180 Degrees of Freedom

There otta be a rule that says that if you don't like the way something looks, you are duty-bound to turn it around and look at it after a 180 degree perspective change.

Up until now the big telecoms have been resisting encroachment in their wireless voice domain. iPhone App Store keeps rejecting Google Voice. Over the Top VoIP applications have been prohibited. In general the carriers have been "defending" their network.

The appropriate change has started. There are rumors about Skype being enabled by AT&T. Google Voice is something that Verizon will apparently now permit on android devices. It is starting to move from defend to leverage.

So for now the big guys are demonstrating a willingness to be pushed to understand the value of the phase shift.

On the "what's next" front I'd advocate that the carriers continue the shift the recommended 180 degrees. The carriers are in a position where they don't control the application. They should reach out and contract for transparent-label variations of applications that might advantage their wireless/business/data/video/residential subscribers. Integrate with Skype and Google Voice. Retail the application value to their subscriber base at competitive prices(Free?). Terminate and originate calls on behalf of the application. Use the app rather than run from the app.

And most of all ensure that the income from data plans is "fair" (read profitable).

OTT is a reality. Leverage the future.

Postlet:

TechCrunch noticed Nokia Labs doing something that I would contend is an example of the anti-potlatch approach to Telecom applications. It appears to be leveraging Facebook to extend its own appliaction offering called Ovi Lifecasting. I can't try this App because it is restricted to the Nokia N97 device, but on the surface it appears to be an instance of leverage-and-reuse approach to Telecom Application success.

How APIs can really make us 'appy (or... turn around, dude)

Lets just take on "the industry".

And I'm not talking about the Telco 2.0 initiative, in spite of the fact that it certainly tries to take a step in moving telecommunications as an industry out of the dark ages. My concern is that Telco 2.0 does not go far enough to preserve the industry as a significant force in society (presuming of course that it is worth saving).

The subtitle of this perspective might possibly be: "this ain't a potlatch, dude!"

Potlatch: Within it, hierarchical relations within and between clans, villages, and nations, are observed and reinforced through the distribution or sometimes destruction of wealth, dance performances, and other ceremonies. The status of any given family is raised not by who has the most resources, but by who distributes the most resources. The hosts demonstrate their wealth and prominence through giving away goods.

My understanding of the Telco 2.0 initiative is that it describes a strategy that focuses on exposure and near-gift of the telco treasured resources to the Web applications domain, perhaps in an attempt to maintain relevance (or status in the collection of tribes). I'd contend that the Telco 2.0 Potlatch perspective is backwards.

I believe that the telecoms carriers should be focusing on interpersonal communications excellence: improving the impact of communications across distance. That should be the mission, the holy grail, the nirvana. Gifting assets in an attempt to achieve this goal might feel good, but I believe that taking rather than giving makes more sense. Telecoms carriers should be building applications that are focused on creating communications excellence (see the "C"'s), and they should be stealing (OK - using) capabilities exposed by the 100's of interpersonal web applicationsto do so. Don't give subscribers away to Facebook - use the Facebook APIs to incorporate the capabilities of Facebook to enhance a carrier communications experience (See Yellix). Steal from any social applications that can contribute value. Create communications value within the carrier, and use other company APIs to add value.

Take, don't give. Nobody expects the Telcos to be nice anyway.

Can we "C" the light ? (it's a trick)

By now you might be getting sick of my sophomoric sense of humor. If so - I apologize (and continue).

I'm going to add another couple of "C"s to the current "C" theme of Communications, Context, and Closeness: namely the "C"s of Cost and Convenience. Before you get too carried away in concerns over this blog being awash in a sea of Cs, perhaps I should point out that this discussion could be construed as adding only the Cost "C-word" to the lexicon, except for the fact that the English language makes a distinction between the two that might be useful. Both Cost and Convenience are faces on the same coin - "Cost" often refers to the impact on the provider of a capability, where "Convenience" exemplifies the lack of cost for the consumer of the service.

So about now you should be slipping gently into slumberville. Before you leave, please consider this...

A great deal of money in telecommunications is invested in reducing / optimizing just these two attributes of communications. The industry investment in VoIP is a classic example. Where SIP could have been used first and foremost to enrich the communications experience, it has been blindly used to reduce cost. Untold millions have been spent on technology replacement initiatives where the focus has been on providing like-for-like replacement of existing voice systems. If we want to look to why the industry is struggling, I'd suggest that the focus on Cost reduction, rather than the creation of new fundamental value is one of the driving factors.

Similarly, even where cost reduction is not the primary focus, a great deal of effort is centered on reducing barriers to use (for example Skype highlights directory numbers on web pages to make it easier to place calls, and thus encourage us to Skype them). This equates to increasing Convenience, and, although not bad in of itself, it blinds us to more powerful opportunities.

So what is the plea, dear reader? My encouragement to the telecoms industry is to move beyond the barren waters of Cost and Convenience, into the Cs of increasing value for an evolving world. Invest in Context and Closeness.

and the implication is...

Share context with those with whom you communicate, and thus chose how and when to communicate in order to do so, and... Choose to find and communicate with those with whom you share context, whether you "know them" or not.

'taint "Location", 'tis CONTEXT

One of the fundamentals of interpersonal conversation is context: all of that shared information that frames and informs the conversation.

In this context, "Context" (sorry, I could not resist) is a big bucket of stuff. It includes shared history (do you remember when...), shared environment (oh! Look!), shared information (or the lack of shared information, and the reason that other person is not sharing), shared dreams and goals, and likely a large number of items that don't fit in the above list. In a meta sort of way it includes personal assumptions about what is shared and not shared, and what the interpretation of that sharing is.

Context also explicitly includes those things that are not shared. What feelings and thoughts are not part of the public domain surrounding the communication? In an interpersonal context this boils down to "what do they really mean?"

So enough context - where does this belong in a blog about telecommunications?

There are two thoughts circling my head that apply here. The first is that the context very seldom fits on the wire, and if it does, there are significant concerns with how well the context is delivered with integrity. The goal of telecommunicators is not yet done.

The other circling thought has to do with the nature of social media. I assert that the essential activity managing context is the sub-text of social media; the network of connectedness and the way in which it is executed, is all about establishing and sharing context. Following tweets of friends is not communication - it is preparing the context for future interpersonal communication. Reading and writing on walls is preparing the ground: investing in context, and understanding and sharing in the context of others.

Perhaps this can be harnessed in improving the effectiveness of machine-intermediated-communications. Or perhaps the true context for all this is simply a dream.

And to close the loop: Location IS context, just not ALL the context.

Brainstorming Mind-Map

Perhaps we can brainstorm ourselves to the relationship between Telecommunications and the Human Experience. This is just an experiment in embedding mindomo in a blog, so don't expect much in terms of content :-)

To help in that brainstorming - here lives the beginnings of an on-line mind map: Is this Mind Map the right top level decomposition ?

If we can find enough related topics, and enough relationships, then perhaps we can search our way to success using the mind-map as a source of searchable tuples.

So what about Business Communications

So the world is not abuzz with discussions on the fundamental and elemental nature of telecommunications as it applies to interpersonal communications. Perhaps this is talked about in advertising, marketing and psychology circles, but I for one would not know.

All that aside, the topic of deeply impactful interpersonal telecommunications, and their impact on the world at large should at least be a conversation in the business world. There should be definite positive ROI impacts for well-chosen communication tools, techniques, and strategies in the business environment. So is this the domain in which elemental telecommunications creates an opportunity?

If there is an opportunity, what is it? I suspect that bridging the gap in business between the soft side of interpersonal communication with the "hard" side (technology and process) may be an exploitable white-space. Some of the exploitive attacks may include consulting, technology adoption, and the consultation services and studies that would motivate change. The next stage - evaluate the "communications consultancy" industry - is there anything going on in that space?

'nuff for now...

Well Here Goes

One of the things that I learned early in my telecommunications career is that telecommunications is not about technology, or business, or money, or change, or moving electrons or photons.

It is about people. It is about the innate need of people to share experience with others that don't happen to share a physical space.

My eyes were opened to this by a insightful gent by the name of Gordie Thomson, who told me a tale about a couple about to be married, that were separated by required business travel by "the pond" that physically divides Canada and the UK. This was back in "the day" when satellite communication was prevalent, and thus delay was introduced, into telephone calls across long distances. Gordie opened my eyes to the fact that when people communicate, one important nonverbal aspect of communication is how long people take to think before they speak. If people pause before every reply in an important conversation then they are 1) up to something, 2) hiding something, or 3) angry. Of course, in the case of this couple, they were interpreting satellite delay as emotive content, and their wedding planning was degenerating, to say the least. In this case Gordy and the bride's mom were able to intervene, and give the tools to the couple to detect and understand delay and its impact, and (at least to my understanding) all lived happily after. But, like the fairy tale, there is a lesson. It's not about the technology, it is about the impact on the people.

So why this Blog? Very simply, there appears to be a real void "out there on the net" on this topic. Perhaps by posting here I can discover some other like-minded souls that are more interested in the human side than the technology. Climb on for the ride.