Last few days, there has been frenzy of activity around laptop makers - Dell, HP, Sony and Panasonic - making noise about the fact that they are going to include 3G (EVDO/HSDPA) modems in future machines. It is a welcome development, but makes me wonder why this frenzy? I suspect this will help laptop guys make up for the vanishing margins in their core hardware business. By becoming “wireless resellers” they are hoping to capture a piece of the subscription revenues. I am not sure what the uptake for these services is going to be, but one thing is for sure, this is good news for 3G wireless modem makers - Sierra Wireless and Novatel. I wonder when Apple is going to include WAN connectivity in its Powerbooks, especially the 12 inch version.

I still don't understand the big deal. Nearly all laptops have PC Card slots so I don't know what the benefit of embedding this is. Furthermore, most laptops that would have this function are the kind that go through corporate IT or centralized procurement. The pricing for these plans are pretty expensive and rarely pass muster for reimbursement.

However, the WWAN approach is superior to WiFi hotspots, especially now that EV-DO is fairly prevalent in the US and UMTS in the EU.
2:20:44 PM    comment   

Techdirt gives an update on the progress of reforming the 1996 Telecom Act in the USA:

Now, the U.S. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce committee introduced their own thoughts on reforming the Telco Act of 1996. Again, this bill seems to have a lot of good ideas in it. It takes the states out of the process (which the states will hate), and gives the regulatory power to the feds. This is a good thing, in that it keeps providers from having to obey fifty different sets of laws in order to offer nationwide service.

I don’t agree. One lesson from living in the European Union is that competition between regulatory dominions and tax laws is a good thing. Much as the eurocrats hate it, ideas like the flat tax would be stuck in academia if countries like Estonia hadn’t got in there first and done it before it could be ‘harmonised’ away.

Fixed connectivity is, by definition, a local issue. I don’t see why any supranational or federal rules need be made, beyond ensuring adequate ability of companies to compete across across state boundaries. You need local presence to create the local access network, and you shouldn’t be surprised if you have to adhere to the local rulebook.

Far better to have many experiments in unbundling, municipal networking, etc. and see what really works. Why create a single point of failure in advancing your communications infrastructure by allowing lobbyists to buy laws to outlaw progress nationwide?

The only market that requires contiguous, “flat” regulation is mobile connectivity. Note I say connectivity, not telephony, which is an application. Here, the “50 sets of rules” problem becomes more of an issue; users physically move around between jurisdictions, and it’s important that network architecture is uniform. You shouldn’t, for example, need to block access to smut for just Utah customers whilst having to simultaneously support net neutrality rules for Californians standing next to them.

The applications are better off being subject to jurisdictional competition. Just as American companies like to incorporate in Delaware, and European ones in the UK and Luxembourg, we should allow application services to be governed by a jurisdiction of their choice. Regulatory rules come with costs and benefits, and it should be the end customer who gets to choose the right balance.

2:16:13 PM    comment