
Gadget Patrol: 21st century phone - alexandros
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2009/12/21st_century_phone.html
======
markbao
Stross directly explained what my startup (Avecora <http://avecora.com>) is
trying to work towards.

The current mobile telcos provide two major things: the a) network
infrastructure and b) the network experience. The infrastructure is the
physical satellite/cell tower/everything supporting the mobile experience. The
mobile experience encompasses the use of the network: phone numbers, SMS,
digital downloads, WAP, etc.

However, the aspiration for Google (and my startup Avecora) is that the mobile
telcos transform themselves into a strictly infrastructure play, essentially
becoming the backbone NOT OF wireless telephony/texting/etc., BUT RATHER OF
wireless intercommunication. Indeed, we want them to become completely hands-
off in terms of the wireless experience, because they're good at
infrastructure and making communication successful, but they're less good at
innovating in the experience.

One of the reasons we don't want them controlling the wireless experience is
that they have to support so much legacy _stuff_. My startup's big selling
point is in the Avecora Network: there are no real "phone numbers," but rather
it operates on a more convenient structure: the mobile network is a social
network. You call a person, not a phone number.

We both do want the internet to eat the phone system, and I think it'll offer
a much more enriching and integrated mobile experience than it is today,
especially when so much already works over TCP/IP (VoIP, for example.)
However, with phone companies already making an absolute killing in costs (my
bill this month is $90) I don't see this happening anytime too soon,
especially the idea of VoIP replacing voice. The carriers will take a huge
loss and there's no way in hell they'll sign off on that. (I'm skeptical of
T-Mobile's $30/mo data-only plan—I can just grab that and hook up my
$0.021/min Skype account to it.)

The best idea, and how we're approaching it, is to price it as one Connection
Package and have it be on par if not a bit less than current prices. That's
the only way it will really work for both the consumer and the telcos.

Google will get there first, perhaps with the killer product, perhaps not.
Indeed, we are competing with Google, and we don't have a prototype right
now—but in this space, it seems like, at first, it's more about the strategy
than what we've got. (Wish me luck.)

~~~
unalone
That flies in the face of conventional thinking, which says ideas are cheap
and delivery is everything. Unless conceptually you've figured out such an
enormous breakthrough that the solution is literally in your hands right now,
you have no competitive edge over anybody, and you're working with a concept
simplistic enough a thirteen-year-old could understand it. That's not a good
thing, if the concept's all you've got. It means the thirteen-year-olds at
Google and Skype have figured it out too.

But you're adept at saying very simple and ugly things with enough words that
it sounds almost swallowable. I had to reread what you posted twice to make
out what you were saying. Basically, you're admitting that Skype has an
alternative that's cheaper and more effective, and that it works perfectly
save phone companies don't like it. Your solution is to price gouge the same
way phone companies are right now so that people will be tricked into thinking
there's a profit. But phrased like that, it sounds more like a concept without
an idea, artificially priced at a level beyond its actual value.

I wish you luck not for Avecora but for whatever idea you have after this. The
best way to learn quickly is to pursue a wild, failing ambition. Two years
from now, if you've learned, you'll have a savvy that's the envy of your
peers. Just make sure that for the time being, you're enjoying your work. Then
failure really doesn't matter.

~~~
markbao
Thanks for your honesty, brother.

------
wmf
Why does anyone believe that a carrier will sell cheap no-contract unlimited
data-only service (probably at a loss) in exchange for a non-exclusive on a
phone that isn't even the best in the world? I guess it's appropriate that
Stross is tackling this topic since it sounds like total fiction. :-)

~~~
troystribling
The article suggested that the current structure of the telco industry would
have to change "the economic basis of your mobile telephony service in 2019 is
going to be unrecognizably different from that of 2009".

I think there is something to this argument. I worked for a telco OEM in 2005.
Then it was possible to buy the hardware to build an "NFL" city backbone in
the US for about $50 million. Adding fiber, end user access, operations and
installation would clearly add much to this but it is likely that within the
next decade that a wireless network with a significant nationwide footprint
could be built by a company capitalized with a few billion dollars while not
carrying the legacy operations costs of the incumbents. This company would
likely have no problem in driving network costs to the ground. This almost
happened during the first internet bubble and could this time around follow
from the current cloud computing trend. Adding compute services on top of
network services could help to regain some of the margins lost by
commoditization of the network.

~~~
wmf
What you're talking about sounds totally awesome, except these rumors say that
one of the _existing_ carriers is going to blow up their whole business model
about _two weeks from now_. And that just doesn't make any sense.

------
jeremyw
Promoting this internal link, an interesting analysis of AT&T's possible
packet buffering/congestion issues.

[http://blogs.broughturner.com/2009/10/is-att-wireless-
data-c...](http://blogs.broughturner.com/2009/10/is-att-wireless-data-
congestion-selfinflicted.html)

