I recall one of the big buzzwords in the computing industry in the late 1990s: “ASPs” or “Application Service Providers.” The idea, which isn’t a bad one, was to take all those applications you find on a typical PC and host them from central locations on the Web. Rather than paying $400 for a copy of MS Office, for instance, you’d just run an equivalent application remotely on an as-needed basis. The cost model was to be based on connection/usage time.

Sound familiar? It should.

The term “ASP” largely fizzled out following the Dot-Bomb bust of 2001/02, but the idea continued gaining steam. As marketers do, they just changed the name to reflect current trends, while avoiding the toxic, oh-all-those-places-went-bankrupt ASP moniker. At first, they started using “on demand” (as in IBM’s “eBusiness on demand”) as a replacement term. It evoked the same sort of concept, while being sufficiently nebulous avoid offering any actual meaning. A marketing dream term!

Nowadays, “cloud computing” is the Next Big Thing. It’s sort of a next generation ASP/on-demand model, and can mean different things to different people. For companies like Amazon and Google, it can mean providing virtual hosts that are totally controlled by individual customers (to the point of having the ability to reboot and rebuild systems to suit specific needs). IBM offers something similar, and of course Microsoft is doing their thing as well.

In general, it all comes down to the same thing: centralizing application and computing horsepower, then charging customers by units of work. C-level executives love this idea, because they see dollar signs (smaller ones, i.e. lower costs) in outsourcing even more IT functions. IT professionals, naturally, see it as a threat. If lots of companies outsource IT management, lots of professionals stand the chance of being laid off.

I’m on the fence about the Cloud/on-demand/ASP model. On one hand, centralizing this sort of thing is an excellent management strategy. I recall taking all my university’s high-use applications and moving them to dedicated application servers (with licensing management built in) — a move that saved us massive amounts of time when performing upgrades. On the other hand, network and vendor availability become ultra-critical in a cloud/on-demand environment. If the network goes down (or has insufficient bandwidth) you’re going to be in trouble. Likewise, if your Cloud vendor’s site goes on the blink.

You may want to think hard about the meaning of the term SPoF before you, or your company decide to make this sort of business decision.

In an interesting announcement, it turns out Microsoft and several other companies have actually started a prototype “white space” network in Virginia, offering limited access to specific groups of users.

“But,” I hear you cry, “what the devil is a ‘white space’ network anyway?”

That’s a valid question. I’d barely even heard of them until very recently. Here’s the basic idea.

Traditional WiFi networks operate within a specific frequency range and are generally considered fairly short range devices. Typically they operate over distances of 120 to 300 feet, and require lots of antennas (access points) to cover even a large building like an airport or office complex.

By contrast, “white space” networks are designed to operate in unused areas of the frequency spectrum traditionally allocated to TV networks. When these frequencies were allocated way back in the 1950s or so, lots of unused space was left for future growth and to ensure channels didn’t “bleed over” onto one another accidentally. That space has never been used, and a consortium of IT companies apparently persuaded the FCC to open up these spaces to network development a year or so ago (this was news to me).

Because the frequencies used are much lower than the current crop of WiFi channels, the signal travels further. Much further, in fact. Google’s Larry Page called white space networks “WiFi on steroids,” and has been pushing the project for several years. The objective is clear: lower frequencies, greater distance, and higher power mean fewer antennas to install in a given area. This could make rural broadband, or even city-wide “WiFi” coverage, much easier to achieve over time.

We’ll see where this goes. It sounds like a really good idea, and increasing coverage will help everyone (except highly annoyed television companies who fought tooth and nail to prevent release of these frequencies) who wants to do wireless networking. Maybe in a few years metropolitan and rural areas will finally have ubiquitous access to fast connections…the final death knell for phone-line modems.

So far, advance copies of Windows 7 are getting good review in several areas. One of those is networking, which many users still consider a black art requiring the sacrifice of chickens under a full moon (I think you have to strangle them with a network cable). Earlier versions of Windows, all the way back to 3.1 in fact, included basic “Microsoft networking” peer-to-peer relationship capabilities, but many users found it difficult and frequently unstable.

I’ve used non-domain “workgroup” networking for years, and generally it works okay. But I’ve seen situations where failures are totally incomprehensible and can only be resolved (maybe) by starting again from scratch. This is not the way to win hearts and minds, however. And Microsoft has apparently seen the light in this respect with Windows 7.

The new concept is called the “HomeGroup,” and it’s an easy (too yet to be sure) method that should allow families to share all their local machines with very little pain involved. To form a group, one person sets up the HomeGroup and generates a password to allow access to it. This password is then passed to all other users in the home. Once it’s entered, the theory is that all machines are now connected and capable of sharing resources (disks, folders, printers, etc.) with no more tuning required.

The two drawbacks identified so far are: a) “Windows 7 Starter and Windows 7 Home Basic versions cannot create a HomeGroup, but computers running any version of Windows 7 can join a HomeGroup.” So you need at least one Pro/Advanced copy in order to set up a HomeGroup in the first place. That’s a bit annoying, and it probably means these versions have special capabilities (they’re more business oriented, after all) required to support the group. The other, b) is that only Windows 7 boxes will work in a HomeGroup. No others (not even Vista!) need apply, since there’s no support in the OS for this functionality. Maybe that’ll happen later, but it’s not there yet.
a
So, this is apparently an improvement over prior releases. Home users should be a bit happier in the post Windows Networking era, and hopefully their tech-savvy relatives or friends will get fewer calls asking for network assistance. I’m okay with that idea.a

High tech businesses often need to take chances. Opening new markets can be risky business, especially when significant investment of capital and infrastructure is involved. The idea of “if we build it, they will come” works in the movies, but isn’t a guaranteed strategy in real life. As often as not, investing in all those assets put a company in a deep hole they may not climb out of.

According to Verizon, FiOS is not one of those cases. It’s working, it’s popular, and it’s expanding…despite the fact that cable and other providers said it’d never fly and predicted Verizon would regret making the investment. While Comcast is offering 5 or 10Mbps service to most markets (unless something has changed), Verizon is offering 50…with plans to upgrade some areas to 100 in the next few years.

As is often the case, Verizon’s competitors relied on spreading FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) in the hope they’d dissuade customers from going over to FiOS. The home broadband market is huge and still growing, so everyone wants a competitive advantage. In the high tech area, the name of the game isn’t just gaining such an advantage…it’s keeping it over the long haul. That’s why Verizon is constantly expanding bandwidth. If people are happy with 5Mbps, they’ll be happier with 10. And if you say you’ll be up to 50 in just a few years, it gives them incentive to stay aboard. But you also need to deliver. Empty promises are guaranteed to drive customers away.

As CTO Dick Lynch said, competitors “claimed that their networks had been fiber for a decade, and they distributed misleading messages about the quality of FiOS. Their communications strategy was to create confusion and apathy and some people fell for it.”

Sure, lots of cable and other telecom companies have fiber…but not all the way to the house. That “last mile” is very expensive to install, and few wanted to make the investment. Verizon did, and it’s been a rousing success. And now they have households that can obtain constant bandwidth upgrades with no new investment in cabling.

My only question is when Verizon will finally get FiOS to my street. Come on guys…I’ve been waiting over a year already!

Today I was talking to a friend who happens to be a Comcast customer. This guy lives in a fairly rural area, and Comcast is his family’s only option for high speed access. Until 2 years ago, he had dial-up and bad cable. Then the new system arrived and he was able to obtain broadband speeds.

He also ended up with his local TV channels via Comcast, due to the stupidity of government regulations that prevent many cable customers from obtaining such channels via satellite. He’s been a Dish Network customer for years, and will never go elsewhere.

Things worked fine until about two months ago, when they started experiencing random outages. Their Internet connection would die, then restart itself. At the same time, they’d experience image pixellation on the locally provided Comcast channels. A service call was placed. Then the fun began.

The first guy showed up, inspected the house wiring (all installed by Comcast 2 years earlier), and said it was fine. The problem must be on the pole. Two days later a bucket truck pulled up, the pole was checked, and also pronounced problem-free. They said the problem was inside the house, which they couldn’t touch. When my friend said the earlier engineer had cleared the house wiring, the truck operator said “oh those inside wiring guys, what do they know?”

It’s now been two months, and the problem is still not resolved fully. Comcast said they’d completely replace all the wiring and transceivers, so a crew pulled a new line…across the front lawn. Oh, sorry…they weren’t allowed to dig the trench. So they left a long snake of cable across the lawn. Several more weeks elapsed, and the trench guys finally appeared. They dug the trench, and installed a PVC conduit for the new line, then disappeared. The temporary wire is still snaking its way across the lawn, making it hard to mow the spring grass.

This is customer service? Is it any wonder Comcast has a bad name among so many consumers? I had similar problems with them half a decade ago, and sent the company packing in favor of DSL. One would think they’d have learned by now.

This is why competition is good. More communities need multiple vendors, as well as the ability to choose service providers. Hopefully this will soon be the case, as broadband continues spreading into more isolated areas. Single-provider markets inevitably lead to bad customer satisfaction.

“Cable is faster than DSL.” How many times have you heard that from some big cable company? Thing is, it might be…or it might not. It all depends on a number of factors. It’s pretty much guaranteed that neither cable nor phone companies are telling the whole story in their ads, so let’s sort some fact from fiction.

Try this one on for size: “the phone company’s broadband offering uses copper. Ours is fiber and therefore faster.” In some cases that’s true. But if you have something like Verizon’s FIOS, you have fiber all the way to your house (they install a shiny new fiber connection when you sign up). If you use DSL (Digital Subscriber Line), then the “copper” accusation is correct.

The other thing to remember is that fiber can be faster because it can carry more data. However, whether it is faster depends completely on the service level and the network behind it. I remember the days of 2MBps (that’s Megabyte, not Megabit) fiber connections. Having fiber gives you the potential for a very fast connection, just like a V8 engine in a car provides the potential for fast driving. Whether it achieves that potential depends on connection quality and many other factors.

One of the things I hate about cable advertising is the claim that the phone lines are “shared,” and therefore slower. Yes, the phone lines are shared…just like the cable connection on your street. Again, it’s a half truth. It’s like some old Wesson Oil commercials, where they say their oil “doesn’t soak through food.” That’s correct…but neither does any other oil if it’s used at the proper temperature.

So take all those cable and other network ads with a huge grain of salt. They’re filled with lies, hyperbole, and half-baked “facts” that don’t stand up to technical scrutiny. All they want is your business: once they get you hooked up, the price will jump or the service won’t be what you expected. Or maybe you’ll get lucky. Do some research, ask around (especially if your neighbors are broadband users), and check consumer magazines.

It seems there’s at least one new and interesting feature in Windows 7. It’s related to networking, specifically for home users and (potentially) other small workgroups. Until now, people have been stuck creating shared drives and printers via “traditional” Microsoft Windows Network methods, and that’s not always easy. File permissions, firewall settings, and other odd behaviors can get in the way of smooth resource sharing.

The new feature in Windows 7 is called “HomeGroup.” While we don’t have a lot of information about it yet, it appears to be a wizard that encapsulates all the standard steps one would need to take when setting up Windows Networking by hand. According to the currently available info, you just tell Windows “I want to set up a home network.” It then asks you which types of files and resources you want to share (i.e. music, photos, etc.). Once it has that information, it sets up sharing on those folders in which it finds the selected resources.

The other handy thing about this is that it apparently then generates a default user ID/password combination you can provide to others who need access to your shared data. I suspect that under the covers, it edits permissions on all the shared resources and gives the default user appropriate access to each folder/printer/etc.

One thing I find amusing about this is that Microsoft apparently is now using a tree-based “users” folder structure, e.g. C:\Users\Public and so forth. This is a model I’ve used for years, both on Windows and Unix (I have mine located off the system drive, though). By default the Public directory is shared when you turn on the HomeGroup option.

This is a pretty good idea, presuming it works as advertised. Initial tests indicate it does, but the jury is still out. And it’s unclear how (or if) you can tell it to pick only selected folders. Maybe that’s part of the “advanced” options, and I’d say it’s an important one. It’s entirely possible specific users will still want to keep discrete folders and resources out of their shared area.

Still if this works it’ll be a huge improvement over setting up individual shares and permissions. Home users have suffered through this process for years, and it’s about time it got easier.

As if streaming video and audio weren’t using enough network bandwidth already. Various companies are building streaming games that will consume even more capacity. It’s inevitable, and it does make a certain amount of sense from a consumer standpoint.

Think of it this way: you want to try out a game, but don’t want to buy and install a huge (multi GB) game from CD or DVD. Or you don’t feel like downloading the game’s installer via your DSL or cable connection. With a streaming game, you connect to a server and (probably) install a thin client of some type. That’s it. Now you can connect and run the game remotely. It’s the next logical step up the ladder from WoW (World of Warcraft) and other online games, since it removes the “thick” client we’re all used to installing.

Of course, this model also uses a lot of bandwidth since it uses the network for both user-action and game code transmission. In the case of the OnLive application discussed in the article, all the video would be transferred via the Internet. Given the richness of current gaming video applications, this translates to massive bandwidth usage. As the article notes, “it’s uncertain how well OnLive would work in homes — there has been no widespread customer trial. It is clear, though, that it would consume large amounts of bandwidth, far higher than that required for current online games, where most of the content is stored on the computer or console.

Given that ISPs are already starting to add surcharges to monthly bills after a certain amount of data is transmitted (think of the per-minute charges when you exceed your allotted cell plan limit) this could translate into large bills for gamers…or for their parents. Given that the developer estimates usage of “just under a gigabyte per hour of high-definition gaming” a household could exceed its monthly data limit in a few days…or hours.

This could make gaming a very pricey hobby. I suspect it won’t be widely adopted until major bandwidth improvements are made to households across the US, or developers find a way to limit the network traffic consumed by applications like OnLive.

Oh, how networks have changed. When I started working with basic Ethernet (I won’t say how long ago, but it’ll be obvious) we were happy with a solid 10MB connection. That was plenty of capacity for the network loads of the day, and wasn’t hard to achieve as long as you followed the cabling and distance standards.

Eventually the technology evolved and we started getting 100MB, then Gigabit speeds. So I suppose Terabit was only a matter of time, but I really didn’t expect it quite this quickly. Now it appears it’ll be in common use (albeit in infrastructure-level networks) by 2012 or so, thanks to a major breakthrough that was announced recently. What I didn’t realize is that even current high-speed networks aren’t using a single channel: instead the current “top-speed optical networking employs optical time-division multiplexing (OTDM) that creates 64 10Gbps channels on a single wavelength.” This means some extremely fast multiplexing and demultiplexing at each end of the wire is required. Hence the need for really, really fast chips that can handle the speed.

Of course, all this high end stuff is based on optical networks. I won’t say we’ll never see this sort of speed in a copper system, but I suspect it’ll be a lot harder simply due to physical limitations of the medium and the possibility of outside (RF or other) interference. Most people also don’t realize that signals (even line voltages) don’t really pass “through” copper — they wrap around it in an electromagnetic field, though it’s a lot more complex than that. So if you have a bunch of copper conductors running across or alongside one another, the interference patterns can play havoc with signal integrity.

In slower networks you can manage some error rate by retransmitting bad packets…but achieving reliable high speeds means a lower error rate is mandatory. Hence, fiber.

Will you see a Terabit network cable running to your house anytime soon? Don’t count on it. But I suspect the Internet core will migrate to Terabit speeds as soon as the technology is stable and proven. Big providers will also use it to fatten their pipes to handle even more traffic. Eventually higher speeds will make it down to the local level, but that may not happen for years.

One step at a time.

The availability of communication routes has nearly always been a factor when choosing where to live or work. In earlier eras, this often meant people settled near rivers and harbors that offered easy access to distant areas or other communities. Road systems bred new communities as they spread across the country. Examples of this phenomenon include Route 1, Route 66, and other highways that were established after cars became popular in the early 20th century.

Is it any wonder, then, that today’s real estate values are increasingly dependent on the availability of high speed networking? I can attest to this, since I relocated a few months ago and specifically targeted areas where broadband access was available. Two locations where broadband access was limited or unavailable were immediately taken off the list of potential new residences. I have a need for speed, and so do many other Americans.

Anyone who works from home, either part time or full time, almost certainly has similar criteria when house hunting in the 21st century. Indeed our Realtor said more people ask the same question every day. As a result, areas lacking broadband access are certain to become “depressed” in terms of real estate values and sales potential. The above article even notes that one Realtor said “he has seen deals fall through once the buyer realizes a home doesn’t get broadband.”

Several friends who live near San Francisco tell me that, even in their allegedly upscale area, broadband is hard to find. A co-worker who lives in that area uses satellite broadband, which still relies on a 56k modem connection for upload tasks.

In other areas the problem is a lack of population density. Running broadband cabling a hundred miles to a town with 100 residents isn’t exactly cost effective in many cases. Thus some companies are using unconventional means — one company in Vermont that services rural customers “will use wireless links to fulfill a pledge of providing broadband to its entire service area in the state.”

For myself, I just can’t wait until Verizon runs FIOS to my new house. Allegedly that’ll happen next year.