It begins, canada’s newest Wireless Carrier: Quebecor Canada’s newest Carrier

(At least in Quebec). It’s about time, and it had to happen. Pierre Peladeau, CEO of Quebecor just announced his intention to enter the wireless market in Quebec. With fighting words describing the existing “players in the cellphone industry as a three-headed oligopoly with no interest in providing customers with innovative products or competitive prices”

He even compares Canada’s wireless penetration (unfavorably with 3rd world countries). Clearly, Pierre has been reading my blog.

The government is currently wrapping up consultation on how to auction off the next tranche of spectrum.

Lets hope they do the right thing, and set the conditions for Quebecor – or any other new entrants to enter the market.

Better yet, just send it my way…. Who wants to start a wildly disruptive all flat-rate, all-voip, carrier in the rest of Canada with me?

I don’t think the timing could be any better for disrupting this industry. You’ve got a market that’s the second from most under-penetrated in the industrialized world. You’ve got all manner of exciting and disruptive change on the horizon from new technologies from voip, web and other data services. You’ve got three competitors laden with debt, setting an absurdly high price umbrella and all hhooked on their legacy voice minute revenue.
Bring it on.

Thanks to Kevin at the Seabord group for tipping me off to this story in the National Post today.

(this post originally composed in the departure lounge of terminal 3 in Toronto, which lacking any wifi, and any piratical mobile data option, here I am posting 8 hrs later. Sometimes this country feels like the stone age.)

Posted in Archive, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Open Data more than Open Source Debates is What Matters Now

There’s a battle for openess going on these days, but it’s not the same as the old open source debate. The ability/openess to modify software is just not that important to most people. Statistically speaking, almost nobody modifies their software (though the few that do can sometimes create enormous value for everyone else – that much is still true).

What I worry about is the battle for open connectivity. The media and telecoms landscape is shifting and the connection providers are the new gatekeepers.

to quote Warren Buffet recently:

“Simply put, if cable and satellite broadcasting, as well as the internet, had come along first, newspapers as we know them probably would never have existed. “

And just considering the internet, you could say the same for the telephone, radio, tv and the cell phone.

*All* of these media are just abstractions of bits traveling on a line.

Given a good enough general-purpose internet data connection, there’s really *no* reason your local cable co should be offering you TV channels or your local telco phone services — rather than the cableco or telco of timbuktu. — or any startup that pops up next week that does just a slightly/hugely better job of it. *cough* skype *cough* joost or Asterix the (heh) open-software telephone switch.

No reason, except an accidental happenstance of history. Oh and the fact that they gave you some hardware like a handset or cablebox with a few simple buttons and a remote control to make your life easier. Oh, well, and the fact that the local cable/tel-co invested -at great fixed expense- built out and maintain a last-mile connection right to your door. They even reinvest upgrade this network (from time to time). And these things matter*.

The debate of the future is how do we encourage investment in connections and bandwidth to the last mile — without selling out to those same providers, the permission to lock us in to the proprietary media services for which we needed the connection in the first place.

It’s the lack of competition and the co-ownership of the physical connection and the services upon it are a problem (not to mention ownership of legacy/cash-cow voice and cable businesses). There needs to be balance between encouraging both investment and access to data in canada.

But the marketplace in this country hasn’t found it yet.

Case in point: Rogers Inc. a major carrier in Canada just started rolling out a highspeed HSDPA wireless network (cool!). With their new “Vision Plan” you get a fancy subsidized phone (nice) can do amazing things like access any number of Rogers Video Services (or one of 50 Rogers-selected YouTube clips), or Rogers Music Services or Rogers Email Services, in fact they’ve built out a whole new little internet. And there’s no charge when browsing the Rogers Internet to purchase any Rogers games, media or service. As for the rest of the Internet, posted rates still as high as 414/min**, but they do generously offer 10MB of completely free Open Data access in the basic plan.

At (the advertised) HSDPA speeds, that’s in the range of 1 min/month. (very bad)

have fun with that.

*(Other metaservices Account servicing, support and billing are neither here nor there – it’s probably been done out of India already — thanks of course to cheap wholesale VOIP data rates.)

**Theoretical HSDPA speeds up to 1.8 Mbs
1.8Mbs = 230.4 KB/s
at $0.03/ KB This is $30 / Megabyte = $6.91 / second or $414/minute (how can this be possible?). On the open internet, better just use that data connection for *very* small WAP pages. For rich media, there’s no way you can use this connection for anything but Rogers Rich Media content.

Warning the product and rate descriptions on the Rogers site are a mess, and specially for the new products. And the pages don’t display properly in Firefox. sigh.

Posted in Archive, Business, dead media, mobile | 9 Comments

How Tag Clouds Suck and struggling for an intelligent design of ‘Aboutness’

technorati suxSome time long ago, back when the last of the compact discs still roamed the earth, when Web 2.0 was first shimmying it’s glassy, bubbly, lime-green flippery toe out out of that primordial soup of long-shattered dotcom dreams, there was, at that time, The Tag Cloud.

And the Geeks saw the tag cloud. And the geeks said it was good.

And boy they were wrong about that. really wrong. And like Chlamydia, it spread.

Somehow this sexy-looking, but, -in reality- sordidly abused miscarriage of functional information design became the standard bearer of Web 2.0. Yep, pump up your form size elements, round those corners, slap tag Tag cloud on ‘er and you got yerself a Web 2.0 app.

So there was a reason. The reason is that tag clouds are supposed to convey a sense of “aboutness”. Oh are you new around here? here, take a glance at this, you can “see” what this place, person, blog, group, whatever is about by checking the tag cloud. Right…

But tag “clouds” suck. You can feel this is true in that pained space in your forebrain as your eyes grapple desperately to make sense of jumbled mess of disconnected semantics.

Tag clouds are like what if I said I was going to write this paragraph -but instead of in the regular order- I would put all of the words in alphabetical order instead. But then I’ll adjust the size of words I think are important in a highly arbitrary way. Wouldn’t that be awesome?!

I’ve not wanted to have to write this post for a long time. But people are *still* coming out with new sites loaded with tag clouds. So if you must have this feature to suggest “aboutness”, here’s what I would suggest (if this reminds you of last.fm there’s good reason, maybe the only sane tag using site on the internet)

Let’s take technorati’s data and replot it:

Tag cloud awesome

Hey now we can see not just what tags are more “about” this blog, but also in proper order, and by how much each differ. At a glance. If space is a premium, here’s how you might shave a few pixels and still convey all the data while squeezing it in a sidebar.

awesome cloud 2

Anyway, this is my best efforts. let me know if you have inspirations.

File under “Tag Clouds: the Mullets of Web Design or Ontological Venereal Affliction?”

Posted in Archive, dead media, Uncategorized | 12 Comments