Drawing flawed conclusions from public misconceptions about wireless

(Cross-posted from my LinkedIn Newsletter - see original + comment thread here)

In the last couple of weeks, I’ve come across several clear examples of general confusion about connectivity and wireless technologies – including among smart and otherwise tech-savvy people.

• A recent survey came up with the remarkable result that over a million people in the UK think they already have “satellite broadband”. The real number is likely under 100k. But many still associate the telecom brand Sky with its early involvement with satellite TV. (Expect Dish to face the same issue in the US).
• On a client workshop discussing future devices, a user-interface expert referred to “Wi-Fi towers”, rather than mobile/cellular towers. I've also heard someone talk about "satellite Wi-Fi" when referring to things like LEO constellations.
• A friend posted a photo of mobile antennas in London, in black enclosures to match the structure they were mounted on. One comment was that they were “definitely 5G” with no explanation why they distinguished them from 4G (or indeed, multi-radio RAN units as I suspect they were). Another confidently asserted they were definitely “boosters”, whatever that means.
• A fascinating Nokia-produced podcast, with a visionary from Disney, covered a huge amount about AR/VR, branding and new experiences. The only problem was the assertion that this would all depend on 5G – even indoors on the sofa, where we can expect essentially all headsets and most smartphones to be connected to Wi-Fi.
• Another podcast referenced Mavenir's acquisition of cPaaS provider Telestax, with the farcical suggestion that it tied in with B2B uses of 5G. Instead, it's more about platforms for enterprise messaging and calling. Getting an automated dentist-appointment reminder or automating a call-centre process doesn't depend on 5G (or any other G, or even wireless).
• I've lost count of the people who think 5G enables 1 millisecond latencies everywhere.

At one level, we can just shrug and say this is just normal. People often fail to grasp distinctions between categories of similar things that are obvious (and important) to experts involved in their production or classification. 

 

Source: https://pixabay.com/users/peterdargatz-5783/

 How many people confuse bulldozers and excavators, a flan vs. a quiche, or even a spider and insect? Yet we don’t pay much attention to the exasperated sighs and teeth-grinding of civil engineers, chefs or arachnologists. We in the industry don’t help much either – how many Wi-Fi SSID access names are called “5G” instead of “5GHz”?

Yet for connectivity, these distinctions do matter in many real ways. They can lead to poor decision-making, flawed regulation, misled investors and wasted effort. In some cases there is real, physical harm too – think about all the crazy conspiracy theories about 5G (especially "60GHz mmWave 5G" - which doesn't even exist yet), or previously Wi-Fi.

Think too about the huge hyping by politicians about 5G – despite many of the use-cases either working perfectly well on older 4G, or in reality more likely to use fibre or Wi-Fi connections. That can feed through to poor policy on spectrum, competition – and as seen in many places recently, vendor diversification rules which ignore the vibrant ecosystem of indoor and private cellular suppliers.

Think too about the ludicrous assertions that LEO satellite constellations like SpaceX’s Starlink could replace normal home broadband or terrestrial mobile, despite the real practicalities meaning endpoint numbers will be 100x fewer, even with optimistic projections.

This all puts a new angle on a common refrain in telecoms “users don’t care what network they’re connected to”. In reality, this could be more accurately rephrased as “users don’t understand what network they're connected to…. although they really should”.

This also applies to the myth of "seamless" interconnection between different technologies, such as Wi-Fi and 5G networks. The border (ie seam) is hugely important. It can change the speed, cost, ownership, security, privacy, predictability of the connection. Not just users, but also application & device developers need to understand this - and if possible, control it. Frictionless can be OK. Seamless is useless, or worse.

What should be our practical steps to deal with this? Realistically, we're not going to get the population to take "Wireless 101" courses, even if we could agree amongst ourselves what to tell them. We're certainly not going to give people a grasp of radio propagation through walls, nor ITU IMT-Advanced definitions and how that relates to "5G".

But on a more mundane level, there are some concrete recommendations we can follow:

• Use generic terms such as "advanced connectivity" without specifying 5G, Wi-Fi or whatever, wherever possible. At least that's relatively accurate.
• Ignore any surveys of the general public about wireless technology. Assume that 90% of people won't understand the questions, and the other 10% will lie. Actually, ignore most surveys of the industry as well - most have appallingly biased samples, usually over-represented by people trying to sell things.
• Don't repost, retweet or otherwise circulate hyped-up articles or comments. If someone claims that $X Trillion will be generated by 5G, ask if they've looked into what the baseline would be for 4G, and what the assumptions and sensitivities are.
• I'll be bad at this myself, but we should try to gently point out to people they're wrong, rather than either shrug-and-ignore, or ridicule-and-point. If a politician or marketer or broadcaster talks about 5G or Wi-Fi or satellite with clear factual errors, point it out online, or in person.
• Ask open-ended questions such as "why do you think satellite broadband can really do that?" or "have you considered how that would work indoors?" and see if people have actually given it any real thought.
• Don't let your boss or your clients get away with these misconceptions, even if you think correcting them could cause a negative reaction. Don't be a yes-person. (If you need to, let me know & I can debunk their claims for you. I'll probably enjoy it too much though....)
• Do NOT hire clueless "content marketing" people to write gibberish about "Why Tech X will Change the World"
• Watch out for logical fallacies like "appeal to authority". There's no shortage of very senior and well-known people spouting the type of nonsense I describe here.
• Run internal training sessions on "myth vs. reality" about wireless and telecoms. Make them fun.

I don't know whether this campaign to improve genuine understanding (and a bit of skepticism of hyperbole) will pay off. But I think it's important to try. Feel free to add other examples or suggestions in the comments! Also, please subscribe to this LinkedIn newsletter & follow @disruptivedean on Twitter.

(And yes, that's an excavator in the image above).

#5G #WiFi #mobile #wireless #satellite #broadband

The Myth of "Always Best Connected"

 (This was originally posted as a LinkedIn Newsletter article. See this link, read the comment thread, and please subscribe)

It Was the Best of Times, it Was the Worst of Times

One of the most ludicrous phrases in telecoms is "Always Best Connected", or ABC. It is typically used by an operator, network vendor or standards organisation attempting to glue together cellular and Wi-Fi connections. It's a term that pretends that some sort of core network function can automatically and optimally switch a user between wireless models, without them caring - or even knowing - that it's happening.

Often, it's used together with the equally-stupid term "seamless handover", and perhaps claims that applications are "network agnostic" or that it doesn't matter what technology or network is used, as long as the user can "get connected". Often, articles or papers will go on to describe all Wi-Fi usage on devices as "offload" from cellular (it isn't - perhaps 5% of Wi-Fi traffic from phones is genuine offload).

There's been a long succession of proposed technologies and architectures, mostly from the 3GPP and cellular industry, keen to embrace but downplay Wi-Fi as some sort of secondary access mechanism. Acronyms abound - UMA, GAN, IWLAN, ANDSF, ATSSS, HetNets and so on. There have been attempts to allow a core network to switch a device's Wi-Fi radio on/off, and even hide the Wi-Fi logo so the user doesn't realise that's being used. It's all been a transparent and cynical attempt to sideline Wi-Fi - and users' independent choice of connection options - in the name of so-called "convergence". Pretty much all of these have been useless (or worse) except in very narrow circumstances.

To be fair, accurate and genuine descriptions - let's say "Rarely Worst-Connected" or "Usually Good-Enough Connected" or "You'll Take What Connection We Give You & Shut Up" - probably don't have the same marketing appeal.

Who's Better, Who's Best?

The problem is that there is no singular definition of "best". There are numerous possible criteria, many of which are heavily context-dependent.

Which "best" is being determined?

• Highest connection speed (average, or instantaneous?)
• Lowest latency & jitter
• Lowest power consumption (including network, device and cloud)
• Highest security
• Highest visibility and control
• Lowest cost (however defined)
• Greatest privacy
• Best coverage / lowest risk of drops while moving around
• Highest redundancy (which might mean 2+ independent connections)
• Connection to the public Internet vs. an edge server

In most cases involving smartphones, the basic definition of "best" is "enough speed and reliability so I can use my Internet / cloud application with OK performance, without costing me any extra money or inconvenience". Yet people and applications are becoming more discerning, and the network is unaware of important contextual information.

For instance, someone with flatrate data may view "best" very differently to someone with a limited data quota. Someone in a vehicle at traffic lights may have a different connection preference to someone sitting on the sofa at home. Someone playing a fast-paced game has a different best to someone downloading a software update. A user on a network with non-neutral policies, or one which collects and sells data on usage patterns, may want to use alternatives where possible.

In an era of private cellular, IoT, multiple concurrent applications, encryption, cloud/edge computing and rising security and privacy concerns, all this gets even more complex.

In addition to a lack of a single objective "best", there are many stakeholders, each of which may have their own view of what is "best", according to their particular priorities.

• The user
• The application developer
• The network operator(s)
• The user's employer or parents
• The building / venue owner
• The device or OS vendor
• A third-party connection management provider (eg SD-WAN vendor)
• The government

On some occasions, all these different "bests" will align. But on others, there will be stark divergence, especially where the stakeholders have access to different options for connectivity. A mobile phone network won't know that the user has access to an airport lounge's premium Wi-Fi, because of their frequent flyer status. A video-streaming app can't work out whether 5G or Wi-Fi will route to a closer, lower-power edge server.

So who or what oversees these conflicts and makes a final decision on which connection (or, increasingly, connections plural) is chosen? Who's the ultimate arbiter - and what do the other stakeholders do about it?

This problem isn't unique to network connectivity - it's true for transport as well. I live in London, and if I want to get from my home to somewhere else, I have lots of "best" options. Tube, bus, drive, taxi, walk, cycle and so on. Do I want to get there via the fastest route? Cheapest? Least polluting? Easiest for social-distancing? Have a chance to listen to a podcast on the way? If I want to put the best smile on the most people's faces, maybe I should go by camel or unicycle? And what's best for the city's air, Transport for London's finances, other travellers' convenience, or whoever I'm meeting (probably not the unicycle)?

 

There are multiple apps that give me all the options, and define preferences and constraints. The same is true for device operating systems, or connection-management software tools.

Hit Me With Your Best Shot

There are also all sorts of weird possible effects where "application-aware networks" end up in battle with "network-aware applications". Many applications are designed to work differently on different networks - perhaps "only auto-download video on Wi-Fi" or "ask the user before software updates download over metered connections". Some might try to work out the user's preferences intelligently, and compress / cache / adjust the flow when they appear to be on cellular, or uprate video when the user is home - or perhaps casting content to a larger screen. The network has little grasp of true context or user/developer desire and preferences.

Networks might attempt to treat a given application, user or traffic flow differently - perhaps giving it priority, or slowing or blocking it, or assigning it to a particular "slice". The application on the other hand might try to second-guess or game the network - either by spoofing another application's signature, or just using heuristics to reverse-engineer any "policy" or "optimisation" that might get applied.

You're My Best Friend

So what's the answer? How can the connectivity for a device or application be optimised?

There's no simple answer here, given the number of parameters discussed. But some general outlines can be created.

• Firstly, there needs to be multiple connections available, and ways to choose, switch, arbitrage between them - or bond them together.
• The operating system and radios / wired connections of the device should allow the user (or apps) to know what's available, with which characteristics - and any heuristics that can be deduced from current and previous behaviour.
• The user or device-owner needs to know "who or what is in charge of connections" and be able to delegate and switch that decision function when desired. It might be outsourced to their MNO, or their device supplier, or a third party. Or it could be that each application gets to choose its own connection.
• As a default, the user should always be aware of any automated changes - and be given the option to disable them. These should not be "seamless" but "frictionless" or low-friction. (Seams are important. They're there for a reason. Anyone disagreeing with this statement must post a picture of themselves wearing a seamless Lycra all-in-one along with their comment).
• Connectivity providers (whether SPs or privately-owned) should provide rich status information about their services - expected/guaranteed speed & latency, ownership, pricing, congestion, the nature of any data-collection or traffic inspection practices, and so on. This will be useful as input to the decision engines. Over time, it will be good to standardise this information. (Governments and policymakers - take note as well)
• We can expect connectivity decisions to be partly driven by external context - location, movement, awareness of indoor/outdoor situation, environment (eg home, work, travelling, roaming), use of accessories like headphones or displays, and so on.

Going forward, we can expect wireless devices to have some form of SD-WAN type control function. Using technologies such as multipath TCP, it will become easier to use multiple simultaneous connections - perhaps dedicated some to specific applications, or bonding them together. For security and privacy, the software may send packets via diverse routes, stopping any individual network monitoring function from seeing the entire flow.

Growing numbers of devices will have eSIM capability, allowing new network identities / owners to be added. Some may have 2+ cellular radios, as well as Wi-Fi (again, perhaps 2+ independent connections), USB and maybe in future satellite or other options as well.

Add in the potential for Free 5G (link), beamforming, private 5G, local-licensed spectrum WiFi, relaying & assorted other upcoming innovations to add even more layers here.

The bottom line is that "best connected" will become even more mythical in future than it already is. But there will be more options - and more tools - to try to optimise it, based on a dynamic and complex set of variables - especially when going beyond connectivity towards overall "quality of experience" metrics spanning eyeball-to-cloud. There's likely be plenty of opportunities for AI, user-experience designers, standards bodies and numerous others.

But (with apologies to the Tina Turner), users should always be wary of any software or service provider that claims to be "Simply the Best".

If you've enjoyed this article, please sign up for my LinkedIn Newsletter (link). Please also reach out to me for advisory workshops, consulting projects, speaking slots etc.

#5G #WiFi #cellular #mobile #telecoms #satellite #wireless #smartphones #connectionmanagement

New Year Rant: 10 Awful Tech-Industry Terms to Stop Using in 2016

In the spirit of the holiday season and New Year, this is another list about 2016. 

But it's from me, so it's a rant, rather than clairvoyancy with a crystal-ball.

There's a bunch of words and concepts used in the technology industry that make you look like a fool, or at least lazy and sloppy. They're often meaningless, duplicitously-used to "misframe" an argument, or just generally cringe-worthy. Some of them I've tackled before, and yes, mea culpa, I've been guilty of some of them before too. But I've learned from the errors of the past, and apologise unreservedly for any historical fluffiness and telcowash.

So let's double-check our terminology in 2016, call out offenders, and make a collective New Year resolution to ditch the telco-industry b*llocks....




1. Digital 

Meaningless drivel. The last time the word "digital" was informative or cool was in the 1970s, or maybe, if you absolutely must, relevant for newer telecoms switches in the 1980s. But apart from retro nods to Casio, it's now just a useful short-cut to determining if someone is ignorant, tech-illiterate, or desperate for a marketing hook - think "digital agency" as cringespeak for advertising, or "digital single market" for the EU's half-witted bureaucrats and their fawning legions of lobbyists. 

And don't get me started on the clueless telco and vendor folk talking about "digital" services. Because hey, we don't want to go back to those awful days of the analogue Internet in the 1990s, do we? I suppose I should be happy that at least some of the politicos have switched over from the similarly-execrable "ICT", but frankly "digital" is even worse. So sneer at the digitalistas with both pride and prejudice – and perhaps a raised middle-digit.


2. OTT 

This one I've tackled before, but it bears repetition. "OTT" just means "bits of the Internet we don't like". It's arbitrary, divisive and hypocritical (all telcos have websites & Internet apps). It’s also a form of telecom industry self-harm, as the "O" for "over" conjures images of a vertical hierarchy, with content/apps/comms being at the top (and therefore implicitly better) than everything "beneath". Along with “dumb pipe” the false-dichotomy of ISP vs. OTT is at the base of many of the industry’s current woes, as it re-frames a simple reality in a deliberately antagonistic way. Telecoms industry regulators and lobbyists who use “OTT” are especially unfit-for-purpose, and should be fired for incompetence.

There is an exemption for anyone saying “OTT” if they also refer to networks as “UTF” (Under the Floor) providers, as that’s where the plumbing goes.


3. Transformation 

I have a little bit more tolerance of this word, as it is slightly better than some of the industry’s other gibberish. Elements of the industry are undergoing profound change, yes… but that’s mostly being forced by events, with grudging acceptance, rather than true enthusiasm. Even where networks are genuinely being “transformed”, it is rare that the culture, process and business model is following suit. More generally, it’s important to note that telcos, and their networks and services, have been in a state of constant flux for the last century, often with discontinuities in technology.

Either way, the only meaningful use of the word "transform" I've heard this year was by my Haitian guide when I visited in July - to describe a voodoo curse which he reckoned was turning him into a cow. To listen to some of the snake-oil merchants in the telecoms industry, you'd think we were watching something similarly magical occurring, rather than just mythology.


4. Seamless 

Another one I’ve taken aim at before – seams are important. Seams are borders, where important things happen. Pretending that they don’t exist denies their significance – and can lead to mistakes or complacency, in terms of user perception, technical capabilities, pricing, security and more. A prime example is the combination of WiFi and cellular connectivity for smartphones, where two very different domains exist, and blending them needs to be done with care and humility. Creating frictionless shifts between one and the other is important – much like real-world borders. But the premise of “seamlessness” removes visibility and agency from end-users and other market participants – and often presupposes (wrongly) that network operators are the only/most-important actors involved. Seamless transitions allow inertia and lock-in to be perpetuated, rather than allowing users or app-developers scope to make “wrong” decisions.

5. Carrier-grade 

This is another term which exemplifies the telecom industry’s arrogance and self-absorption. It imbues certain bits of infrastructure – or engineering practices – with a magical aura of uniqueness and competence. And while many examples are indeed praise-worthy, they are far from the only purveyors of excellent network engineering. Corporate-grade networks are often just as secure, resilient and cost-effective – but also often more flexible. Military-grade networks are often more secure. Consumer-grade networks or various ad-hoc networks are often more democratic and market-responsive. Internet-grade networks such as Google/Facebook data-centres or Akamai’s CDNs are often cleverer. 

Telecoms carriers are not “special flowers” nor sit in “ivory towers”. Continually using terms like “carrier-grade” perpetuates the arbitrary distinctions between telecom and Internet worlds, and fosters harmful distinctions that inhibit service-providers from making pragmatic, market-aware decisions.


6. Engagement 

This is not limited to the telecoms industry, but is a general example of horrific marketing-industry and social-networking semantics and practice that needs to be stamped out. “Engagement” usually involves forcing people to “interact” when they’d often rather not, or measuring social-network actions in a cringe-worthy fashion. My recent example of WiFi “monetisation” charlatans bragging of “engaging” users for 45 seconds highlights the misanthropy present in this way of thinking. The whole area of “click-bait” posts, or those stupid list-based websites that force you to find the “next page” button, or click an invisible “x” on an intrusive floating advert are others.

This is not to say that it’s a bad thing to allow people to interact with you. Yes, they should be able to comment or share if they choose. But that’s the point: they are choosing to interact. They have agency, and take action. They should not be encouraged or forced to “engage”. It’s the coercivity that is wrong.


7. Content (& especially content-marketing)

“Content” is just one-directional application data, which flows from a “publisher” to a “consumer”. Despite some commentators’ and legislators’ ignorant comments, it does not constitute the whole Internet. While the likes of Netflix and the BBC are clearly important, so too are Amazon, Twitter, Skype, SAP, email, backups to iCloud, downloaded virus definitions and innumerable enterprise applications and services. The latter are communications, transactions, applications and raw data – not “content”. Yet too many laws and structures are designed with an historical “media” mindset, rather than an IT or Internet-native one. For example, the majority of the Net Neutrality discussion was centred on “content” and “content provdiers” – although to be fair, some regulators have talked about “edge providers”, which is a slightly more generic term.

Hopefully the rise of ever more non-content mobile apps, plus also IoT devices and traffic, will make more people (especially regulators and politicians) aware that networks are used for much more than lumps of video entertainment, media websites and music. 

To be honest, “content” is mostly another sleazy, marketing-inspired word anyway – often used with a hidden meaning of “that stuff we can embed advertising in”. That also gives rise to the most repugnant use of the term – in “content marketing”, which is basically just “long-form spam”, often masquerading as journalism or analysis. The technology industry is widely infested with dodgy “content marketing” – particularly corporate blogs masquerading as independent sources of news or analysis. You know the type: one-sided puff-pieces which laud a particular type of technology or product or brand. “Why WiFi-calling is transformational & will change telecoms for ever and allow operators to fight back against the OTTs with new digital services and improved customer engagement” (posted on WiFiCallingForEver.com, with a tiny note at the bottom that it’s sponsored by VendorX.com). The worst content-marketing of all is that derived from fake, quasi-corrupt, pay-for-play industry “awards”, where marketing companies offer “sponsors” a full package of PR and churnalism “content” in exchange for a “submission fee”.


8. Rich 

Obviously exemplified by the ludicrous RCS of zombie fame, the word “rich” also crops up in various other telecom and Internet contexts as well. It usually means “we didn’t have any proper designers involved, so we just threw in as many random features as we could, hoping that people would muddle through and ignore the incoherent clutter”. I don’t think I’ve ever seen Apple use the word – or even Facebook. I’m scared to look, but it wouldn’t surprise me if Yahoo or LinkedIn have used it, though. Rich services or apps don’t even have the redeeming benefits of rich food – they’re unpalatable as well, as bad for you.

Applications should be right not rich.


9. End-to-end

Whenever you see anyone in the telecom talking about “end-to-end” capabilities – especially QoS – you should laugh and dismiss them and their products/services immediately. In almost every case, the so-called “ends” just refer to arbitrary points over which they have some modicum of visibility and control. They are never the actual ends where a service is generated or consumed, just points on an architecture diagram where somebody else takes over responsibility. So for a streamed video, there are origination servers (perhaps even the production, editing and encoding process) and the end-device, with screen and associated processors and memory. Quality of experience ends at the retina, the eardrum – and maybe even the cortex of the brain. A great example of the end-to-end fallacy is around VoIP, where much of the quality and performance is gated by the device’s silicon and its microphone and speakers, as well as the various processing algorithms used. The network is important – and bits of it may indeed be well-managed. But they’re not “ends”. 

I’m writing this in an airport, where BA takes responsibility for getting me from gate to gate. It conspicuously doesn’t refer to my journey “end-to-end”. The handful of airlines which offer limo-service  to and from your home and hotel would have a better claim – but even they can’t control the traffic on the roads outside Heathrow, just the seat you sit in. 


10. Ecosystem

This is the term beloved of people who used to say “value chain”, especially as it allows a temporary warm & fuzzy feeling from its environmental and natural background. But for that very reason, it’s a lousy analogy. Ecosystems aren’t “built”, they evolve. It means a group of interacting organisms AND their (physical) environment and resources. It implies co-dependency – if one part of an ecosystem gets removed, damaged or destroyed, it has an impact on everything else. It’s not just a convenient term for a software or web company’s developer and partner programme.

While real ecosystems might have some symbiosis, they also typically have an apex predator, plus lots of unfortunate other creatures and plants that get eaten, or just manage to scratch a living, before rotting after their death with the help of microbes and parasites. Hmm, maybe it is a decent analogy after all. I’ll leave it to the reader to identify the parasites in the mobile “ecosystem”.

Summary

So let’s have a collective New Year’s resolution to avoid telecoms-sector “trigger words” and acknowledge what we actually mean in 2016. Let’s get rid of:

• Digital
• OTT
• Transformation
• Seamless
• Carrier-Grade
• Engagement
• Content
• Rich
• End-to-End
• Ecosystem

And, I’m sad to admit, there’s also probably a number 11 that’s past it’s sell-by: “Disruptive”. But yeah, let’s forget about that one, given that I was disruptive before it went mainstream. I reckon I can claim some form of retro-irony exemption…

Rant over. 

Happy New Year!