cross your mind, “Will my VoIP service still work?”, but it should.  There are certain brands of routers that are utter garbage as far as I’m concerned, and then there are other brands that are much better.  For some odd reason, the newer the router, the more likely it is to cause certain types of issues.  One unfortunate thing is that most consumer-grade routers today seem to come with wireless capability even if you don’t need it, and for some reason those newer wireless routers seem to be more prone than usual to cause problems.  In other cases, routers come with specific settings that are supposed to help VoIP, but don’t.  If you control the VoIP server and endpoints, one thing you can try is running your SIP traffic on ports not normally used for SIP (typically 5060-5061) and if that suddenly works, it may be that your router is trying to manage SIP traffic and doing it wrong (some routers may have a check box that you can check or uncheck to turn this feature on or off). Before buying a router, make sure that if it messes up your VoIP connections you can either return it, or reflash it with third-party firmware (Tomato, DD-WRT, etc., assuming you feel confident in your ability to do this. I assume no responsibility if you “brick” a router because you don’t know what you’re doing!).

3. Some VoIP adapters and equipment will work in certain situations but not others. One thing about the venerable Sipura SPA and Linksys PAP series VoIP adapters is that they will work in many situations where other, cheaper models won’t.  Early on we used a few cheap adapters, and while these were always a bit of a pain to get working, once set up they tended to be pretty reliable — until the newest crop of routers started coming down the pike!  So the typical story is, user buys new router, old adapter (that has worked great for years) won’t work, user buys new unlocked Linksys PAP2, their VoIP works again (obviously I am talking a situation where the user provides their own adapter). Bottom line is, some combinations of equipment don’t play well together (and that can include equipment provided by your ISP and/or your VoIP service provider).

4. Firewalls can be an issue. One thing I suggest if you are having issues is to temporarily disable any firewall you may have if you are having an issue getting a VoIP device to register, with the caveat that I primarily mean at the server end and not at the user end (which is not to say that a user firewall can’t be a problem, but you don’t want users running with no firewall protection).  If you are able to do so, drop the firewall for a few seconds and have the user power cycle their router and VoIP adapter, bringing the router up first, then the VoIP adapter. If they can suddenly register, then you may have a too-strict firewall policy, or you may simply need to punch a hole in your firewall for traffic from their IP address.  Obviously you want to minimize the time your firewall is offline, and you don’t want to do it when you know you’re under attack.  But if you have used good strong passwords on everything in your system that allows outside access, and shut off all services that provide external access and that don’t need to be running, you can minimize your exposure. There is one particular VoIP software package out there that prides itself on its security, but it’s so secure that it causes problems for remote endpoints, particular ones on frequently changing IP addresses (in other words, some DSL users).  I do NOT advise running a server without a firewall.

5. Sometimes, you just need to wait. I’ve seen it happen where a user gets a new VoIP adapter, configures it with the same settings as their old one, then disconnects the old one — and the new one won’t work.  Then they go away for an hour or two and suddenly the new one miraculously starts working.  Why?  Without getting too technical (or straying into territory where I don’t know what I’m talking about), I believe it has to do with “lease times” on connections in the router, or possibly even at the server.  If you really need to get it working now, try power cycling both the router and the VoIP adapter, bringing the router up first, then the VoIP adapter.

6. Power supplies fail in strange ways. One final tip that I’ve discovered is that sometimes power supplies on VoIP adapters partially fail (or the cord that connects the power supply and the adapter might go bad).  When that happens, it’s not always complete failure — the adapter may become noisy, or may exhibit all sorts of strange behavior (such as connecting, then dropping the connection for no apparent reason).  I just saw a malfunctioning Linksys PAP2 brought back to life by replacing a bad power supply, and it’s not the first time.

7. If all else fails, you could try using a Linksys SPA-2102, a Grandstream HT-502, or similar VoIP adapter that includes a built-in router (I tend to prefer Sipura/Linksys devices, but understand that the Grandstream units will support those old antique rotary dial phones that most kids have never seen, except in the movies and on old TV shows).  You’d connect the output of your DSL or cable modem to the INTERNET or WAN port of this unit, then connect your computer, a plain old dumb switch, or possibly your existing router to the ETHERNET or LAN port on the VoIP adapter (the latter combination possibly creating a triple-NAT situation for downstream devices, if you have DSL). Remember that if you do this, you’re limited to whatever connection speed the VoIP adapter will pass through, usually 10/100Base-T, so you probably don’t want to do this if you have cable Internet service or fiber to the home!  The only advantage of doing this is that if you have a router that doesn’t play well with your current VoIP adapter, you can connect one of the VoIP adapters with a built-in router directly to your cable or DSL modem and get your existing router out of the picture as far as your VoIP is concerned. I’d say it’s probably a better idea to get rid of the problematic router (if you can’t reconfigure it or download new firmware to make it work), but if you don’t know what you’re doing you might just buy another router with the same problem. (EDIT: Another possibility might be a Linksys RT31P2-NA router that includes VoIP capabilities, if you can still find an unlocked one for sale — I’ve never used one of those, so can’t say for sure how well it might work in this situation).

Do you have any other tips for making VoIP work, or any horror stories you’d like to share?  The comments are open!

Comments (1)

Link: Using IP tables to secure Linux server against common TCP hack attempts

This article has been moved.  Please click here to read it.

Comments off

Random thoughts on various topics

Today I just want to post a few quick thoughts on various topics, none of which are sufficient for a full article:

THE UPCOMING ELECTIONS: Before you vote, or if you are thinking of not voting, you should watch Keith Olbermann’s video (transcript here), which really exposes what the Tea Party candidates are all about.  I realize that Mr. Olbermann does get a bit passionate at times and that he does not break up his talks with humor (like, say, Jon Stewart) but in this case what he has to say is really important.  If you think that the Tea Party candidates are in any way standing up for America or espousing American ideals, you really need to watch the video.  Suffice it to say that I firmly believe that if the Tea Party, every gets much of a foothold in American politics, they will destroy the Republican party and many of our cherished American principles. And people of my age and older should really be very afraid of these folks — again, watch the video if you want to know why.

HULU AND THE NETWORKS BLOCKING PLAYBACK ON BOXEE AND GOOGLE TV: This is doomed to fail.  The same folks who have figured out how to “jailbreak” mobile phones will find it extremely easy to fool Hulu, et. al. into thinking it’s communicating with a plain old web browser on a standard PC.  And the reason that Hulu and the networks should not be blocking their content on such devices is because when the “jailbreakers” do it, you can bet that they will also figure out a way to remove the commercials from the stream.  Hulu in particular is very vulnerable here, because either they’re going to have to relent or they’re going to wind up blocking playback to users that really are using a standard browser on a desktop computer.  If they don’t relent soon, then the hack that allows viewing Hulu on those devices without the commercials will begin to receive wide acceptance, and then they will be in the position of trying to put the genie back in the bottle — they will never be able to get people to accept watching the ads (which will, of course, mean that eventually they will go out of business).

THE MOST USELESS FEDERAL AGENCIES have to be the Federal Communications Commission and the federal Food and Drug Administration.  I’ll leave the FDA alone for the moment, but the FCC is so obviously in the pocket of the huge corporations that you know something is definitely wrong there. Seems like about every other day we read story after story of how Internet users in countries like South Korea get broadband speeds about 100 times what most of us can get. The thing I don’t understand is why this seems to happen even in times when the Democrats have the majority in the legislature — it’s as if the Republicans still control the agenda even when the Democrats are in power — UNLESS the Democrats are also kowtowing to the huge corporations.  If Democrats DO lose to the Tea Party loons, they have only themselves to blame, for not doing the right thing when they had every opportunity.

ZECHARIA SITCHIN PASSED AWAY ON THE MORNING OF OCTOBER 9, 2010: Many readers will not know who he was, but basically he was a researcher of ancient Sumerian texts, who offered some very interesting (and often controversial) insights into our ancient past.  Even if he wasn’t 100% accurate — and who could be when you are talking about things that happened thousands of years ago, when you consider that our news media often can’t get details right on a story that happened two days ago — his biggest contribution to humanity was to expand the thinking of everyone who ever read his work.  For example, you will never look at the evolution vs. creation debate in quite the same way after you find out what the ancient Sumerians had to say about our origins, as reported by Mr. Sitchen.  I think he is one of those people whose genius has gone largely unrecognized by his own generation (even though most of his books sold very well), but who will be recognized and revered by future generations. Whether you agree with everything he wrote or not, he was one of the great thinkers of our time. By the way, the Wikipedia article about him is extremely biased, though that doesn’t surprise me considering that his writings were probably seen as a threat to both the existing religious institutions, and to conventional “scientific” thinking regarding our origins.

Comments off

Link: Free SIP Calling with Google Voice (sans Gizmo5)

This article has been moved.  Please click here to read it.

Comments off

Review of FreeSWITCH 1.0.6 by Anthony Minessale, Darren Schreiber, Michael S. Collins (Packt Publishing)

This article has been moved.  Please click here to read it.

Comments (1)

This is the thing that’s going to put the phone and cable companies out of business — someday

I’ve been saying for years now that when quantum entanglement is fully understood, it will revolutionize communications.  And apparently, the Chinese are taking this seriously.  According to an article on the POPSCI site,

Scientists in China have broken the record for quantum teleportation, achieving a distance of about 10 miles, according to a new study in Nature Photonics. That’s a giant leap from previous achievements.

The feat brings us closer to communicating information without needing a traditional signal transmission, the researchers note.

Read the rest of the article here (and note that the word “teleportation” is somewhat misused, as it becomes clear when you read the article that they are talking about quantum communications, not teleportation of matter).

Why is this significant?  Well, let’s assume for the moment that right now we understand this technology about as well as we understood lasers in the 1950′s — we knew they were significant and would be very useful someday, but most of the scientists originally had no idea just how useful they would become.  They certainly never imagined that everything from the world’s communications systems to audio and video equipment in your home would become dependent on the laser.

As I have said before, suppose you have two devices that contain entangled particles and therefore are capable of sending data between them, without using radio waves or cables of any kind.  This is what the Chinese are apparently on the verge of achieving, if they have not done so already.  And why is that important? Well, let’s say you are getting your Internet service from a company in New York, or your TV from a company in Colorado, or your phone service from … well, who cares where it’s from.  The Important thing is that in each case, you won’t need wires or cables, nor satellites and dishes, nor a network of cellular towers, to bring the information to you.  Eventually you may have a device the size of a USB stick (or smaller) that you plug into your computer or TV, or that is embedded into your phone, and no matter where you go in the world, it will be capable of communicating with its companion device at your service provider.

It’s my belief that once scientists really understand this, there will be virtually no distance limitation – you could take your phone or TV or Mars and it would still work.  And then there is the other question I really would like the answer to — is this type of communications constrained by the speed of light? I may be wrong, but I have this sneaking suspicion that it is not.  And if that is true, that would in part explain why Chinese scientists are willing to pursue this while Western scientists are afraid to touch it.

The problem is that in the West, our scientists don’t like anything that doesn’t conform to the known laws of science, and we especially don’t like anything that’s “supernatural.” And yet, when you get to the quantum level, science and the supernatural start looking an awful lot alike.  Make no mistake, it’s still science, it’s just science we don’t yet fully understand.  Just as a remote control capable of activating a device that displays pictures and plays sound might have seemed like sorcery to a scientist of 500 years ago, a lot of what we’re discovering about the quantum world seems “spooky” to us now.  People in many Asian nations have an entirely different mindset about such things; they readily accept things that we don’t understand (some forms of Chinese medicine being an example).  So, it does not surprise me that they’d be more likely to embrace this new field of science — it doesn’t pose as great a challenge to their cultural or scientific paradigms.

If we in the west ever hope to get into the forefront of this field of science — the thing that I’m sure will revolutionize communications, if we humans can stay alive that long and not nuke ourselves back to the stone age — we have to we willing to tell the “skeptics” to take a hike and get busy working on this stuff. We can’t take the attitude that because we don’t fully understand why something works, we’re not going to touch it until we do, because if we do that, people in parts of the world that have no such inhibitions are going to get far ahead of us in science and technology.

My prediction is that quantum science (including quantum communications) is going to be to this century what electronics was to the 20th century.  If you think about it, it was only a little over 100 years ago that the very first AM radio transmission took place, and it wasn’t until the 1920′s that radio receivers became a common item in homes. In only about 90 years we’ve gone from AM radios in large, furniture-sized cabinets with vacuum tubes to all the technology we have today. We’re just scratching the surface of the quantum world, and while I may not live to see it, I predict that at some point there will simply be no need for the millions of miles of copper and fiber cable used around the globe, nor all the cellular towers, not to mention the communications satellites in space. Even things like remote controls will use paired quantum particles, simply because they will work through walls, and each remote will control only the device that its paired with (so if you have two brand XYZ devices in a home, one remote won’t activate both devices).

For some reason I just find it really interesting to speculate about this, because I just believe this is truly the Next Big Thing.  The real shame will be if we in the West just ignore it until the scientists in China and other Eastern countries have fully developed the technology, while we’re still trying to prop up up our aging copper infrastructure. In a worst-case scenario, I could see devices that use quantum technology being banned in the United States, at least for a time, so that the big corporations can milk every last dime out of the existing (and by then antique) infrastructure.  I sure hope THAT doesn’t happen!

Comments (2)

Mini-review of Beginning OpenVPN 2.0.9 by Markus Feilner and Norbert Graf (Packt Publishing)

This article has been moved.  Please click here to read it.

Comments off

Is Michigan going to get screwed on broadband mapping? (UPDATE 3)

Crain’s Detroit Business reports today that Michigan is going to get $1.8 million from the feds “to launch an initiative to map and plan broadband service.” Now, you should be wondering about the timing of this announcement: December 23, just before most reporters take a long weekend. When news like this is released on a day like today, my first thought is, “Why do they want to bury this?”

The answer is in the last sentence of the article:

“Michigan is working on the project with Washington-based Connected Nation, a national non-profit organization that does broadband mapping.”

What’s wrong with that? I refer you to this article from DSLreports: One Last Warning Before America Screws Up Broadband Mapping.

EDIT: Also see “Privatizing the Public Trust: A Critical Look At Connected Nation“, a report issued by Public Knowledge, Common Cause, The Media and Democracy Coalition, and Reclaim the Media.

EDIT: Somehow I missed today’s post on DSLreports: “Connected Nation Wins Huge Chunk Of Taxpayer Money – And will likely use that money to fight against your interests…

Do your research on Connected Nation, folks. Google is your friend.

Is Michigan going to get screwed on broadband mapping? In my humble opinion, the odds are very high. I HOPE that the Michigan Public Service Commission is smart enough to know who they’re dealing with, but even if they know, will they have any authority to alter any results that might be misleading?

Happy holidays. By the time the “watchdog media” (more like a sleeping chihuahua) gets back from the holidays, they’ll probably consider this old news, and totally ignore it. If you don’t have broadband now in your area and you want it, maybe you should think about moving to another state!

EDIT: I posted the above at around 2:30 PM. I then had to leave for a couple of hours, and by the time I got back, I found the following in my e-mail:

[Begin quote:]

From: “Ditto, Jessica” [e-mail address redacted]
To: “michigantelephone…”
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 13:10:40 -0800
Subject: Michigan Broadband Mapping Project

To Whom It May Concern:

In regards to your post about Michigan’s broadband mapping project I would caution you not to believe everything you read on the Internet. The timing of the announcement is nothing but the result of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration having just released the awards for 14 states and 1 U.S. territory late yesterday – Michigan being one of them. This is exciting news for Michigan as the state works to create jobs and opportunity in a technology-based economy. The Connect Michigan program has been developed over the past few months in close collaboration with the Michigan Public Service Commission. These funds will allow the state to collect critical broadband data needed to identify the unserved and underserved areas of the state. Connected Nation is proud to be lending our experience and expertise to that effort. What you may not realize is that Connected Nation has mapped eight states prior to this grant program. No other organization in the country has mapped broadband on such a comprehensive scale. We do this because our mission is to promote digital inclusion by addressing both the supply and demand for high-speed Internet.

Your blog can be a positive voice in this effort by spreading the word about the need for broadband in Michigan’s unreached areas. I hope that you will afford me the opportunity to let you know more about who we are so that we can work with you in a constructive way going forward.

Regards,

Jessica Ditto
Communications Director
Connected Nation
877.846.7710 – Office
[Mobile telephone number redacted]
[e-mail address redacted]
www.connectednation.org

[End quote]

My response: Ms. Ditto, I would guess that you are probably paid by your employer to attempt to counteract negative publicity that appears in blogs such as mine, and I understand you are probably just trying to earn a living. However, the problem as I understand it is twofold. First, and feel free to correct me if you think I am wrong, I have read that your organization was created by, and/or receives significant funding from AT&T. If that is true, then it gives the appearance of conflict of interest. Also, I have read editorials and articles that indicate that there is a belief that in states where your organization has previously done mapping, it has overstated the actual availability of broadband.

I freely admit that I did not do the original research on this (which is why I referred my readers to an article at DSLreports.com) but over the past year or so, I have read more than just one or two articles that question the circumstances under which your organization was started (was it a creation of AT&T, or any third-party organization hired by AT&T, or did AT&T have any hand in it?) and its source of funding (in other words, does AT&T contribute directly or indirectly to your organization’s operating expenses?).

There is a large area of Michigan that does need broadband, but let’s make sure we define broadband properly. My question to you would be, what is the minimum upload and download speeds that fit your organization’s definition of broadband? AT&T and Verizon seem to think that customers should be happy with minimal DSL speeds (particularly when they are not close to the telephone central office). For many customers that’s not true today, and in the future it won’t be true for anyone. If you are defining anything over dial-up modem speed as “broadband”, then that will not present a true picture of where broadband is available in Michigan. Today and in the future, customers will expect to be able to upload and download high-definition video without having to wait forever. Does your organization have the ability to change your definition of broadband to keep pace with the times and with customer expectations, or do you have to use a definition that has been imposed on you by someone else, and if so, who might that someone else be?

I’m sorry, but I just can’t help but think the timing of today’s announcement was a bit suspicious. Maybe there was a valid reason for it, maybe not, but I’m quite aware of the fact that companies tend to issue press releases on Friday afternoons and before holiday weekends, when the hope is that they will not get much exposure or commentary. Maybe that was not the intent here and it was just unfortunate timing, but if so, it was indeed unfortunate.

If you would care to comment on the above, I will publish your response. I want to be fair to everyone, but at the same time, I’ve had a bad experience in the past with a public relations firm hired by a major telephone company, so I’m not going to just let statements slide by without asking some questions, where I feel it is appropriate.

Thank you for your response, and happy holidays to you!

EDIT 2: I received another e-mail reply from Ms. Ditto. Basically, it seems that for some reason she wants to engage me further on this topic at some point next week, after she returns from the Christmas weekend. The meaningful part of her response was this:

“I will tell you one thing :) I am not with a public relations firm, nor was I hired to counteract negative publicity, although obviously my job is easier when I confront things head-on. I began working for Connected Nation because I wanted to work for a nonprofit that was doing something meaningful for others. I personally saw the impact they had in Kentucky and am excited about the work we are going to do in Michigan.”

But I didn’t say she was with a public relations firm, just that I’d had a bad experience with one. And I didn’t say that she was hired to counteract negative publicity, but I’ll bet her employer pays her while she’s attempting to do so.

I’m not even going to comment on her statement about the reason she began working for Connected Nation. I don’t want to turn this into something personal. This is not about Ms. Ditto — my whole point there was that she’s just doing her job and at this time of year, I’m not inclined to say anything negative against anyone if I can help it. But at the same time, if she’s going to try to sell me with an “Oh, shucks, we’re just a nonprofit from Kentucky” routine, there’s no way I’m buying into that. After doing just a very shallow Google search, I found the link to “Privatizing the Public Trust: A Critical Look At Connected Nation“, a report issued by Public Knowledge, Common Cause, The Media and Democracy Coalition, and Reclaim the Media. So if Ms. Ditto wants to set the record straight, it appears she has a lot more formidable opponents than I to deal with. Oh, and I found something interesting on Connected Nation’s own web site: Connected Nation Submits No Bid Response for Kentucky Broadband Mapping RFP.

Really, the only response I am interested in receiving from Connected Nation is an honest answer to the questions I asked above. To put it crudely, I want to know if, and to what extent, they’re in bed with AT&T and/or any other telephone company that has a presence in the state of Michigan. I’m certainly not going to be their sunshine pumper in the state (as if I had that kind of influence), nor do I intend at this point to carry out ongoing tirades against them (unless I’m provoked to do so). The point of this post was to alert you to this news item, and to express my personal opinion on the matter. I had frankly hoped that some other blog or news site with a lot more exposure would pick up on this, but to be honest I didn’t expect it, for the very reason I stated above — after the reporters (and the professional bloggers that blog for a living) return from the holidays, this will probably be considered old news.

And by the way, this is one of those occasions where I honestly hope I’m wrong… nothing would make me happier than to see Connected Nation produce a fair and accurate broadband map of Michigan, that accurately shows the actual upload and download speeds that people can receive at any given location in our state. One major problem with phone companies is that they advertise broadband speeds using the weasel words “up to”, so when they don’t deliver the advertised speed they can say they only promised to deliver “up to” that speed (often still charging the end user as if they were receiving the advertised speed!). A broadband map that shows only the advertised speeds available at any particular spot on the map will not only be useless, but disingenuous. Anyway, it concerns me when these other organizations — those that have actual funding, and probably a research staff — publish articles that are critical of Connected Nation. I don’t have funding and I don’t have a research staff, so I cannot fully investigate the claims made by those organizations, nor those made by Connected Nation. But I do form opinions based on what I read, and in this country I’m allowed to share my opinions with you. If my opinions are in error, well, it wouldn’t be the first time.

Please allow me to make a couple of further points: According to the original article, the federal government is spending $1.8 million dollars on this project (and that’s just in Michigan — DSLreports adds that the feds also awarded Connected Nation grants to the tune of $1.8 million for mapping and planning in Tennessee, $1.7 million in North Carolina, $1.4 million in Nevada, and $1.7 million in Minnesota) — dollars that probably came from you and I in one way or another. And what is the point? Wouldn’t it make more sense to use that money to enhance competition by actually giving zero-interest loans to small broadband providers that promise to serve an unserved or underserved area? You may say, well, we need to know where the unserved or underserved areas are located, but then I ask whether it’s really important to pinpoint those areas to the tune of $1.8 million dollars, especially considering that the existing facilities-based broadband providers ought to be able to provide maps showing where they are able to provide service. We require wireline phone companies to produce tariff maps showing exactly where their service is available — shouldn’t broadband providers be able to provide the same information, without it costing $1.8 million?

Also, there is a part of me that wonders if such a map might serve the purpose of inhibiting competition (whether as an intended or unintentional consequence). The reason is that once you know where broadband service is available, even if it’s lousy service in some areas, that information could be used to deny loans or grants to companies that want to overbuild in those areas. In other words, even if a provider’s service in unreliable, even if contacting their customer service department is like entering a level of hell, even if their own customer services representatives don’t seem to realize they have service in the area (a not uncommon problem!), or even if the provider wants to impose ridiculously small usage caps on their customers, on the map it would still show that broadband is available. Maybe customers would really like good quality broadband service with no usage caps and at a fair price, from a company that treats them as though customers really are important, but if this map says that Crappy Broadband, Inc. already offers service in your area, then perhaps nobody else is going to get a grant or loan to provide the type of service customers will want and expect in the 21st century.

My suggestion would be that if we must go through with this project, then a truly useful map would also include independently collected customer satisfaction data – how many area residents attempted to obtain service and were told they could not, and how many think the service is vastly overpriced, and how many are so frustrated with their provider’s service, or the provider’s customer service reps, to nearly want to “go postal” on that company? For that matter, will this map even take into account the prices charged? If it doesn’t then they could justifiably claim that broadband service is available, right now, to 99%+ of Michigan residents, because just about anyone can get a commercial data line from the telephone company (a DS1 or similar data circuit). You might have to sell your firstborn to get it (okay, I exaggerate slightly), but you can get it. Therefore, a map that only shows where broadband is available, without taking the issues of prices charged and customer satisfaction into account, won’t give a complete picture of broadband availability in Michigan.

Anyway, that’s all I have to say on the subject for the moment. Hope all of you will have the happiest of holidays!

Comments off

Review of Building Enterprise Ready Telephony Systems with sipXecs 4.0 by Michael W. Picher (Packt Publishing)

This article has been moved. Please click here to read it.

Comments off

A modest proposal to solve (some of) our broadband access and bandwidth problems

I have a modest proposal for how to solve our broadband access and bandwidth problems.  Okay, maybe not all of them, but at least two:

  • The current inability of people in rural areas (with dialup access only) to download larger files in an efficient manner.
  • The virtually non-existent problem of “bandwidth hogs” that consume so much data that they cause congestion in the networks (in most cases this is pure nonsense, but since Big Cable and Big Telco want so badly to sell you this lie, let’s follow them into their fantasy world for the moment and respond with a solution that does NOT involve usage caps or metered service).

Okay, let’s suppose you have a fictitious company, we’ll call it Bingleulu (because no real company could call themselves that!).  And lets suppose this company could do two things:

  • Acquire the equivalent of (initially) 12 television channels worth of bandwidth on repurposed TV frequencies nationwide, and
  • Acquire the equivalent of (initially) 12 television channels worth of bandwidth on a communications satellite (either C or Ku band, but preferably Ku) that is visible from the entire United States (or at least most of it).

Now, this dozen-channel bandwidth would be used as one huge data pipe – let’s call it the Big Fat Pipe, or BFP for short.  If your dial-up modem is like a slow faucet drip, and your cable modem connection is like a low-flow shower head, the BFP would be like an open fire hydrant. Data would be sent up to the satellite in one fat stream, then down to either individual users (mostly those in rural areas not near a terrestrial transmitter) and to the ground station towers that would retransmit the signal over the former TV airwaves.  Why the dual coverage?  Well, satellite is great for use in rural areas and other places where people might have issues receiving the terrestrial signals reliably, whereas the terrestrial stations would require less expensive receiving equipment and would be more suitable for mobile use, and use in locations where satellites aren’t visible due to heavy tree cover.  Plus it gives you a bit of redundancy, since in time the terrestrial stations could be linked by a backup fiber optic link.

So now you have this giant firehose of data, as it were.  Now, let’s say you decide to watch a video.  You jump on your web browser, on your existing dial-up or broadband connection, or even your mobile phone (which would have a built in data receiver) and go to the Bingleulu site, and select your video.  On the pages there’s also a small setting dropdown that says something to the effect of “Number of seconds I’m willing to wait”, and it defaults to 60 seconds, but you can set it to something shorter or longer – even much longer if you’re selecting a large file that you won’t be able to watch until later.

Now, here’s the magic part.  The Bingleulu site looks at whether it has space available in the flood of data it’s sending out, and if possible it sends your file within your specified maximum wait time as part of the the big flood.  It uses a smart algorithm to figure this out, taking into account things like your connection speed and type (dial-up and mobile users might get some preference), whether you’re on an ISP that caps your data usage, and a bunch of other things.  One thing it takes into account is how likely it is that someone else will request the same file within your specified wait time, because one of the things this system attempts to do is send popular files (especially LARGE popular files) to many users at once.

So when you make the request, the video or file or whatever might come back to you the usual way, over your internet connection, and the smaller the file the more likely it is that it will come that way.  But if there is space available – and assuming you give it long enough, there will be – the file will come back to you via the satellite or terrestrial transmitter system.  In that case, your browser will be sent an ID tag of some kind (via your regular connection) and it will then know that it is to look for the data containing that tag on the satellite/terrestrial over-the-air system.  If it misses any packets, it can request retransmission of just those packets, so that the entire file doesn’t have to be resent (and again, these could be sent either the normal way, or over the BFP of data sent through the airwaves, depending on which makes the most sense).

During times of congestion in the BFP, priority would be given to large files, files that have been requested by many people (you would try to fill as many requests as possible using the same data stream), and live streams (such as live audio or video programming, especially streams that many people are wanting to access simultaneously).

What do we accomplish with this scheme?  Well, for one thing, we get a lot of the largest files off your ISP (so they have a lot more “breathing room” and don’t have to meter usage – and yes, I KNOW there’s no reason they have to do that anyway, but if they’re going to lie about it, this is one way to pull the rug out from under their lies).  And if you have a dial-up connection or mobile broadband connection, where either slow speeds or congestion might be actual issues, this scheme at least gets you access to the large files you may want at something other than a snail’s pace (though at some times of day you may have to wait a while for the download to start, but once it does start you’ll have it quickly!).

Now, who would pay for this bandwidth?  Well, in some countries they might choose to operate it as a public utility, but that likely wouldn’t fly given the political climate in the U.S. (by which I mean, those lousy obstructionist Republicans and “blue dog” Democrats that stand in the way of anything that might benefit the common person unless it gives one or more huge corporations a leg up… sorry, got carried away there). So that’s why I invented out mythical company, Bingleulu.  Just saying, there are several companies that face the problem of potentially having a real difficult time getting their content out to you if the big ISP’s start metering service, and those companies (any one of them individually, or a consortium of two or more) could come up with a solution.

What would you need to make this work?  Well, for starters, an extension to the HTML protocol, or some mechanism so that when you make a request, you will always get some response via your primary Internet connection, but if you have access to the BFP, the response might be, in effect, “get it off the BFP by looking for packets tagged with this ID”, followed by an ID string. In a well-designed system it would even send an estimated time to the start of the download, if there will be a significant delay.

Also, you’d need a receiver for the BFP – initially this could take the form of a card that would go into your computer, or (more likely) a USB-connected receiver, or possibly even a receiver that sits on your local network and can service several computers in your home or small business (something akin to a HDHomeRun® type device).  The receiver should have connections for both a satellite dish LNB, and a regular TV antenna. Note that initially, a company that wants to do this could implement half of this system (the satellite half) just by designing the system and then leasing bandwidth on a Ku-band satellite (Ku usually requires dishes of about two feet up to one meter in diameter for reliable reception, but I’m pretty sure there’s a lot of unused space on Ku-band satellites these days), then wait and see if the FCC will allow them to obtain the bandwidth in the broadcast spectrum.

Some additional things to consider:

First, it’s very likely that sooner or later there would be more than one BFP.  This might be because “spot beams” would be used to increase capacity, or simply because you’d need additional satellites to cover other parts of the world (such as Hawaii and Guam) if this catches on.  So when the system is designed, it need to have some way to know which satellite feed or terrestrial transmitter the receiver is receiving, and if there is more than one BFP, to return the requested data on the correct one.

Second, there may be special considerations for certain types of broadband connections.  For example, what if the requester is using another type of satellite provider (WildBlue, HughesNet, etc.)? Do you try to avoid sending the request back that way (because it might trip a usage cap) or do you treat it like a normal broadband connection (where smaller, less popular, and “immediate gratification wanted” files would sometimes be sent back through the normal connection)?

Third, once we get into the area of live streams, those can eat bandwidth quickly (particularly high-definition quality video streams!).  Unless you have a LOT of bandwidth, you can only carry a certain number of those in real time, so how do you decide which ones?  Do you compress them (and sacrifice quality) during times of congestion? One thing to note – unlike what happens with your cable company, if no one has requested a particular stream, it wouldn’t be sent.  EVERYTHING sent on the BFP is sent in response to an actual request by at least one user.

Fourth, let’s suppose several broadcasters jump on this as a delivery mechanism and now, suddenly, you don’t have enough capacity, but then your satellite provider and/or the FCC manages to find you more bandwidth – but now nobody has receivers that will tune the new bandwidth.  Should receivers be designed from the outset to be tunable over a much larger range than what’s actually used at the start of the service? Seems to me that any service like this should be designed from the get-go with the idea that more bandwidth will be needed, and possibly available, at some point in the future, and that receivers in particular should be electronically reconfigureable to tune any additional bandwidth that may become available. I might even suggest that it should be possible to connect a DiSEQc switch to the receiver, so that if the time ever comes that multiple satellites are used, it will be possible to switch between the satellites.

I’m just tossing this idea out there, to see if anyone else thinks it might be a good idea.  With the economy as it is, there are several of the older-style Ku-band communications satellites that have a fair chunk of unused spectrum space available, and I can tell you from personal experience that in most places a two-foot dish will get you a very adequate signal, and a three-foot dish will get you excellent reception (at least for Free-To-Air television reception). As long as people don’t let idiot installers mount the dish on their roof (making it nearly impossible to use a broom to clean off the snow in the winter), a delivery system that uses now-vacant bandwidth on Ku-band satellites should be quite workable, and even affordable.

If you stop and think about it, the most efficient use of spectrum space would be if the entire broadcast radio and TV spectrum, and all of the satellites, transmitted nothing but the BFP data stream.  Television networks and local stations would simply be data streams.  The BFP could even be smart enough to send you the network TV stream when you are watching a network program (and that network stream would only need to be transmitted once, as a single data stream) but when it comes time to show local commercials, there would be other streams for those, and the beauty is that everything could be configured to use a minimum of bandwidth (hopefully NOT by reducing the quality of the received signal, though) – for example, if Burger King buys the first local commercial spot in “Heroes” in 20 local TV markets, that commercial would only need to be streamed once and your receiver would be smart enough to know that you are supposed to get that commercial, even though people in other markets would be getting different streams. The advantage to viewers would be that you’d be getting the original data stream in full high definition direct from the network – no sub-optimal signals because your local station has crappy transmitting equipment, or is trying to cram three or four stations into one digital television signal.

Who would hate this idea?  The National Association of Buggywhip… er, I mean, the National Association of Broadcasters, who would be just fine with keeping the status quo (and in protecting local stations that in many cases don’t deserve it, particularly when they superimpose their damn useless weather radar graphics and similar useless crap over a network show!).  But if one of the big players really turned their most talented and creative people loose with this idea, it could totally change the way we distribute data in this country – and, as I say, pull the rug out from under those greedy bastards that want to start metering your data usage and charging you extra if they think you’re a “bandwidth hog” (here’s a great funny rebuttal to those morons, but don’t click there if you’re uptight about profanity).

Comments (3)

Technology by the decade — how far have we come?

Hard to believe we’re coming up on the turn of another decade. Although the technological revolution was well under way by the time I was born, it’s interesting to think about how different things are today from how they were way back then.  Here’s how I recall the decades (note I wasn’t born yet in 1950, but close enough that I can extrapolate):

1950: Black and White television was just starting to appear in the homes of those who were not extremely affluent (although a TV was still a major investment).  Sets were large and picture tubes were small (and round, though sometimes the top and bottom parts were masked).  Nationwide television broadcasting was still a year away – coaxial cable connections only extended between New York and the eastern half of the country until 1951, when it was extended to the west coast. Many network stations in smaller markets actually got their signal by putting up a tall antenna and picking it up from the nearest network owned and operated station, or another nearby affiliate (a practice that continued in some places until communications satellites came into being).  Local telephone calls in many areas had to placed through an operator, although some cities had rotary dial service.  Long distance calls were very expensive and usually had to be placed through multiple operators and toll switchboards, although operator dialing of distant numbers was starting to come into use. Many people only called relatives at Christmas or on a birthday, and were careful to keep the call length under three minutes (the initial charge was for the first three minutes).  Telegrams were just starting to decline in popularity, as long distance had become a bit less expensive after the war ended. As for computers, a basic pocket calculator today probably has more computing power than the largest computers of the 1950′s.

1960: Color TV’s were available, but they were big and heavy and definitely a luxury item.  TV picture tubes had started to take on a more rectangular shape, but still had rounded corners. The big story of the previous decade had been the development of transistors, and the transistor radio was just starting to be the hot item for teenagers to have.  “Direct Distance Dialing” (customer dialing of long distance calls within the U.S. and Canada) was being implemented, although in 1960 there were still many manual exchanges in rural areas, so not all points were dialable, and long distance calls were still expensive enough that you thought twice before making a long distance call, even though the phone companies did everything they could to encourage long distance usage. The first experimental satellite television signals were still two years away. Telegrams were for funerals and official business – people had found that it was cheaper to make a three-minute call than send an old-fashioned telegram. And even with transistor technology, computers still filled large rooms and weren’t as powerful (and almost certainly didn’t have as much memory or storage) as even a low-end notebook computer of today.

1970: All but the poorest people (and the cheapskates) had color TV (or would within a couple of years), and some TV’s had real remote controls (in many homes, the remote control was a parent hollering for one of the kids to come change the channel!).  TV’s has shrunk to a reasonable size, too – the large TV-as-a-piece-of-furniture was on its way out, and a smaller model (perhaps on a rollable stand) was in.  With the new mostly-transistorized sets, the TV repairman was no longer almost a part of the family, since transistors didn’t fail the way vacuum tubes did.  Commercial satellite television was now a reality, being used to relay news and programs from overseas, and to deliver network programming direct to TV stations, no matter how remote the location.  The receiving equipment was still very expensive, though. The hot new technology was the Integrated Circuit. Electronic switching had come into widespread use in telephone exchanges, and the days of the operator (for completing local calls) was gone. For most folks, regular telegrams were something only seen in old movies. There were mobile telephones (and marine telephones on boats) but they were very expensive and required bulky equipment, and in most areas only a handful of channels were available (and they were plain old analog radio channels, so anyone with a radio that tuned those bands could listen in!). Touch-Tone telephones were starting to become popular, replacing the old rotary dial phones. Computers had actually started to appear in many medium-sized and smaller businesses – the most compact models were about the size of a home furnace and used LARGE hard drive platters (16″ was a common size) with far less storage capacity than you’d get on a memory stick today. And electronic calculators were starting to be widely used in businesses, and even some homes.

1980: Your TV had integrated circuits and a remote control, and was priced so that even poor people could afford one. Only small specialty sets were black and white. Cable TV was becoming available in many parts of the country, though the selection of channels was fairly pitiful by today’s standards (it had actually been around for many years, but it was just starting to become a somewhat ubiquitous utility in populated areas).  News and programming from around the globe was commonplace, delivered via commercial satellite, and some people were installing large C-band dishes on their property to receive programming direct from the satellites. The Sony Walkman was the hot new thing, and it would forever change the way people listened to music.  And wonder of wonders, the personal computer had arrived – if you lived in a major city, you could actually go to a “computer store” (or a Radio Shack) and buy your very own home computer.  You’d store your data on cassette tapes, or perhaps a floppy disk if you could shell out few hundred dollars for a floppy disk drive (hard drives were in the four to five figure price range – a home computer might have one with 5 MB capacity). Oh, and your family and friends would look at you like you’d grown a third eyeball when you told them you had a computer at home! And there was this thing called the Internet that was being used to move data between large computers (mostly those owned by universities and the government) worldwide, but most home computer users had never heard of it – what was newly available in 1980 was commercial services such as Compuserve and Prodigy, if you had a 300 baud modem and were willing to pay by the minute for a service that displayed text at a rate much slower than most people’s reading speed.

1990: What a difference a decade makes.  By 1990 most of the original home computer manufacturers were long gone – the introduction of the IBM PC in 1981, and Microsoft’s MS-DOS had radically altered the personal computer landscape. Apple and a few others were still in business, but most of the early PC makers either got out of the business or started selling PC “clones.” The hot new thing in 1990 was Windows 3.0, which many would argue was the first version of Windows that remotely resembled Windows as we know it today.  A typical computer hard drive would have capacity measured in megabytes, in most cases under 100 MB. And while computer users were starting to become vaguely aware that there was something called the Internet out there, many users were still using 2400 to 9600 bps modems and connecting to local BBS systems, many of which were interconnected through an ad-hoc network called Fidonet, run in some areas by tin-pot dictators who were more interested in enforcing rules than applying common sense (causing some sysops to incur hundreds of dollars in unnecessary phone charges, because they weren’t allowed to pick up feeds from the least expensive source).  I still have the deepest of contempt for one particular Fidonet “coordinator” who I’d swear was working for the phone company (since he was a direct cause of many sysops incurring excessive or unnecessary toll charges), except for the fact that he even caused problems FOR a phone company’s sponsored Fidonet BBS in one city. Many Fidonet users and sysops were looking for an alternative to Fidonet by 1990, and I think that in large part jump-started the interest in that “other” network, the Internet. In other news, Direct-To-Home satellite service was just getting started in Europe; it would be another year before Primestar would be available in the United States.  Cell phones were starting to be used by businesses, but the per-minute rates were prohibitive for most users.  At the same time, rates for calls to many overseas locations had started to fall to somewhat affordable levels. The big news in telephones had been the Bell System breakup of 1984, and by 1990 many customers had started buying their own telephones instead of paying the phone company approximately $5 a month for a rented phone (even more if you wanted a color other than black, or a long cord). Also, by 1990, competitive long distance companies such as MCI and Sprint were capturing a large percentage of long distance traffic that had formerly gone through AT&T.

2000: The home computer user was no longer considered a bit strange, thanks to the appearance of the commercial Internet (and the World Wide Web) starting in the early- to mid-90′s.  Suddenly the Internet was usable by the common person, and it was far less expensive that Compuserve or AOL, which were but a shadow of their former selves.  Fidonet only held onto a few hardcore sysops (though it has tenaciously refused to die completely). Windows 2000 was the new OS from Microsoft (some people are still using it!).  Writable CD’s were replacing the floppy drive, and hard drive storage was measured in the hundreds of megabytes; and those large drives were needed to store all those MP3 files that people were downloading courtesy of Napster and similar filesharing programs that had become the bane of the recording industry (since most users were still on dial-up Internet, using 56K modems, it wasn’t really feasible to download large video files yet).  Speaking of the MP3, personal MP3 players were only another year away – goodbye to our old friend, the Walkman.  Dish Network and DirecTV were competing for customers, finally giving TV viewers an alternative to cable television, which was increasingly becoming overpriced – the channel selection was increasing, but people were starting to find the offerings underwhelming, thus the lament of “500 channels and nothing’s on.” The long, slow changeover to HDTV had begun, though few stations broadcasted HDTV signals, and HDTV sets were very expensive (and about as easy to move around as a grand piano!). Cell phones were becoming a somewhat common item, at least among the well-heeled, and they were getting much smaller as well – gone were the “bag phones” that had been used in cars. And traditional telephone calling was getting much cheaper, due to the increased competition between both long distance companies and the new competitive local phone companies.  Unfortunately, the trend toward big mergers had begun; the “baby Bells” started putting themselves back together.

Going into 2010: The 2000′s brought us flat screen monitors and TV’s in sizes that we’d only imagined (just in time to help us baby boomers with failing eyesight).  HDTV sets are finally becoming somewhat affordable, though they have a way to go (I think HDTV is about where color sets were in 1970).  Cable and satellite TV services have gotten more expensive but not necessarily better, but today we have an alternative – sites like Hulu and YouTube.  However, another thing that happened during the 2000′s was that most of us started getting our Internet service from the cable company, in order to get away from slow dialup speeds, but in the process we have nearly eliminated the very competitive dialup ISP market and replaced it with a monopoly or duopoly provider situation when it comes to broadband.  And both the cable companies, and the phone companies that are starting to see the potential in offering their own cable TV equivalent, would like very much to kill the streaming video sites, by going to metered billing so that customers are afraid to use the bandwidth they’re paying for (bear in mind that NO provider wants to offer TRUE metered billing – they still want to charge you a monthly rate like they’ve been doing all along, but then start piling on charges if they think you’ve consumed too many bytes of data in a month). Computers have gotten much faster, and hard drives capacities are starting to be measured in terabytes. The floppy disk has gone the way of the dodo, and the CD probably would have if so many of us didn’t have drawers full of “free-after-rebate” blank CD’s that we bought to back up our hard drives, only to discover that it was more efficient to just buy another hard drive for backup purposes. The music and movie industries moved to impose Draconian punishments on those who share copyrighted files, arguably alienating many of their best customers in the process. Microsoft really dropped the ball with Windows Vista, giving Apple a leg up in the consumer computer market, and it remains to be seen if Windows 7 will reverse the trend. In telephony, the big story was VoIP, which drove down the cost of both domestic and international calling, to the point that traditional phone companies started doing something they probably never thought they’d have to do – offer affordable, flat-rate nationwide calling plans.  And even with that, people are abandoning the traditional landline in droves. As the telegram was in 1950, is perhaps what the traditional landline phone call is today.

2020:  Okay, my crystal ball (or third eye or whatever you want to call it) has never worked right – I keep hoping for that moment of enlightenment, but so far, no such luck.  So I’ll probably miss on some of these, but here’s what I suspect may happen by 2020.  With regard to TV’s: Bigger, thinner, cheaper, and the hot new thing may be 3D television.  With regard to telephones, the dangers of cell phone radiation will become more apparent as more heavy cell users start getting brain tumors, so the cell phone will be redesigned so there is no high power transmitter close to any body part (unless it’s shielded in some way).  This means that portable phones may only radiate to one side (away from the head/body), posing interesting challenges for cell site designers. Also, I suspect wideband voice will take hold – it is ridiculous to limit voice channels to sub-AM radio quality, a relic of available long distance circuit bandwidth from nearly a century ago. Traditional copper-pair based residential landline service will be all but dead, except for older people and some businesses. By 2020, phone companies will simply stop installing new copper (except perhaps for the last few- to few-hundred feet) and go to fiber almost exclusively. There will be a mad scramble by all traditional phone companies to try and sell off as much of their aging copper plant as possible.  After that, I think competition may arise in the broadband market – as existing phone/broadband companies find that they have saturated their existing service areas, they will look to grow by (finally) moving into the territories of other companies and overbuilding (this assumes that the cost of running fiber will get cheaper).  One wild card is that the government could still require divestiture of outside plant, spinning off the wires, cables and fiber to an entity that would not be allowed to be in the phone or broadband business, but would only be allowed to wholesale connectivity between homes and service providers. And I’m not sure what the hot new technology for the kids will be, but I’m betting it will involve some form of thought control (remember the line from Back to the Future II: “You mean you have to use your hands? That’s like a baby’s toy!” No, I don’t think we’ll have antigravity hoverboards, not because the technology won’t exist, but because it won’t have filtered down to commercial use yet). As for computers: Faster, MUCH smaller desktop models (think Mac Mini, but thinner), quieter, more use of solid state storage to replace hard drives, and built in HDMI ports will become commonplace.  I also expect you’ll see HDTV sets with a fully functional computer either built in, or offered as an accessory.  There will be a replacement for the computer mouse – it may involve thought control, or it may take the form of a camera smart enough to recognize gestures and hand movements in the air (privacy advocates and conspiracy theorists probably won’t like the camera idea much), but the mouse will be too inconvenient when you are sitting in your easy chair using a wireless keyboard and your HDTV screen!

Then, as I’ve mentioned before, there is the “X factor” — the technology that hardly anyone sees coming even a decade before.  We’ve had a lot of those in the past few decades: television in the home, transistors, the space program, integrated circuits, lasers, fiber optics, cell phones, the commercial Internet, the World Wide Web, commercial broadband to the home, VoIP. Some of these may have been anticipated in science fiction, but still they were often things that few had seriously dreamed of even ten years before. Let’s suppose for a moment that someone figures out the secret of anti-gravity and makes it widely available — can you imagine the changes that would bring to society?  Or, what about cold fusion (which some scientists think is still workable)? Okay, now suppose that you had some way to put a platform in the sky, in the upper atmosphere above the level of clouds and storms, and you have figured out how to oppose gravity (and have the nearly limitless energy supply to do it). Suddenly you have the perfect platform to spot-beam wireless Internet to entire counties or more, plus with clear line of site such platforms could network to each other. Unfortunately, far too often the governments of the industrialized countries choose to protect existing corporations rather than advance new technologies. We don’t even utilize the technologies we have available (case in point: Why do we not have computer controlled, “drive by wire” automobiles and trucks? You’d likely have to embed control wires in or near road surfaces, but once fully implemented, such a system could save both fuel and lives, particularly in the case of avoiding accidents caused by sleepy/distracted/aggressive/inexperienced/elderly/fleeing criminal drivers).

Well, I hope you have enjoyed this romp through the technological past and possible future. Did I miss anything important? Do you know of some up and coming technology that has the potential to change life as we know it? Feel free to leave a comment!

Comments (4)

Killing the Golden Goose

I wonder how many folks saw this article yesterday on the Stop the Cap! site:

Cable Companies’ Big Internet Swindle: They Charge You $40 For Broadband That Costs Them $8 To Provide

I had sent this article to a friend and his response was, “if all these huge profit margins are true, then why is Charter in bankruptcy?” Well, a possible reason is that even what ought to be a hugely profitable company can be sunk by bad management and horrible customer service (and I have seen allegations of both with regard to Charter).  But in a way, Charter is the reason for this article. As I mentioned in a previous article,  Charter wants to move to what they call “consumption based billing.”

I just want to point out that while people may be slow to react, they are not stupid.  America is littered with the remains of once-great corporations that in their day were at the top of the heap, but then got greedy.  At one time, the American railroads controlled much of the country, especially the in the west.  It took a while, but shippers finally figured out that trucks were less expensive and more practical.  The thing is, the railroads at one time had all the advantages, including friends in government and economies of scale, but they just plain got greedy and priced themselves out of the market.

I’ve previously mentioned Western Union, which at one time owned electronic text-based communications within the U.S.A.  But even as they became more automated, moving away from guys pounding brass keys and into the age of teletypewriters, fax machines, and microwaves, they kept raising the per-word prices for telegrams. At the same time, the price of a phone call kept falling.  Had Western Uninion been a bit smarter, they might have been a major player in today’s world of electronic communications.

Then we have landline phone service.  While this is a bit of a unique story, since in part it’s a story of the landline business being cannibalized by the wireline side of the business, it still is an example of many customers finally getting sick to death of being overcharged for service.

So what do we have today? We have cable companies and phone companies that overcharge for service, particularly with regard to broadband and cable television. The cable companies complain that they are being practically held up at gunpoint by the broadcasters and content providers, who demand higher fees, and therefore they need to pss those fees onto customers – however, they won’t even consider the one easy solution that would virtually eliminate that problem – allowing customers to pick and choose the channels they want, rather than being forced to subscribe to tiers of channels they don’t want in order to get channels they do want.  If customers were allowed to vote with their wallets, a lot of the alleged extortion by content providers would quickly end.  Yet the cable companies fight the very idea of à la carte programming tooth and nail.

As for metered billing for broadband – it’s totally unnecessary and it leaves customers open to possible fraud by the provider (this is sometimes even a problem with utilities where you can physically see the meter, so how much more of a problem will it be when the meter exists only in software, and customers have no possible way to check the accuracy of that meter).

But what I see here is a convergence of a “perfect storm” that’s going to totally reshape communications in the U.S.A. Here are a few, somewhat related points:

  • Many other countries, particularly our competitors in Asia, are providing far higher broadband speeds to their customers, at a lower monthly rate.  Only so much of that can be explained by population density; I think a larger part is that in many of those countries it’s just not socially nor politically acceptable for companies to exhibit unbridled greed, and to gouge their customers for every penny they can get. The U.S.A. simply cannot afford to have its citizens giving up their broadband connections to avoid being gouged.
  • The much-hated Universal Service Fund should be abolished, but instead it’s going to be expanded to include broadband.  However, the possible silver lining is that any time the government doles out money, it gains more control.  If the government used that control in a beneficial manner — by, for example, imposing network neutrality and a prohibition on metered billing on those companies that receive USF subsidies — it could nip some of these gouging attempts in the bud.  That’s not a long-term solution, however, since those regulations can and do change depending on the party in power.
  • It looks like competitive broadband providers are finally going to be allowed to use “white space” (e.g. unoccupied television channels) to provide wireless service.  If the FCC can make sure that smaller providers get a fair shake, this could allow competitive wireless providers to offer broadband service at reasonable rates (note to such providers – PLEASE don’t assume your users will be happy with an upload speed only one-tenth of download speed.  People want to make and share thir own content, and you should allow them to do that without making them die of boredom).
  • Also, when the large cable and DSL companies start gouging their customers, it creates a market for all available competitive services delivered via more traditional means (competitive DSL, current-technology wireless, etc.)
  • Then there is “the ‘x’ factor” (see below).

What do I mean by “the ‘x’ factor”? I mean the new technology that’s not been fully explored yet.  Technology doesn’t stand still, and there may be a breakthrough soon that will cause all existing technologies to essentially become obsolete. Have you ever noticed that the SETI project, and other attempts to “tune in” to advanced civilizations “out there” haven’t met with any success? Maybe that’s because the aliens aren’t using old-fashioned radio waves. Our current forms of electromagnetic radiation are very inefficient and often, very power-hungry. I suspect that the world of quantum physics is going to provide us something much better, if our governments will allow it.

For example, Google “quantum entanglement” – now suppose there were a way to place two particles in a state of entanglement, such that when you change the state of one particle, the other changes instantaneously, withour regard even to the speed of light limitation on traditional electronic communications.  Imagine that you had a box at your ISP, and a companion box at your location, and each box contained two (or more) matched pairs of entangled particles (probably in some kind of plug-in module) – at least one pair of particles for transmitting data, the other for receiving.  These boxes wouldn’t use radio waves or the electromagnetic spectrum, so there would be no bandwidth limitations to worry about.  Furthermore, communications would be totally secure, because only the entangled particles would communicate with each other. That last part is why some governments would hate it – no more intercepting data mid-stream. But if that principle were developed commercially, your ISP could be on the moon for all you’d care, running off solar power and providing communications for half the planet – and if they started gouging their customers, someone else could set up a competing system, anywhere in the world. Maybe you could set one up in your basement, if you wanted to.

Sure, it sounds farfetched now – but so did the whole idea of radio before it was developed. We’re not talking some nebulous idea here, “quantum entanglement” is now a known principle of quantum physics. It’s just so new that either it hasn’t been commercially developed yet (much like the laser in the middle of the 20th century), or it’s being used in secret for totally secure communications, and the governments that are using it would rather you (and their enemies) didn’t know, not that there’s much an enemy could do about it.

My point here is that if today’s communications companies want to be around for the next revolution in technology (which will surely bring about opportunities that haven’t even been considered yet – who could have envisioned the opportunities the World Wide Web would create?), they had better re-think their ideas about alienating their customers. Sadly, American companies are notorious for not thinking ahead – as long as the current C.E.O. gets his golden parachute when he retires, what does he care what happens to the company in the future?  But the stockholders ought to care, and customers ought to care, and the government ought to care if they don’t want America to become a third-rate nation.

It will be interesting to see which companies survive the next few decades, and which ones kill the golden goose to get the immediate big windfall. But if I had to take service from one or the other, I’d rather get it from the one that plans on being around for the next century, and treats their customers accordingly.

Comments off

Review of FreePBX 2.5 Powerful Telephony Solutions by Alex Robar (Packt Publishing)

This article has been moved. Please click here to read it.

Comments (2)

How to use fiber optic cable for short runs between buildings (and why you should)

This article has been moved.  Please click here to read it.

Comments (20)

YHINW – Your Help is NOT Wanted

I would like to propose a new online shortcut, an acronym that can be used at appropriate times: YHINW

It stands for “Your Help is NOT Wanted” and the “Y” is intended to refer to a specific person, not everyone on the channel on group or forum you’re using.  Just the one person that’s being kind of a jerk.

For example, you ask a question about some piece of software, and you get this: RTFM — which, as we all know, stands for “Read The Fine Manual” (okay, I know F doesn’t really stand for “Fine”, but I try not to drop the F-bomb unless somebody or something really ticks me off.)  Often, what they are really saying is, “I don’t know the answer offhand (or I’m just too lazy to type a couple of meaningful sentences that might help you along), but I think maybe it might be in the manual, if an actual manual even exists — maybe it’s just one of those awful MAN pages that tells you everything you DON’T want to know, but only maybe touches on what you do want to know, if you can decipher it.  In any case, I’m much too superior/busy/arrogant to give you any real help.”  YHINW.

See, if you’re going to tell someone to RTFM, the very least you can do is assume they might have already tried that, and maybe give them a bit more specific information.  For example, “Look at the MAN page, search for the phrase {whatever} and it’s right under that.”  That would be actually helpful, and doesn’t take that much more time – unless, of course, the person making the RTFM comment has never actually looked at the manual/man page himself, and has no idea where the information might be. Anyway, let he who has read every page of every manual for every piece of software, every hardware device, every household appliance and every vehicle he’s ever owned — and understood every single word of those documents — be the first to cast a RTFM.

A similar situation is where you ask how to do something, and some jackass replies, “F***ing Google It.”  YHINW.  Telling someone to use Google to find something is actually a perfectly valid response, but maybe you should assume they don’t have your searching skills, so offer something like “Try Google using these search terms (or phrases)” and make a couple suggestions. It’s pretty daunting when you try to Google to discover how to do something, and you get 5,000,000 possible results, and none of the ones in the first five or ten pages of results give you anything remotely close to the answer. If you can’t even suggest some good search words or phrases, then maybe it’s you that lacks intelligence and imagination, not the person who posted the question.

Then there is the breed of jerk that haunts forums related to non-Windows machines or software.  You ask how to do something that is easily doable in Windows, and they give you a lecture about how you’re not using Windows anymore and you shouldn’t be trying to do that anyway.  Or they propose some “solution” that isn’t even close to what you asked about, and suggest that’s how you ought to be doing things, and if you don’t immediately take their advice with sufficient gratitude they flame you into oblivion as not being worthy to use that particular software, operating system, or computer — and if they’re in a particularly lousy mood, they may cast aspersions on your general character and intelligence.  Oh, puh-leeze — YHINW.  If you really don’t know of any way to do what I’m asking, than why not just STFU (if you don’t know that acronym, it’s sort of the written equivalent of “shut your pie hole”) instead of taking the opportunity to prove you’re an arrogant bastard that acts as though he was born with a computer keyboard in hand, and infinite knowledge in his brain (leaving no room for manners or basic social skills).

Even good advice, given with too much attitude and arrogance, will not usually be appreciated.  You might even be right, but come off like a jackass and the recipient of your advice will not thank you (that’s particularly true when it’s unsolicited advice — keep that in mind at your next family gathering).

I really don’t tolerate these types of people well.  My theory is, if you can’t offer something helpful and constructive — or if you can’t offer it without exhibiting a serious attitude — then just keep your fingers off the damn keyboard.  Let someone else answer, or let everyone ignore the original poster if no one knows the answer or wants to help.  There is no shame in keeping silent, rather than coming off as an arrogant jerk.  There have been times you’ve needed help — would you have appreciated a smart-ass comment instead of real help?  And if that actually happened to you, I’m sorry — the world can be a cruel place sometimes — but why not try making it a better place instead of passing on the misery to someone else?  Remember, karma is a bitch!

Comments (1)

Dear Google Voice: PLEASE give us a direct-to-SIP option for incoming calls

Google Voice is a great service, no doubt about it.  And for non-technical users that still have a basic PSTN phone line, or a regular mobile phone, it gives them a lot of flexibility. But for those of us who are a bit more technically inclined, it’s kind of frustrating.  Why? Because Google is a technology company, and yet they seem to want to “dumb down” Google Voice to the lowest common denominator.

Forget for a moment the hassle involved in making an outgoing call – sure, if you are sitting there with your old, black, rotary-dial phone and are about to make a 20 minute call to Grandma and your traditional phone company still charges for long distance like it’s 1985, then there would definitely be some appeal to going to the Google Voice site and entering the number you want to call, then having it call you and her and then bridging the call.  But most people just want to dial the call and have the doggone thing go through.  The Nerd Vittles folks have tackled that issue, but it’s not exactly an elegant solution, particularly if you’re not currently running an Asterisk-based PBX and using FreePBX (I don’t mean to denigrate the Nerd Vittles folks in any way by that comment; they’ve done a remarkable thing considering what they have to work with — it just really shouldn’t need to be that complicated, but that not the fault of the NV folks!). But my desire is even simpler – in the spirit of the old Grand Central service, which Google purchased to use as the basis of Google Voice, I just want to be able to receive incoming calls and direct them to where I want them to go.

And, sometimes, that means I want to direct them to a SIP address.  While that could even mean going direct to a VoIP adapter, in most cases it means that I will want to send the call to a SIP server (such as an Asterisk box).  The main thing is, I don’t want the call to touch the PSTN.  I don’t want it possibly converted to analog and back to digital.  And I certainly don’t want to see Google having to pay some PSTN company a termination charge to complete the call, when that’s absolutely unnecessary (and might even hasten the demise of a great free service).

But, you may say, Google gives us a way to do this – it lets you send the call to a Gizmo5 account…

GVscreenshot

And while it’s true that Gizmo is one of the destination choices, the problem here is that Gizmo5 has this nasty habit of changing their terms of service (EDIT: Michael Robertson, the CEO of Gizmo5, says that statement is inaccurate — see his comment, below). So far this has primarily affected outgoing calls — as was noted in the Nerd Vittles article linked above:

… What started out last Monday as a free, unlimited Google Voice service quickly morphed into a 20 minute call, and then a 3 minute call, and then 2¢ per minute for Google Voice calls. No notice to the early adopters, of course. So they’d only learn about all of this when the funds in their Gizmo5 accounts were exhausted. …

Hey, Google, can you understand that we MIGHT not want to utilize the services of a company that plays those sorts of games? But the question I’d like answered is this: What mechanism are they using to send those calls to Gizmo? And why couldn’t we have some other options – like, say, sending it to our own SIP devices or servers?  Why not let us specify a server name (and optionally a port), and then send the call the call to our Google Voice number at that address (for example, if the Google Voice number were 888-555-2368 it would send the call to sip://8885552368@yourserver.dyndns.com, or whatever address you use, on port 5060 unless you optionally specify a different port).

Another suggestion might be to add e164.org as an option. This would tell Google Voice to send the call as an ENUM call to the number specified.  It would not require any changes in their GUI (you’d still enter a regular phone number) but it would simply indicate that Google Voice should first try sending the call via ENUM before dumping it out to the PSTN. You can register up to four phone numbers with e164.org for free and once you add the required information, anyone can call you using ENUM and the call will go completely over the Internet.  Notably, e164.org does not actually handle the call, it’s simply a directory service (think a DNS lookup for SIP calls).  There’s also a newer, similar service at enumplus.org, and they actually offer a module for use with PBX in a Flash and other FreePBX-based distributions. Google Voice should allow the use of use one or both of these services to complete calls — in fact, maybe Google should consider buying one of these services, so they can operate their own ENUM registry (if Google did it, I’m sure the acceptance factor for using ENUM to route calls for free over the Internet would increase exponentially).

All I’m asking is, please, Google, give us a way to receive our Google Voice calls without letting them touch the PSTN — you’re an Internet company, for crying out loud! — and without forcing us to have a Gizmo5 account, since the moods of that company seem to change with the weather, and we don’t need them as an intermediary on our calls anyway!

EDIT: If you would like to make this request of Google Voice, you could go to their “Suggest a feature for Google Voice” page, go to the “I have another idea” section at the bottom of the page, select “Other” from the dropdown, and enter your suggestion into the text box and then click “Suggest It.” I don’t know if anyone actually reads or considers those suggestions, but maybe if enough of us requested the direct-to-SIP option, they might just make it so!

Comments (22)

It’s no wonder some people hate AT&T

I just has the distinct displeasure of trying, unsuccessfully, to help a friend obtain AT&T DSL service at his home. Right now he has phone service from a competitive phone company, but what he wants to do is get the least expensive DSL service that AT&T offers (the variety they have been advertising on TV, that does not require the customer to have their dial tone), then use VoIP for his phone service — but he doesn’t want to disconnect his current voice service until everything else is up and working.  Apparently, he might as well be wanting a flying car or a time machine.  Even putting aside the issue of the competitive phone service, the first thing that needs to be done is to get the DSL installed, and if ever a company acts like they don’t want your business, it’s AT&T.

On his first attempt, he picked an AT&T number out of the phone book and called that.  That attempt apparently came to a screeching halt when AT&T told him they could not install DSL as long as he had phone service from the competitive phone company.  Actually, there’s no TECHNICAL reason that you can’t provide DSL from one company and voice from another on the same pair, but for whatever reason it’s apparently just not done.  I wasn’t listening in on that call so I don’t know all the details, but after that we did a three-way call to see if we’d have any better luck (and honestly, I wanted to hear if it was as bad as he’d described it).

The first thing we did was to call the number that is advertised on the AT&T commercials for $19.95 DSL.  That, apparently, is your ticket into the seven circles of telephone hell.  If I’d been playing a drinking game, taking a drink every time we heard the phrase “your call is important to us”, I would not be drunk – I’d likely be quite dead.  We heard it from female voices, male voices, and disembodied voices that sounded like they were continents away.  I’d guess we were transferred at least half a dozen times, sometimes by voice response systems that didn’t even wait for a response and just seemed to randomly transfer the call.  The last time we were transferred, it was by some guy with a distinct accent — it sort of sounded Indian, but by that time the quality of the connection was so poor it was hard to tell — who told us that if we got cut off, we could call the AT&T DSL department directly on 877-722-9337 (my friend repeated the number back TWICE to make sure he’d heard it right, and I copied it down also).  That number may have belonged to AT&T at one time, but now it apparently belongs to an “enhanced” directory service (that has a web site at http://www.callingten.com/).  When their recording first answers, it almost sounds like you are being charged $4.95 (or some amount, it was hard to hear) for the call (I think you actually have to call a different number for that to happen, but it wasn’t really all that clear).

Anyway, when we got cut off after talking to the guy with the accent, and then getting the recording at the directory service, I finally went prowling around AT&T’s web site and found another number for Internet service – 1-800-288-2020 – and again we had to go through a voice response system and several minutes of wait.  Finally we reached someone who actually tried to be helpful, but it took her several minutes to find my friend’s address in their system (he lives in an apartment complex, but still, they do offer service there, so it shouldn’t have been a major undertaking to find the address).  Then she asked a bunch of questions about his phone, Internet, and television usage (I would have probably politely declined to answer, but he went along), and from that she deduced that he should order a triple play package that, if I recall correctly, would have cost over $70 a month.  When he said he was just interested in the basic low-speed DSL, she then (after some more time passed) said that they could not put the DSL on the same pair as the existing phone service (well, she didn’t exactly say it that way, but that’s what we figured out that she meant, after some conversation). At least she didn’t say he couldn’t get it at all.

But the real deal killer was that apparently she wasn’t at all aware of a promotion my friend had seen online.  According to him, the deal was that if you made a one-year service commitment, you got a free DSL modem and $100 back (I’m a bit skeptical about the $100 for that class of service, but I could see the free DSL modem as a possibility, given that AT&T probably buys them in bulk).  However, this representative basically said he’d have to commit to service for a year or pay an early termination penalty if he dropped the service before the year was up, and she couldn’t give him anything free or in any way sweeten the offer — he’d still have to pay about $50 for a DSL modem, plus a shipping charge!  It sounded as though she had no idea what deals might be offered on the web site. My friend wasn’t willing to set himself up for a possible termination charge, if for some reason he had to discontinue service (and I’m betting he wouldn’t — he’s the kind of guy that doesn’t like change much, so once they had him as a customer they’d likely have him for years — but in an apartment situation you just never know.  If there is a fire or a pipe breaks or something, he could be forced to move out with very little notice). After having been on the phone for over three hours, and being told that “your call is important to us” when clearly it was NOT, his sense of humor had long since evaporated and to basically be told, “this is the deal, take it or leave it” was just a bit too much to take under the circumstances.

I don’t know if my friend will ever get DSL service now or not.  He was somewhat enthused about it before this morning, but that certainly wasn’t his attitude by the time he was going into the fourth hour of phone hell. I am SO glad I don’t personally live in an area where AT&T and Comcast are the only viable choices available (my friend lives in Gaines Township which is near Wyoming, Michigan, in the Grand Rapids metro area, but not close enough to downtown to be within range of any inexpensive wireless services, as far as we know).

Why does AT&T bother to advertise the service if they don’t want people to get it?  Is it just bait-and-switch – you can call in for the $19.95 offer but if they can’t upsell you to something more expensive then they don’t care if you take their service or not? I might be inclined to actually believe that, but then I realize that most of the “phone hell” occurred before they had even determined why my friend was calling.

I have three takeaways from this:  First, if Comcast would just offer an entry-level DSL service for people who are, shall we say, not wealthy, they could clean AT&T’s clock.  I know a lot of people don’t like Comcast and there is probably good reason for that, but I have a feeling that if my friend had been willing to pay their rate, he wouldn’t have been on the phone with them for more than ten or fifteen minutes tops.  He certainly would not have been transferred all over creation because a particular rep didn’t handle Michigan, or DSL, or whatever the excuse was. Now, I have no way to know what his actual installation experience might have been, but at least trying to sign up for the service probably wouldn’t have seemed something akin to a root canal. Comcast really shoots themselves in the foot by doing that “introductory rate” nonsense — by now everyone is on to that (ironically, in part due to AT&T commercials) so what they really need is a low rate option with limited connection speed, for people who don’t do much more than check e-mail and go to a few web pages.

Second, after all this time, AT&T still acts like they are the only game in town, and that they really don’t need to give a damn whether ordering a service is a pleasant, or at least non-painful experience. In my opinion, any time a customer hears a recording saying “your call is important to us”, that’s a massive fail on the part of a company.  If you really thought the call was important, you’d answer it, and to tell us the call is important to you when it clearly isn’t is a massive insult.  And you wouldn’t put numbers in your television ads that go to people who have no ability to help the customer with ordering service, and who must transfer them several times before finally losing the call completely (actually terminating with a bust of hold music played at about four times normal volume, just before the call dropped entirely).  And speaking of which, I thought AT&T was originally a phone company – so why is their own phone service so dreadful?

Third, the phone companies still do everything they can to inhibit competition.  As I said earlier, there’s no TECHNICAL reason you can’t have voice service from one company and DSL from another on the same pair (and the plan was to drop the existing voice service anyway, but only after the DSL was working).  But apparently AT&T can’t make that happen, for whatever reason. My friend doesn’t know how many usable pairs are run into each apartment (in particular, whether there’s more than one) and due to family circumstances it would be pretty difficult for me to go over there and trace out the wiring for him right now – it’s just a bit too far away, and I can’t be away that long right now.

I know from reading sites like The Consumerist that dealing with companies like AT&T is getting to be a really horrible experience, but until I listened in on my friend’s attempts to get DSL service this afternoon, I had no idea it was that bad.  Now I understand why the iPhone users are so upset that Apple forged an exclusive deal with AT&T in the U.S. – based on what I heard this afternoon, the “AT&T experience” is almost the exact opposite of what Apple users have come to expect from Apple.  Does AT&T have a death wish, or are they really just that incompetent?

Comments (14)

Older Posts »
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 133 other followers

%d bloggers like this: