The farmhouse phone service was installed … connected … ah, buried yesterday. The box was attached to the back side of the building a week ago but then the phone company had to contract to a trenching company to bring the line the 1800 feet from the road to the building. Assuming they actually buried the line the 18 inches deep they said they would, the only risk of destruction is the splice box 1/3 the way down the side of the driveway. Splice boxes are perhaps 3 inches square by 3 feet tall and "phone company green" so the blend in really well with agricultural crops – smart ?! Ill likely paint it safety yellow. It may be too conspicuous but that’s really the goal.

I ran CAT-6 network cable throughout the farmhouse – even for the phone lines. In the case of the primary service, this means there are four redundant pairs, all carrying the same signal. This feeds into the utility room where I have installed a small wall mounted rack unit. eventually, this will take a 1U panel for the phone, a 2U panel for the networking, a 1U panel for the gigabit switch, and a tray for the DSL modem, the router, and possible a NAS. By dawn’s early light, I installed the 12 port panel that services the DSL and phone connections.

For those who have never had DSL service, the way it works is that the phone line entering the building supports both DSL for internet and POTS* for voice. Little in-line filter blocks must be installed for every phone while an unfiltered connection goes to the DSL modem. Since everything is running through the utility room, I chose to use the patch panel to simplify the filter placement. I established a single port as "unfiltered" and then chained the remaining 11 ports together after installing a filter. So, any phone line from the residence which is plugged into port #1 will be unfiltered and can take the DSL modem. Any phone line plugged into #2 thru #12 will get a filtered phone signal. This will allow the DSL modem to go anywhere. In reality, I hope to install the DSL modem in the utility room so no lines from the residence will plug into port #1.

* POTS = plain old telephone service

Here was this excellent internet article about MediaMall’s PlayOn steaming server which now had been tested with Network Media Tank / Popcorn Hour (NMT and PCH respectively). I thought, "Wow – I could watch some TV shows from Hulu and if that worked, then Netflix On Demand video would be a real option for me".

I already have a Hulu account and there is a 14 day trial of PlayOn so I thought "why not?". I downloaded and installed it.

My first lament was that PlayOn is MS Windows only so I’d have to keep a PC running. But, if it did everything in the video testimonial, it’d be worth it.

My second lament was it reported in it "system requirements" to be very internet heavy. I could not imagine why it needed 1.5 – 2.0 mbps to function. Hulu makes this recommendation and it seems to work pretty well with my DSL service. Since, PlayOn is just receiving a Hulu stream and it is the local PC that needs horsepower to transcode and stream to the PCH, I would expect PlayOn to be as good a native Hulu.

PlayOn has a convenient setup interface that confirms account settings and even checks your network connectivity. Now, why it checks my internet performance EVERYTIME I OPEN THE SETTINGS is beyond me. But it always reported "low" in brilliant red. Just to compare, I ran a few DSL speed tests and downloaded some files. Those tests were all in the 1.2 – 1.7 mbps range and yet, PlayOn called foul.

True to its report, PlayOn performed horrifically. So, while my internet and local net were fine, PlayOn said they were bad and performed as such.

I?ve concluded that the only reliable solution is one which lets me queue up my interested content and download as internet bandwidth allows. I?m fine with this approach but the services don?t seem to get the fact that they are catering to the elite. For the record, the United States FCC defines broadband as anything above 768 kbit/s.

Commentary: I guess I can see why Netflix tries to limit its bandwidth usage and/or attempts to match your internet connection capabilities. For TV programs, that?s probably fine (most of the time). Still, what I?d like is the option to buffer the entire program/movie ? I?d be happy to tell Netflix in the morning that I want to watch a movie that night and get it downloaded and stored in advance. If I?m just looking to ?vegg-out? then I?d be wiling take the best quality stream I could get given my bandwidth. But that?s not how they work ? it?s streamed or nothing.

The debate over “cloud computing”, “software as a service”, the “value of mashups”, and “free really isn’t free” will go on for a very long time but the reality is – sooner or later – it all comes down to money.

In a recent telephone interview with Ray Ozzie, Microsoft’s Chief Software Architect, a number of these topics were touched upon within the framework of what Microsoft may or may not be doing. There was one interesting point made in the interview “the margins will still be higher to people who build solutions”. A commenter explains this point .

… there are basically 3 tiers of service in the cloud:

1. one is the underlying server farm infrastructure of hardware and bandwidth
2. two is a middleware cloud utility software platform
3. three are the applications that reside on the cloud platform

I think MS will get vertically integrated in all 3, as they usually do. They will have higher margins at levels 2 and especially level 3.

The more interesting point – at least to the end users – was made in the comments …

… as [we] move toward services infrastructure development, how long until we see a new utility computing cost model and standard on par with KwH (electricity) for consumption and usage? mark my words, software is headed toward the electricity industry utilities standards model …

I am not sure where the balance is between our current “flat rate” consumer models and our “usage based” consumer models. For the first 100+ years of communications, people were happy to pay for telecommunications usage. However, now more and more people opt for flat rate packages. At the other end of the spectrum, people consume electricity, water, and heat with a usage model. One model promotes “use it as much and as often as you can” while the other promotes conservation. Some places have even switched models to change user behavior – towns which charge a “fee per bag of trash” is an example.

Companies who charge a flat rate are betting that the average user will not exploit the service beyond a profitable usage rate and when all users are aggregated the result is more profit.

Flat rates work best with application services (described as tier 3 above). While usage rates are accepted for commodities where the profit margins are low and there is no tolerance for gambling on how users will use the service. The internet is struggling with this problem now. It is really a tier 1 service and it is struggling with a tier 3 pricing model. The fact that all high speed internet service providers (Cable, DSL, and cellular data) monitor usage and have legal safeguards to shut off heavy users points to the fact that the “flat rate” model is a risky one and is likely to change soon.

The challenge is to find a price-point. In most of the utility cases, there is no competition so it is not realistic to say “whatever price the market will bare”. This inevitably means regulatory boards, government involvement, and legislation. It is already starting with internet access as customers complain about service “degradations” and the debate over net neutrality. The first step will be for service providers to determine the cost of their infrastructure (something they have already done). Next is for consumers to determine their usage. Most large corporations already do this but small companies and consumers likely have no idea how much or how little they use their internet connection. (I fall into this camp). 

It would be a very interesting study to find out the profitability price point. For obvious reasons, no internet provider will publish their data but its possible to get a good idea if the data of large companies- who have no vested interest in selling their network bandwidth but need to track usage in order to keep their business operational.

Could this information be gathered publicly today ? How would we go about doing it ? Who would be willing to share their cost vs usage ? What “usage model” price point would be acceptable to consumers ? businesses ? government ?

So far this has all focused on the bottom and the top of the internet food chain. There is still the middle. In some cases, it is exposed directly as in cloud computing offerings by Amazon’s AWS. In other cases it is buried within the application offering as in Gmail where users get storage as part of mail (with some restrictions). But the lines are not really as clear as all of this. For example, Amazon charges bandwidth costs for storage. However, if your applications runs in their cloud and you use their storage, then bandwidth between the application and the storage is free.

Cloud computing has a much narrower target audience than either raw internet connectivity or applications. As such, it is likely to get compressed into one or the other layers – at least as far as billing and service models. All of this predicts the “data center” will become an operating expense  and will be squeezed as much as possible, just like  brick and mortar businesses and office space. the more you can make that “someone else’s cost” the easier your business. And a small number of highly efficient companies will continually optimize the offering to maintain a profit margin.

Speculation: All of this could be moot. Internet connectivity has very little value. The value is in the applications, information, and services. Imagine that the internet had a usage fee but browsing Amazon.com or eBay.com were free because those companies covered the cost of internet access as an incentive to use their service. Alternately, the internet connection might be free but you pay for your email service (either directly or because you accept advertisements). This latter model is being considered for cellphone data service. There are many different business models that *might* work. In the end, I predict internet access will go the way of electricity and water but there are other ways.

Take away my MTV. Take away my VCR. Take away my BBC and my NPR. Don’t you ever mess with my connectivity!

I’m back on line with all the fidelity I had before the disaster “customer service”. Ironically, they called me at 6pm to tell me they were still working on it. I say “ironic” because they had restored my service at two and a half hours previous. At this point, I’m just happy to have my connection back.

Yes, I am an Internet addict. Stay away from my bandwidth !

This week I experienced the next generation of “customer service” – or should I say, dis-service. My first full Verizon phone/DSL bill came it a couple weeks ago and they had charged me full rate for the DSL rather than the special bundled deal I signed up for. So I called to get it corrected. I explained; “I work from home so I need the premiums DSL with 3 megabit down and 768 kilobit up”. “Yes, we can do that”, was the reply, “It’s $14.99 per month”. I thought “WOW” and “too good to be true”. “Let me confirm, this is the faster tier service with 768K upload speed – right?”. “Yes”. “Ok”. “We’ll make the change right away”.

Well, since I already had the fast service, I assumed all they would do if correct my bill. NOT!. About 10 days later, this past Monday to to be exact, my network went the way of the garden snail.

First thing Tuesday morning … well, 8AM Eastern since that is when their phone lines open … (isn’t this the phone company ?!) I call to find out “wazzup“.

I am told, they have signed me up for the “better than dial-up” service. “It gives you 768 kilobit down and 128 kilobit up”. I said, “WHAT?!” This is my lively-hood you’ve just “upgraded” ! To make things worse, we all know you never get the advertised speed. The 3M/768K was served me pretty well as I have predictable gotten 1.2M/700K. Now, if you extrapolate that the “better than dial-up” you get this ….

I don’t know about your Internet use, but imagine receiving about 20MB worth of mail each day, uploaded another 12MB of presentations. and then getting hit with 140MB of “patches” and “updates” to you computer. Over the course of a week, odds are good I will need to download a 500MB+ install of new software for testing; attend 5-10 web conferences, use VoIP, and run 2 or 3 instant messaging clients. At night, I run a bittorrent to get Linux builds and VM images that can easily be 4-5GB. This is not the domain of 148Kbit download !

Verizon tells me it will be fixed by Thursday night (I guess all service changes happen after hours). I have my fingers crossed. <all of them>

Update:? It’s Friday morning and my DSL speed has not improved. So, I called again at 8AM. At first, Verizon said the work ticket had been completed. Later, a different person said the ticket is now “pending” and “it may take up to 24 hours to register”. She followed that a bit later with “I have submitted a trouble ticket to ‘check into this’. It may take up to 3 business days to get a response.” So, it looks like it will be NEXT Thursday before I know if I need to rant again. <ugh>

Mr Antonio at the Washington Post recently wrote of the political debates “televised” on YouTube. The format for the debate was people posting video questions on YouTube and Anderson Cooper selecting a set of those questions, airing them and then getting candidates’ responses. He outlined five myths about the experiment. He makes good points with good examples an all of them. Interesting to my concern was #5 …

5.”Anyone can participate in this debate.”

That quote is from David Bohrman of CNN, which tirelessly promoted the event. Truth is, not everyone can. There’s a rarely discussed digital divide in America. In Charleston, 40 to 45 percent of the population subscribes to a high-speed Internet service, about the same as the national average. In a state where half of the primary voters are black, a study released last month by the Pew Internet & American Life Project found that broadband use among blacks, though rising, continues to lag behind whites and English-speaking Latinos. In many parts of the country, particularly rural areas and poor inner cities, access to high-speed Internet is not the norm. In fact, less than half a mile from the Citadel, the site of last week’s debate, sits the Cooper River Courts public housing project, where owning a computer and subscribing to the Internet are considered luxuries.

Source Jose Antonio Vargas  (vargasj@washpost.com) The Washington Post

This Serves as another example where we must be careful that we not take the Internet for granted. As soon as we make the Internet a prerequisite for participation in society, we create a class strata. It comes back to “those who have forgetting about those who have not.”