Recently in Hyperconnectivity Category

Lately I have been experimenting with Vidyo (www.vidyo.com), a videoconferencing tool designed for the professional SOHO/SMB/Roadwarrior market. And the tests showed why a 2 person video call is a gimmick, and 3 or more is a major difference.


vidyo-on-windows-7.jpg























The promise of videoconferencing is that you save a lot of time, money and carbon emissions. Or act as a fallback option, as  the recent volcano eruptions in Iceland have showed.
Nevertheless so far my practical experience has been with high-end systems (like the wonderful roomsized conference facilities of Cisco) or Skype with video.

The highend systems are impressive, but its like going to a jobinterview: not a casual thing, you make an appointment and dress up, prepare yourself.  Skype on the other hand is great for the sound quality of the wideband codec (if the connection is OK), but I fail to see the added value of  a moving picture of my face : as many others, I am disappointed by how I look when viewed through a webcam.

So, is there a market for something in the middle? Even when it lacks (as of now) chatting, recording voice and video? 

The first impressions were OK but nothing convincing. Ok, the image quality is quite good when you have a good camera and connection, the synchronisation between sound and image is better than Skype. Big deal? 

When we started to have multiperson conversations the difference became serious and obvious. And its not so much the product as the experience of seeing all the faces simultaneously while having a conversation. It makes a LOT of difference between having a conference call by phone or a multiperson videoconference. But why?

The difference acording to psychologists s that when you have a conversation between 2 persons, you always know who is talking and who is responding. A good voice quality is enough to sense the reactions and emotions of the other person.

This changes completely when there is a multiperson conversation. We as humans have an uncanny subliminal capability to read instantaneously the emotions in a group from the non-verbal communication as expressed by bodylanguage and facial expressions. So being able to see the reactions of people NOT speaking, and them being able to see your reactions adds a lot to the richness and depth of the conversation. And as I can tell from my experience, it does.

Vidyo has a good product, as far as I can see. It works on your laptop, is interoperable with highend systems like Polycom and Tandberg. Tandberg apears to have a similar product and others will follow most likely. Great, competition works.

The key take away from these tests is that videocalling is a gimmick which does not really add value. Videoconferencing with multiple persons however has a lot of value.

More is indeed more

|
The term "High Definition"  for video content or TV-channels is used by marketeers for about anything that is better than the standard analog or digital transmissions (mainly on cable networks). It is claimed that compression technologies have evolved to a point where you only need "X" Mbps for a "High Definition" image. "X" is a number between 3 and 20 Mbps, depending on the source.

It is not easy to test these claims in normal life. Last week I had the opportunity for an impromptu test.

In the demonstration room of the new headoffice of Reggefiber one could see content on 3 identical large (40 inch+) LED TV screens. 
The Roland Garros semifinal (tennis) was on 3 channels on the screens next to each other. The first standard SD (digital), the second "HD" Nederland 1 (MPEG-4, 11 Mbps, transcoded by the channel), the third "HD" Eurosport (MPEG-2, 20 Mbps without transcoding).

The difference between the SD and both HD channels was obvious. But to my surprise the difference between the 11 Mbps and the 20 Mbps channels was also quite visible. The larger bitrate showed more detail, an easier viewing experience. I have never been so close to a large screen without becoming tired.
Calling shots in or out was easy, you could almost identify each piece of gravel.

Yes, more is indeed more.




#DEBILL

|
Yesterday night I saw a twitterstorm passing by: over 2 tweets per minute on the debate in the House of Commons in the UK on the Digital Britain bill, raising #deBILL to the most tweeted subject on Twitter. Quite a feat for a law-making process in a singular country.

One of the many British frustrated tweeters summarized the general feeling quite effectively in less than 140 characters (showing that less can be more):

"Excellent, a bill proposed by the unelected, debated by the ignorant, voted on by the absent, unwanted by the majority".

"1984" was written by a Brit (Scotsman born in India), a prescient book..... 

 

The Aussies enforce fiber for new builds

|
If a government is determined to get a (fiber-based) Next Generation Network in its country it should take the necessary steps. Talk is cheap, actions speak loudly.

The Aussies give the right example. The Australian Government has introduced a bill which effectively enforces (with penalties) fiber access networks for new buildings. Not just greenfields but all types of new developments, including greenfield (broadacre) estates, urban infill and urban renewal projects.  Its either fiber with open access provisions, or a "fibre-ready facility" with open access.

The Bill will apply whether the real estate development project is intended to 
establish building lots, or building units, or both, for either sale or lease.  The fibre 
connection requirement will not apply to lines that are not intended to provide a 
carriage service to the public (e.g. it will not apply to private networks) or that are not 
wholly or primarily for use by an end-user at the end user's premises (e.g. it will not 
apply to a line connecting to a mobile phone tower).

To ensure that carriers are able to gain access to the fibre-ready facilities installed in 
accordance with the fibre-ready infrastructure requirement, the Bill provides for the 
establishment in later regulations of an access regime that would require third party 
access to those facilities to be given. 

And they take this to its logical consequence:

.....the Minister could determine that for a duct to be a "
fibre-ready facility", it must have a minimum internal diameter (with a view to e
nabling the quick and efficient installation of fibre at a later date).
 
Installation in developments that are specified by the Minister of lines that are not o
ptical fibre or of facilities that are not fibre-ready would be subject to civil penalty p
rovisions under the Act. The enforcement regime will apply to both carriers and 
on-carriers, consistent with application of the Act. 
 
The Bill also amends Part 6 of the Act, which deals with industry codes and 
standards, to more readily enable the development of industry codes and standards 
relating to fibre optic lines and related facilities, and to give further examples of the 
types of topics which industry codes or standards might cover. In addition to 
providing necessary guidance on relevant technical matters, these measures respond 
to calls from stakeholders for such guidance to promote nationally consistent network 
and service outcomes. 

You may not a agree with their policy (actually I do agree), but you must at least admire the political style of being consistent and practical in implementation,
.

Mapumental

|
Mapumental is a site which supports mobility choices in a very attractive package. 
You select a target site (postal code) and three criteria : 
- how early do you want to leave to get at the target site at 9:00 hrs by public transportation
- what is the maximum house price you can afford
- what is the minimum "scenic rate"
The site will show you an interactive map of the potential locations fitting your criteria, plus precise data for a given location on the map. Just great.

(Only for GB locations, in beta)
mapumentalcut.jpg

Simple tech for sharing a lot...

|
Alex Butcher remarks: this is a simple technology which is excellent for sharing large files amongst your friends, much faster than P2P. A great bypass for countries that have draconic and ill-advised "three strikes laws".

airstashtop3.jpg

Dutch mobile broadband is not competitive

|
The famous Berkman report has some critical comments on the Dutch mobile broadband market, as being underdeveloped.

A recent comparison of prices between the UK and NL proves the point. Whereas we in the NL tend to describe the (fixed) broadband market in the UK as lacking in spirit and speed, I would love to have their mobile broadband prices.

Our good friend James Enck complains about the customer service, but he gets a high speed mobile broadband package for 15 GBP (16,5 euros) per month (incl. taxes), with a datacap of 3 GB per month and a penalty for overusage of 2 pence (2,2 eurocent) per MB.

Over here a competitive offer of KPN  for a 2,5 GB datacap is 60 euros per month (incl 19 % VAT) plus 15 eurocent per MB. (Yes, KPN quotes a max speed of 14,4 Mbps but that is in practice nothing different from the (max) 3,2 Mbps I had before).
The other vendors are nothing different.

There is no objective reason for this difference as far as I can see, other than competitive pressure.

Apparently Berkman is right.

The trouble with wifi

|
I do not think the designers of wifi ever have envisioned the proliferation of access points. 

The standard implementation is not particularly suited to a situation where many access points see each other.  
A high level of adjacent "noise" is interpreted as a signal, as a consequence the "listen-before-talk" protocol lowers the effective throughput up to zero. The AD-converters have a limited dynamic range so increasing the signal strenght of an emittor to overcome "noise" does not work very well (oversteering).

Where does that hurt you? In a densely populated city like Amsterdam.  

wifi_in_amsterdam.jpg
See this scan of SSID's (Apple Airport) in a flat:  37 access points are visible (of which still 6 are open without encryption) for 13 channels max.
Luckily my friend has a 801.n router (5 GHz), otherwise he would suffer like others that see a strong wifi signal ("5 bars") but have no throughput. But it is still only a matter of time before the 5 Ghz band shows the same problem.

A new design is needed, derived from mesh technology to cope with this. 

(Thanks Bram)

Path dependencies in fibre plant architectures

|
The recent report by Analysys Mason for OFCOM ("Fibre capacity limitations in access networks") shows again that there are some important path dependencies in the choice of fibre plant architectures for access networks. The main stream press focuses on the speed projections but there is a lot more to enjoy.

In a presentation in November in the UK ("Fibre to Britain") I have showed these slides to demonstrate the choices.

pathdependencies1.GIF




















pathdependencies3.gif



















Unfortunately Analysys Mason limits their view (as seen so often) to IP traffic : the myopic view of pure Internet afficionados forgetting there is more than data packets, like linear RF. They also miss the opportunity of "Lambda to the Home".
Nevertheless they make the same point: architecture choices create path dependencies.

Each FTTH technology has an upgrade path to support higher capacity for the next five years. However, the fact that TDM GPON solutions require customer premises equipment to operate at a much higher bandwidth than that required for each individual customer, may limit how far it can be upgraded in the medium to long term, especially as the customer premises environment can be challenging. For example the temperature at the customer premises can fluctuate, whereas premises designed to host long-haul network equipment are air conditioned, thereby minimising temperature fluctuation.

The first observation is that more evolution of enabling technologies is required for PON generations than for PTP architecture, which in a way, makes PTP a less risky technology to invest in. In addition, due to the greater bandwidth scalability of PTP systems, the expected life cycle of each generation of PTP is likely to be longer than that associated with TDM PON. This is an important result, as it indicates that operators will have a longer time to get return on their investment with a PTP architecture compared to a TDM PON architecture, despite a slightly more expensive initial deployment costs (PTP are currently 19% more expensive to deploy than TDM PON systems, mainly due to the additional fibre, and therefore duct infrastructure required).

I would add: the one architecture and approach that gives you the highest penetration over the lifespan is by far the most interesting one. Unbundling and flexibility of technology increases penetration so it is a factor you should be more interested in than bandwidth scalability.

So from this analysis, we do not believe that there will be any significant barriers in the evolution of FTTH systems capacity. However, we believe the bottlenecks maybe in the upgrade of one generation of FTTH systems to the next, especially if an operator decide to depart from a TDM PON infrastructure to a WDM PON infrastructure. In the UK for example, if, in the medium term, Openreach was to upgrade its GPON network to a WDM PON network, it would need to prepare for it today by allowing for extra space in the splitter site to be accommodate extra equipment (wavelength demultiplexers for WDM PON).

Indeed. 
Not a bad report, just missed some obvious points.


Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Big company

|
Why on earth did anyone at Google think this is necessary or effective as a marketing action?

On major trainstations in the Netherlands, boys and girls dressed in an white Google jacket, dispensing small red pencils for the local elections tomorrow.
Rotation of googleelect.jpg