Orb is Free

Full disclosure -- if you missed it earlier, I have been working for Orb Networks for the past few months. But I felt it was worth a post on IP Inferno to mention that the Orb Media product is now free, as TV is the next industry (after Voice) which will be entirely transformed by IP -- and Orb is a good example of how this is happening.

If you aren't familiar with Orb -- the basic idea is to use a consumer's own home PC as the streaming source to deliver video, audio, photos, and live TV (if the PC has a tuner card) to any device that a user has, anywhere they may be (as long as they have an IP connection). The software cleverly re-encodes the data for the appropriate device size, player type, and connection speed, creating the best possible experience for the consumer from a cell phone at 40K to an office PC at 1.5 MB.

When we launched the service at CES we announced that there would be a $10 per month subscription fee. The primary concern was that the cost of providing this service would be so high that we would bankrupt ourselves (quickly) if we didn't charge a fee. Three months later we have enough data (and enough product improvements) to know that it will cost only pennies per month per user to provide the service. This allows us to use an advertising and premium services model to support free use of the core Orb experience.

Our core philosophy is simple -- if you own it, either because you created it or because you have already paid for it, then you should be able to enjoy it anywhere, anytime, on any device. Orb makes it possible.

Orb creates this fascinating new thing -- the ability for a consumer to become the rupert murdoch of their own entertainment universe. Mixing personal content, purchased content, and content streams into a personal media portal that can be accessed any time, any place. This will accelerate a trend already firmly underway -- consumers moving away from the package broadcast entertainment offerings such as TV and on to an experience that they have complete control over -- IP delivery of rich media content anyplace, anytime, on any device.

Brand X: The Wait

Jeff Pulver notes that, amid all the hoopla surrounding the Supremes hearing the Grokster case on Tuesday, the coverage of the Brand X case was rather muted. I'm with him when he says the "less visible Brand X ruling might prove to have more sweeping effects on the future of one's Internet experience."

Of course, no one has any idea of what the ruling, which will probably come in June, will be. And the media coverage of the issue doesn't help much (though there were several set-up pieces, including one from James Granelli in the Los Angeles Times, which we talked about last week, and another from the Baltimore Sun's William Patalon III, that were well done) . The issues are described as complex, the justices are described as scratching their heads over aspects of the case, and there's very little critical analysis of how the arguments went (one exception is the Progress and Freedom Foundation, which is fighting for deregulation of broadband: The group expressed some concern that the government didn't strongly assert the FCC's primacy -- as opposed to the courts' -- in setting the rules for the broadband playing field).

I'm inclined to agree with Mark Cooper of the Consumer Federation of America: Let's hope the court comes down on the side to open access to the cable broadband pipe. Otherwise, the market will be reduced to "a crummy duopoly" (cable firms on one hand, telcos on the other).

Vonage, Lingo, and Philip Greenspun

Checking in on Philip Greenspun's blog, I see that he has a long, long writeup on his experiences trying Lingo, Vonage, and Packet8. If you're not familiar with Philip (I know him only through his writings), he's a brilliant and occasionally bilious computer scientist, teacher, entrepreneur, photographer, pilot, dog lover, and more than credible observer about how technologies are implemented.

His VoIP review is not encylopedic, and he doesn't pretend it is. But it is smart and well-documented. And if I were associated with Vonage or Lingo, I'd be losing some sleep over his reports on customer service (on the other hand, he gives higher marks to Packet8).

"... My first inkling that Vonage might be troublesome came when they lost my FAXed request to port my home phone number. I sent the second request on December 8, 2004. By March 7, 2005 they still hadn't transfered the number so I called them up, waiting more than 30 minutes in queue, and cancelled my request for the transfer. The tech support guy said that they'd been backlogged and that they hadn't been able to port anyone's number for many months. ..."

Between the lines, he's drawing a portrait of companies running way too fast to maintain a high-quality experience for customers.

Werbach: 'End of Broadband'

Kevin Werbach gets right down to the essence of the FCC's reported decision to free BellSouth from state regulations that force it to sell "naked DSL" -- broadband service unbundled from its voice offerings. As Werbach neatly sums up the decision and its impact:

"The FCC ruling makes broadband an extension of phone service, rather than the reverse. It ties the data applications of the future to the anchor of the public switched telephone network. That's perverse. Voice is the application, not connectivity. We'll never have real competition if the incumbents get paid even when customers want to switch to a competitor.

"I want to pay someone for high-speed data connectivity, with the opportunity to use (and pay for) innovative applicaitons on top of that pipe. To me, that's broadband service. After the FCC decision, that may no longer be available. That's what I mean by the end of broadband as we know it. For the privilege of buying broadband, I'll have to buy phone service or something else I don't need, raising the effective price. This is the way to promote broadband adoption in the US?"

No, it's not the way to promote broadband adoption. And, to use a technical term, it's a real screw job for those who are developing and offering and adopting the new IP communication applications that would free us all from the Age of POTS.

Unbundling Broadband

Matt Richtel from that other Times -- the one in New York -- had a great story Saturday on the issue of the telcos' virtual refusal to unbundle their DSL and voice services. SBC's position on it is essentially, "That's the way we do things. If you don't like it, go somewhere else." Which, come to think of it, isn't a bad suggestion if you happen to have a choice of broadband providers. SBC's stance is actually preferable to Verizon's, where a spokesman bleats that unbundling DSL voice is really, really hard to do:

"It's just very complex," said Michael D. Poling, Verizon's vice president for broadband operations and processes for Verizon. "It's changing the guts of the systems and processes we've built for five years."

Somehow, the story notes, Qwest has managed to quickly and cheaply offer unbundled DSL service.

Of course, the real reason SBC and BellSouth are resistant to unbundling and that Verizon is slow to act on its promises to offer the service goes back to where they see meaningful competition: It's coming from the cable industry, which is working from the same monopoly playbook as the Baby Bells. They still feel they can afford to be unafraid of independent or upstart voice or broadband providers because, in the end, what networks do they control?

Telcos, MSOs, and VoIP Innovation

Andy points to an excellent piece earlier this month from Robert X. Cringely on the problems independent VoIPs may face (or are, maybe, already facing) with broadband network operators (cable or telco). He suggests, based on talks with unnamed buddies, that instead of trying the blunt, artless approach of outright port blocking, the networks will resort to some fancy packet-fiddling to slow and degrade traffic from VoIPs.

Implicit in Cringely's analysis is both a damning critique of the telco incumbents and their cable cousins and a familiar take on what the VoIP startups ought to be doing to fight back:

"This is the beginning of a web services war where the advantage lies almost entirely with the broadband service provider. It starts with VoIP but I am sure will move on to movies and music, too. The incumbent suddenly has a real, unassailable advantage. If Vonage (or CinemaNow or even Bit Torrent) wants to play along, that's fine, but they'll see most of their profits going to Comcast.

"What's sad about this for me is that I fear it will lead to an end (or certainly a slowing-down) of innovation in VoIP and similar services. The telcos and cable companies will offer generic VoIP service and only change it if some startup comes along offering better features.

"I'm not sure there is much that can be done about this impending counter-reformation, either. Of course, telephone and cable companies in the U.S. tend to be regulated monopolies, so it probably will be possible to lobby politically against these big boys, but I doubt that will do much good.

"It would be better, I think, for the pure VoIP companies to be lighter on their technical feet, and so bring new services to market faster than the telcos and cable companies can even react."

Brand X and the Future

James S. Granelli of the Los Angeles Times has an excellent summary today of the Brand X case, which the Supreme Court of the United States will hear next week. As Granelli points out (as others have before him), the Michael Powell FCC has backed itself into something of an impossible corner: On one hand, Powell sings the praises of broadband competition and how it should drive innovation and empower consumers; on the other, he and his commission have pursued policies that would leave the biggest, most powerful players in telecom in nearly unchallenged control of the broadband networks, to the potential exclusion of independent ISPs and new generations of data-service providers like VoIPs (the latest exhibit in the commission's somewhat schizophrenic stand on competition also comes from the L.A. Times's Granelli: The FCC has reportedly voted to kill state rules that forced BellSouth to sell DSL service to people who got voice and long-distance service from its competitors).

Yes -- the cable MSOs and the incumbent telephone companies have gone to a lot of effort and expense to build out high-speed capacity. But competitors aren't asking for free access -- they're asking for fair access. Next week's court arguments will be fascinating; but regardless of the eventual decision, the case is another powerful argument for an overhaul of the Telecom Act.

VoIP Party Over?

A nice short read from Advanced Pipeline's Paul Kapustka: "Cinderella Story Is over for VoIP." Looking at both the regulatory, business, and competitive challenges the VoIP startups face, Paul concludes that the industry is a little like Gonzaga in the NCAA basketball tournament: Yesterday's darling, brought down to Earth by some very sobering realities and some very determined, tough foes.

The VoIP TV Squeeze

Having lately toiled in the world of cable television -- for the late TechTV -- I (Dan) know that one of the big struggles for a startup channel is simply getting the multisystem operators (MSOs, the flagship cable services like Comcast, Cablevision, and Time Warner) to carry your channel. The MSOs' digital makeovers and ever-improving compression technology have made it possible for the the systems to expand their channel lineups and for new programmers to gain access to carriage. Thus we have our four (at least) flavors of ESPN and multiple offerings from outfits like Discovery and The History Channel. But a couple new industry reports show that startups, like TechTV and its successor, G4, have a new challenge to face: the MSOs romance with VoIP.

One of the reports, from Kagan, says that over the next decade, it's likely that digital cable will reach every U.S. household. Normally, that would be a boon for new channels. But Kagan notes (in a release for its "Cable Network Start-Up Strategies & Business Models 2005") that that's not the case now because the MSOs have prioritized new bandwidth for their consumer broadband and VoIP offerings.

Not great news for people who want to start new cable channels. But on the other hand, occasionally I'll take a spin through the several hundred channels listed on my DirecTV guide. Whatever the reason -- maybe my taste is getting narrow, maybe I don't have enough time to give all the new stuff on TV a chance -- it's amazing to me how little there is out there that I'm really drawn to. And of the stuff that I am partial to -- I'll admit to "Law and Order" and "CSI" (original Las Vegas flavor) fixations -- existing channels cover the bases pretty well. I also have a feeling that true niche programming -- the kind exemplified by TechTV/G4 and others -- is going to find a more cost-effective way of finding an audience in the coming years through the Net or other IP-enabled media.

Paul Kapustka... err.. Kevin Martin Wins

As we recently pointed out here at IP Inferno, Fed watcher Paul Kapustka explained why Kevin Martin would be appointed the next FCC chairman... now that its happened I think we'll give Paul a prize and pay even more attention to his articles on the FCC going forward...

VON Panel, the Sequel

(Sponsor: Lok Technology)

Well, Andy Abramson's "VoIP Bloggers Speak Out" panel at the spring VON in San Jose was quite good. Well moderated. Knowledgeable and articulate panelists. An interested audience. The only fly in the ointment, to borrow quaint phraseology from the pre-VoIP past, was the four-mile-long traffic jam I got into on my way down there. I arrived at the session five minutes after it started and consequently took in the festivities from the audience.

But as Evita famously said, don't cry for me. The session came off well, and here are some of the highlights as I remember them:

--On what's new: No one seemed to be blown away by much they'd seen at the show. Wi-Fi VoIP phones got a mention. Jeff Pulver liked an implementation of VoIP/Wi-Fi roaming he'd seen at the show.

--On analog telephone adapters: General agreement that VoIP services requiring ATAs don't meet what Andy called "the grandma test" -- meaning they probably require too much consumer setup for grandma to do without help; and until they get to the point where they're a truly plug-and-play solution -- and one that's much more elegant from the hardware perspective -- the VoIPs will remain niche. As Jeff said, "No one's invented the iPod for VoIP yet."

--On VoIPs vs. telecom incumbents: Aswath Rao opined that what Vonage and most of the VoIPs in the field today are providing is PSTN voice service that happens to move across a different network in a different form. Although not everyone agreed with that statement, there was consensus that the VoIP startups are headed into a trap by positioning themselves primarily as low-cost alternatives to traditional voice providers and not focusing on IP-based services that could clearly distinguish them from the incumbent powers.

--On "advanced services" that might not be so advanced: What sorts of services might help VoIP startups set themselves apart from the traditional telecoms. People seem to be grasping at ideas, and on one level, what they're wishing for seems very modest. Tom Keating, for instance, suggested a type of "directory assistance" function integrated into a VoIP service and your VoIP device that would allow you to find the name of a service you need right now -- say a deep-dish pizza -- and place the call by pushing a button. James Seng pointed out that that sort of thing is already available in Japan.

--On regulation: No big alarms aside from the usual "government needs to keep its hands off VoIP." Jeff paid brief tribute to departing FCC Chairman Michael Powell's hands-off views. But the most interesting comment in this area -- and I think Om Malik said this, but I wasn't taking notes and for the life of me I can't remember for sure -- was that while we in the States are fixated on our little telecom drama and every move the FCC makes, the most important decisions on how VoIP evolves worldwide are likely to come from Asia, especially India and China, simply by virtue of how big the markets are.

--On where VoIP is going: Andy put this question to Om Malik, who said, "I don't know, Andy. If I knew that, I'd be starting a company." But the general feeling is that over the next five years, VoIP products/services will become seamlessly integrated into our lives -- no more ATA's, no more clunky (that's my adjective) softphone clients, more advanced services. James guesses that telecom revenue will fall by 90 percent in the next five years as voice service becomes even more commoditized. Bottom line, in a few years, the basic monthly charge for voice service might be a fraction of what it is now, and providers will generate revenue by offering a menu of value-added services (that's clearly a model that's already evolving).

--On whether bloggers are journalists: Om noted that bloggers are important to mainstream journalists as radar, an early-warning system on key developments in key subject areas. But the most hotly debated question -- and it wasn't THAT hotly debated -- was whether bloggers deserve the same considerations and legal protections and legal liabilities as big-media reporters. The general feeling was yes -- though there was acknowledgment that not all blogs and bloggers are created equal as to journalistic cred. The panel didn't address a question put by Advanced IP Pipeline's Paul Kapustka about the business model for blogs.

VON Panel

(Sponsor: Lok Technology)

Getting ready for a panel discussion down at Jeff Pulver's VON show. Andy Abramson invited IP Inferno, along with Jeff, Om Malik, Tom Keating, Aswath Rao, and James Seng for a session called "VoIP Bloggers Speak Out." Should be interesting -- especially with such a large group of what I'd call heavy hitters (me, I bat ninth in this lineup ... and there are only seven people in the batting order) on hand. I'll be reporting back later ...

Vonage and the Customer Experience

With spring VON upon us, now seems like a good time to revisit the question, why VoIP? Why is it that consumers aren't satisfied with POTS -- after all, most of the time they just want a phone line in their homes which can connect to a variety of cheap handsets and ring when someone calls them. Is it just about cost? Do consumers adopt Vonage and others just to get cheaper phone service?

I submit for your consideration that it is NOT all about price (although this will always be important). Consider the consumer experience of dealing with the Telephone Company. Start with ordering phone service. The old way was to call, wait on hold (forever?), and then speak with an inbound telemarketing professional (but only during business hours). This stranger would ask all sorts of questions about your personal background in order to establish credit worthiness before telling you that it would be between a few days or a week before your phone service could be activated.

Instead, consider the experience of phone service activation the Vonage way: a friendly, easy to use web site which gathers a few details – principally a credit card number for billing – and then instantly an active phone number is issued. The very next minute you call the number and set up your voice mailbox. A web-based form even lets you forward calls so that people can call you using the new number -- answering the call on your cell phone, office phone, or a friend’s phone. Once you purchase the VoIP router at a local electronics retailer (or wait a few days for it to come in the mail) you plug it in, anywhere there is an Internet connection, and you immediately have dial tone.

Immediately have dial tone. It is worth repeating, because this is a customer experience for which people are willing to pay. And for which they will switch phone service providers.

And if you move you can just take the VoIP router with you! Even if you have to wait a few days for the cable guy to plug in your new Internet connection you can plug this VoIP router in at work and have dial tone. Or forward your phone and continue to take calls on your cell phone. Or just take messages since your voice mail box remains active. Your home phone number follows you wherever you go. The Telephone Company still forces you to change phone numbers if you move across town. Now you can keep the same phone number whether you move across town or across the country!

The technology of VoIP makes all of this possible, but this isn’t what the consumer cares about. The consumer cares about the experience of telephony. The future of telephony, despite all of the press, is not about VoIP. The future of telephony is about the customer experience. And in this, the Telephone Company has a few things to learn from Vonage.

Now despite all of the good things about Vonage, I have been disappointed with a few items. For example, why is it that when I get an email notifying me of a new voice mail message, there is no link in the email directly to the web site where I can play back the message? And why can’t I choose to have the voice mail recording sent as an attachment to the email? So there is still room for improvement.

But as we all rush to attend VON in the next few days, let's try to remember that the consumer doesn't care at all about technology, but about a great telephony experience. See you at VON.

Monoglot World

(Sponsor: Lok Technology)

Where life intersects technology, it's best to be a polyglot. Meaning on a simple level: Use Windows XP, and Mac OS X, and Linux, too, if you can. Try command-line interfaces, even if just simple ones, to get an inkling of what's behind GUIs. Use as many browsers as possible in case anyone ever asks you to compare and contrast Firefox, Internet Explorer, Opera, Safari, and Lynx (sorry if I didn't mention your favorite).

You get the idea. Partly it's just about expanding one's experience and technological literacy. Partly it's about simply satisfying curiosity. But to a large extent -- and this ain't a newsflash -- the consumer technology world isn't very receptive to polyglots. One's extra-sensitive to this if one's primary choice for computing is an Apple product (my current machine of choice is the smallest iBook available, which packs more than enough computing power for my simple needs. I realized when I bought it last summer that I'd be sacrificing access to some Windows-only applications; but, given that my main needs in a machine were for word-processing, photo handling, and simple communications, I was willing to give up that access in order to see what the latest Macs could do.

And as far as the Mac goes, it's great. But as I said, when you use one you quickly become aware that the world is truly monoglot. Mostly it's an inconvenience: My GPS comes with Windows-only software, for instance; and so does the neat bike computer/heart-rate monitor I use. I can get on my wife's Windows 98 machine to use this stuff; the only XP machine in our domicile is my son's home-built AMD box, so it's off-limits to me.

Why this is frustrating VoIP-wise is this: So much of the innovative stuff one would love to try if Windows only. Two examples today: Jeff Pulver is offering access to his do-it-all Communication application for next week's VON show attendees. But it's XP only. And Teleo, one of Skype's P2P Voip competitors, has a couple features (PSTN call-in, especially) I'd love to try, too. But again, it's Windows (XP and 2000 only).

I know all the reasons -- wait, is there more than just one? that everyone is on the Windows platform, so that's where the money is, and why bother with those other people -- that VoIP (and other) start-ups and developers focus on Windows first and everything else second. But on the other hand, is it possible that by ignoring Mac people at first, they're ignoring exactly the kind of users who might be most valuable: Folks turned on by new, non-traditional stuff, folks willing to take a flyer on technology or approaches that don't already have a mass following.

This is one reason I like Skype: While they didn't serve the Mac audience at first, they took care of business and made it available to Apple types (and Linux and PocketPC users, too) relatively quickly. It's got the polyglot spirit.

Bad Call on Cheap Calls

(Sponsor: Lok Technology)

It's just a little, news-you-can-use item in the Wall Street Journal today: "Less Costly Overseas Calls." I take a look at it expecting to see something about paid VoIP services. Or Skype. Or FWD. Or even Bellster. Instead, here are the "cheap" overseas options the Journal points to:

"Prepaid calling cards and 10-10 numbers can be less costly. Cards are often made for specific countries or regions. The Simply Asia USA and Super Star cards advertise prices below two cents a minute to Australia, while numbers like 10-10-629 and 10-15-335 charge nine and four cents a minute, respectively. Compare cards at UnionTelecard.com, SpeedyPin.com and ZapTel.com; and 1010phonerates.com and CompareCalls.com for 10-10 services."

Not to dismiss those options for some people and situations -- if, for instance, you don't have access to a broadband connection. But I imagine the Journal audience tends to have more connectivity rather than less, so the failure to even mention VoIP seems, well, backward.